|
The future of the Fairness Doctrine By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Dec. 18, 2008, in the Connersville News-Examiner. Uncertainty always follows an election that results in a change in party control in Washington, and this election cycle is no different. Will taxes be raised and how much? Will health care be nationalized? Will the U.S. abandon Afghanistan and Iraq?
Supporters say this measure is necessary to ensure the public is adequately informed about policy issues that may affect them. Another supporting view is that the airwaves public property—and like public buildings, parks and roads, the government is not only entitled to but also required to manage them. Conservatives are afraid the Fairness Doctrine would be used to suppress opposing views — particularly, the successful talk radio empire and its bulwarks, namely, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and many others. Even though people oftentimes overreact and assume the worst in the face of uncertainty and change, wild assumptions about the Fairness Doctrine is not necessary — we’ve seen it before. The Fairness Doctrine existed as a Federal Communications Commission policy for a better part of the twentieth century until Ronald Reagan consigned to the governmental trash heap in 1987 after the FCC itself realized its own rules were stifling free speech. Under the policy, talk radio didn’t exist — broadcasters simply did not want to deal with the logistical nightmare the doctrine created. Furthermore, the Fairness Doctrine did generate significant government abuse. President Kennedy used the doctrine in 1963 to, among other things, counter opposition to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, President Johnson used it to monitor opposition on right-wing radio stations and President Nixon used it to monitor opposition, period. While it is uncertain if a President Obama will back a revived Fairness Doctrine, many of its supporters would like him to do so. The talking heads on the weekday evening or Sunday morning opinion shows may obfuscate this intention, but Web sites supporting the doctrine have tipped their collective hand. The group “People for the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine,” found on popular the social networking Web site Facebook, describes itself as a group for “All people who are sick of hyperconservative talk radio a--holes having a complete free ride to spew their nonsense on the air...” This succinct description can be found next to an oh-so clever ‘Faux News’ icon. Along side the supporting arguments for the doctrine on these Web sites are admonishments of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the earnest hope both will soon be silenced. And this is what is most troubling. The current debate is focusing primarily on talk radio, the original Fairness Doctrine did cover television, and was used against it. Even though conservative voices dominate talk radio, the same cannot be said for television, where liberal opinions clearly reign. A Rasmussen poll conducted on Aug. 13, 2008, showed nearly half of Americans want the government to “require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.” Based on that, seeing a return of the Fairness Doctrine is a distinct possibility. Also in August, Rasmussen reported that Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee to the FCC, said that a revived Fairness Doctrine could extend to the Internet — a prospect the same survey respondents opposed nearly 2 to 1. And therein lays the crux of the issue — how such a doctrine may expand. Radio is already in the cross hairs, television would likely follow and the Internet may not be far behind. Even newspapers, which are presently constitutionally protected, could be pulled into the fold if this assault on speech is allowed to happen. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2008, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
One issue that has conservatives particularly concerned is the re-instatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” a proposed law that would ostensibly require radio broadcasters to allow time for opposing views of controversial issue to be presented.
