Free Speech v. the FCC Update 5: “localism” rules just as chilling
While the “Fairness Doctrine” is not under current consideration (but could be very soon!), the current Bush FCC is reviewing proposed rules that are just as chilling to free speech, press, and religion under the pleasant name of “localism”.
President-elect Obama has endorsed rules calling for ‘greater coverage of local issues and greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in’”
From Reason magazine:
It sounds mild—but then again, so did the fairness doctrine, which merely asserted that stations should “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” When “individuals” decide to “participate” at license renewal time, that’s when would-be censors crawl out of the woodwork.
In a June letter to Kevin Martin, House Minority Leader John Boehner charged the FCC with a “stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine,” arguing that “the recreation of pre-1980s advisory boards will place broadcast media squarely on a path toward rationed speech.” A group called Save Christian Radio worries that since the community advisory boards must be “broadly representative of an area’s population,” the new rules could mean that “Christian broadcast stations could be forced to take programming advice from people whose values are at odds with the Gospel.”
Maybe yes, maybe no: The FCC is still receiving citizen comments on its initial proposals—most of them running against the idea—so it’s hard to say how onerous the final rules will be, if indeed they’re passed at all. But if you’re worried about an Obama administration, this is where there’s the most potential for mischief. The candidate has broadly endorsed rules requiring more local programming. He also supports a proposal the Martin commission has rejected: shortening the time between broadcast license renewals from eight years to two.
An editorial from the DC examiner:
As free speech advocates gear up to oppose revival of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” another Orwellian-named government effort to dictate the content of radio and TV news and opinion has been hatched by the Bush administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC). So far, there’s been much less focus on the “localism rule” – even though it would have a similar chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Under the FCC’s proposed regulations, owners of radio and TV stations would become subject to permanent advisory boards whose members – aka “community organizers” - would be chosen according to politically correct multi-cultural nostrums requiring representation of all “stakeholders.”
These boards would be empowered by the FCC to decide if stations were airing a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming”- with neither “sufficient” nor “responsive” defined. A negative advisory board finding could mean loss of a station owner’s broadcasting license.
The proposed regulations would also require broadcasters to maintain a 24/7 physical presence at broadcasting facilities, limit their use of celebrity “voice tracking” and network programming, require them to fund journalism schools, and give their music playlists to the FCC. Whatever else might be the FCC’s intention with this proposal, it is clear its application would vastly increase the cost of operating a station, while reducing the economic and editorial freedom of the owner.
To what end? Experts warn that such rules will kill talk radio – one of the few mass media that favors conservatives. But more is at stake here than protecting the right of 12 million Americans to continue tuning in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
If this proposed regulation is adopted, political activists with ideological agendas on advisory boards will be able to dictate content by producing allies to complain that their interests are not being considered. Christian radio stations will be forced to air programs advocating abortion and gay marriage, which they oppose as a matter of religious conviction. Conservative talk radio stations will be forced to subsidize liberal programming that can’t attract commercial support.
Failing to do so would mean loss of the broadcast license. This proposal is clearly antithetical to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and religion. It will undermine an uncensored, independent press in a free society as a tool for holding politicians and bureaucrats accountable, and make government the arbiter of acceptable religious doctrine.