Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:00 am
U.S. Rep. Steve Pence, R-Ind., introduced legislation in June that effectively killed the most recent attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine.
Pence's legislation prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from using its funding to resurrect the regulation. The initiative passed the U.S. House, 309-115.
But don't think the vote ends thinly veiled attempts to muzzle conservative talk radio.
" … We must keep in mind that it is only a one-year moratorium on funding," Pence said.
He later introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which is designed to bury the Fairness Doctrine more completely. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced the measure in the U.S. Senate.
" … It is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered," McCain said.
But Democrats continue to cite a report prepared by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."
"The key principle here is not shutting down one perspective or another - it is making sure that communities are informed about a range of local and national public affairs," the report says.
The Center for American Progress is headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton. The site describes the organization as "a progressive think-tank."
Since progressive is the new word for liberal, and since George Soros reportedly contributed millions to the center, a reasonable person might cast a wary eye on the study.
The U.S. Supreme Court backed the Fairness Doctrine in 1969. Justices reversed field within five years, though, and the FCC dissolved most of the provisions in August 1987.
Reasons that advocates suggest the Fairness Doctrine is needed now have changed little since the regulation went into effect.
Scarcity of frequencies.
This was the primary justification for the doctrine in its early years - and it is now the most obviously false. The number of outlets continues to expand, through the airwaves and with cable and satellite. Beyond that, the Internet expands opportunities for the transmission of ideas to levels impossible to image after World War II. Blogs also give individuals unprecedented access to direct communication with planet Earth.
Impartial judgment by the FCC.
Determining what is "fair" is a difficult proposition and suggesting government officials make the call is ludicrous. Observers note administrations under presidents Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy all understood how to employ the Fairness Doctrine to their advantage. In turn, Republicans and Democrats used the rule to not only "balance" opposing views but to stifle inconvenient opinions altogether.
More viewpoints will air.
Real-world evidence suggests otherwise.
"In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues," according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications.
The result was not more sides to a story, but simply fewer - and softer - stories.
Broadcasters have a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.
Do they? That is a value judgment, an opinion, based on the notion private companies use public airwaves. And like any opinion, the subject is open to debate.
The Center for American Progress in its report states "It is difficult to argue that the existing audience for talk radio is only interested in hearing one side of public debates given the diversity of the existing and potential audience."
On the contrary. Apparently many people are interested in hearing what conservatives have to say. Rush Limbaugh, the leading voice from the Right, attracts an estimated 15 million to 20 million listeners each week. Conservative Sean Hannity entertains almost as many more.
The assertion is flawed beyond that. Hannity, for instance, frequently hosts liberal callers, authors and politicians. Granted the intent is to challenge their viewpoints, but each guest is nevertheless allowed air time.
The report offers the Left's conclusion.
"Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system … "
The solution: government oversight and a "sliding fee" to ensure compliance. To conservatives, that sounds like limits on free speech and taxation.