The White House announced last week that the President “does not
believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.” The Fairness
Doctrine, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) —
acting under Ronald Reagan — repealed in 1987, would dictate
that broadcasters cover issues of public importance and devote
equal time to both sides of controversial issues.
On its face, the administration’s recent comments seem to deflate
hopes of the expanding roster of groups and politicians calling
for revival of the Doctrine. The American Spectator
reported
recently that Henry Waxman (D-CA) already met with the FCC staff
to discuss ways to bring back the Doctrine. Waxman is also
apparently interested in applying the same standards to the
Internet, which would effectively sanitize content and force the
government to monitor and regulate the web like the Chinese
government does. Other proponents of the Fairness Doctrine
include MoveOn.org, ACORN, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA,
former President Bill Clinton, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI),
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who
said, “For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness
Doctrine in this country and I think the country was well-served.
I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more
intelligent in those days than it has become since.”
Leave it to politicians to decide what constitutes intelligent
discussion and America should be intellectually and fiscally
bankrupt in no time. However, despite attempts by the left wing
to censor conservative opinion through the Fairness Doctrine —
which would prove particularly devastating to conservative talk
radio, a medium in which liberal programs have not fared well —
people may be under the impression that at least our President is
sensible enough to scuttle the idea. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
and their millions of presumably idiotic listeners can breathe
easier, right? Well, not so fast. When one reads between the
lines a bit, it suddenly becomes unclear whether President Obama
really opposes these censorship policies as much as he would like
people to believe. On Whitehouse.gov, here is what
the administration says about the President’s technology agenda:
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open
Internet and Diverse Media Outlets
• Protect the Openness of the Internet: Support
the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of
open competition on the Internet.
• Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership:
Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote
the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse
viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of
broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.
Those statements may sound somewhat benign, certainly more so
than “Fairness Doctrine,” which at this point, most people
realize entirely contradicts our First Amendment principles.
However, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has observed, people
should be wary of the Fairness Doctrine under a different name,
because “If your brand is controversial, create a new brand.”
These news brands include buzzwords like “diversity of
ownership,” “diversity of viewpoint,” “openness,” or “public
obligations,” all of which translate into increased government
regulation, mandates, and control over content.
Promoting diversity of ownership is one way in which the
government could control content by allocating licenses on the
basis of politics. And who will decide what constitutes
“diversity of viewpoint” or “public interest obligations”?
Federal regulators, of course.
Jordan Sekulow, who is the Deputy Director of Government Affairs
at the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit group
that promotes religious freedom and freedom of speech, said:
“While we [ACLJ] view the recent remarks by President Obama’s
spokesperson with cautious optimism, rejection of the Fairness
Doctrine is rejection of a polarizing term and not of the
underlying principles behind it. For President Obama to silence
the drumbeat of opposition against the Fairness Doctrine, he must
personally denounce not only the words ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ but
also the policies mirroring it. He could end the outcry simply by
publicly instructing the new FCC Chairman not to take any steps
towards the reimplementation of any form of the Fairness
Doctrine, regardless of name, and telling Congress that if
legislation with similar intentions crosses his desk in the
future, he will veto it.”
This week, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) plans to offer the
Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights
bill. The amendment would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the
Fairness Doctrine. It is a wise move to put Democratic lawmakers,
and potentially the President, on record about how they truly
feel about government censorship. However, even if the amendment
passes, policies under different names that would censor the
media and the Internet justify careful scrutiny. The President,
of course, wants us to belief there is nothing to worry about. We
should not be so sure.
