Free Speech Roundup
I’ve been off the grid a few days enjoying a family Thanksgiving. Some articles from the past few days on the FCC, localism rules, and the “Fairness Doctrine”:
From the Heritage Foundation:
The FCC still has the same power it did in 1949 to create a new Fairness Doctrine. And that is exactly what the left is already moving to do.
Last year the Center for American Progress released its blueprint for the re-censorship of America’s airwaves. The report notes that the exact same language that authorized the original Fairness Doctrine has never been repealed: “Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. … The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings … and empowered local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.” These are exactly policy prescriptions the Center for American Progress wants the FCC to adopt today: shortening radio broadcast licenses from eight to three years; requiring broadcasters to prove to bureaucrats they are operating “on behalf of the public interest”; and forcing broadcasters who fail to satisfy the bureaucrats to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The left will not call this new policy the Fairness Doctrine. They know they lost that fight. Instead, liberals are using new buzzwords like “localism“to mask their attacks on free speech. But make no mistake, the “public interest” requirements of Fairness Doctrine 2.0 can be defined almost any way a regulator wants — up to and perhaps even beyond that required by the old Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives must keep a close eye on what the FCC does next.
From a Washington Times editorial:
On Oct. 22, the Pew Foundation’s Project for Excellence in Journalism illustrated that between the conventions and the debates, John McCain received double the negative reporting but only one-third of the positive when compared to Mr. Obama. On Nov. 9, Deborah Howell, ombudsman for The Washington Post, reported that when examining stories on the two vice presidential nominees, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, “Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission,” Ms. Powell said.
…
Rep. Michael Burgess, Texas Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told me that he would be “genuinely shocked if the Democrats lurched into such a battle because of all the other more pressing challenges facing the country.”That’s just great. Our First Amendment rights might now only be protected because those who would otherwise marginalize them are currently too busy. [emphasis added]
Which is a response (intentional or not) to this roundup on the Weekly Standard:
Obama may be too smart to let Democrats re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, but it’s hardly a “completely made up issue” concocted by paranoid Republicans. While conservatives should be wary of Democratic attempts to pass burdensome regulations on talk radio, Ruffini is right that, with all the awful legislation the Democratic Congress plans on passing, radio regulations should be among the least of our concerns.
Shockingly, the Washington Post actually picks up this story from Reuters that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic senators Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer, Obama’s pick to head the FCC transition team Henry Rivera, and Obama’s transition chief John Podesta are all in favor of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Which is not really news in itself (if you’ve been following it all along) but the fact it’s actually on Reuters and the Washington Post is news.
And finally, a history of the “Fairness Doctrine” from The Museum of Broadcast Communication (not new, but I just came across it):
The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. 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. This “chilling effect” was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine.
We must be vigilant. Freedom isn’t free.