Political Hay
His Royal Fairness
Fairness Doctrine or not, content regulation may still be coming under Obama.
President Obama’s nominee to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Julius Genachowski, told a Senate panel on Tuesday that he opposed bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) pushed the issue further, clarifying that “you do not support reviving it (the Fairness Doctrine) or anything like it, directly or indirectly through ‘localism’ and that sort of thing.”
For opponents of heightened media regulation, does this mean that it is okay to breathe easier at last? Not so fast. In quintessential Obama administration fashion, the devil lies in the details, as this bunch is far too politically savvy to employ such a blunt tool, like the Fairness Doctrine, when more surreptitious means can accomplish similar results.
The Fairness Doctrine may be dead, but media content regulation is another story. Just as the Obama administration has appointed White House policy czars to skirt the constitutionally required “advise and consent” of Senate approval, the FCC has been discussing activist media regulatory initiatives without subjecting the policies to a public debate in Congress.
Obama allies will call this alarmist fear-mongering, but do not take my word for it; take Michael Copps’, the current FCC Chairman who not long ago delivered remarks at the conspicuously titled “Changing Media in Washington, D.C.” summit. The mainstream media largely focused on the fact that Copps said the Fairness Doctrine is not returning. However, the rest of his underreported remarks betray the FCC’s true intentions.
In striking language, Copps talked of “seiz[ing] the opportunity” to bring about a “new, progressive promised land”, asking rhetorically, “What about the core values of localism, diversity and competition that Free Press fights so valiantly for?” He said the American media was in trouble due to “two decades of mindless deregulation,” which he partially blamed on the Internet and bloggers. And while he added that “The Fairness Doctrine is long gone and it’s not coming back—as much as some conspiracy theorists see it lurking behind every corner,” he also quickly added that, “we finally got the FCC back on track to do something about the shameful state of minority and female ownership of media properties.” Copps has told Genachowski that diversity initiatives should be his first priority.
The FCC is also discussing plans to require stations to provide “locally-oriented programming,” which sounds a bit similar to requiring banks to serve the credit needs of their local communities. (We know how well that worked). According to internal FCC documents obtained by the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, localism rules could require “permanent advisory boards,” which must contain “underserved community segments.” These boards will then play a role in the licensing process, which is how regulators bludgeoned banks into making loans to underserved community segments.
Copps explained that “we still need to get serious about defining broadcasters’ public interest obligations and reinvigorating our license renewal process…It is time to say ‘Good-bye’ to post card renewal every eight years and ‘Hello’ to license renewals every three years with some public interest teeth.”
In February, he also stated, “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play.” In other words, the public may not actually realize what it cares about, so it is the government’s job to clarify.
Jay Sekulow, a constitutional law litigator and Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said, “Simply not calling regulations or legislation the Fairness Doctrine does not resolve the unconstitutional nature of the piecemeal result. The First Amendment is abridged through localism, content diversity and mandatory equal time provisions. In fact, subverting the legislative process through a regulatory scheme is even more dangerous. What can be worse than content control without debate?”
If one thing is clear several months into the Obama presidency, it is that the administration is not afraid to empower bureaucrats at the expense of individuals. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine has, in fact, been sent to the dustbin of history, but we cannot be so sure about stealth regulations that will have a similar effect. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we carefully ask administration officials what the meaning of “is” is.
Old Texican| 6.22.09 @ 9:20AM
We have read a great many articles and comments here about the value of the second ammendment.....but!
Without the First ammendment in full force, defending the second ammendment would be a very grim undertaking.
If the "Statists" can sweep away Rush Limbaugh, will sites like the Spectator be able to long endure?
Will de-facto censorship of the internet be far behind?
Will commenting here provoke a three AM knock on our doors somewhere along the way?
...or shall we be quietly turned away from our government controlled hospitals and doctors?
...and then...will our churches be "infiltrated" by "Statist snitches" to root out future trouble makers?
I read a novel a few years back entitled "Human Plus One". I highly recommend it. In the author's future, only a minority of "throwbacks" keep the infrastructure of the hive of nerds running, but ridiculed and persecuted all the while.
Has America come to this?
owyheewine| 6.22.09 @ 9:32AM
The 2 decades of mindlessness that are the cause of media decline are a product of the Reagan revolution. Bright, ambitious people found occupations where they could succeed, both financially and spiritually. The less capable and angry became journalists.
Anthony| 6.22.09 @ 9:58AM
Proof positive that the radical Left never pauses in its relentless quest for totalitarianism, no matter what "benign" form it takes. In forty years, the Left has managed to render elections meaningless, but with Obama falling into their lap. it's really full speed ahead.
Sean Parnell | 6.22.09 @ 10:12AM
These "localism" standards are simply a backdoor way of stifling political speech that those in power find distasteful. I've asked supporters of "localism" exactly how the "citizen representatives" are going to be selected to serve on "advisory boards." The conversations tend to get real vague about here - it's like the question just prompts a tape recording in their head to start: "The People will be represented on the advisory boards. Advisory boards will be drawn from The People. The real interests of The People will be represented by advisory board members..."
Trying to get a straight answer on this point (and others) tells you all you need to know - politicians will appoint their cronies, and they will make sure that radio stations toe the line.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
Marturion| 6.22.09 @ 10:58AM
Who decides who fills these advisory boards? Perhaps the "right" needs to take some pages out of Alinsky and use them. I'd love to see the advisory boards of the local NPR stations packed with some libertarians, 2nd Amendment supporters, etc.
Louis Jenkins| 6.22.09 @ 11:42AM
In February, he also stated, "If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play." In other words, the public may not actually realize what it cares about, so it is the government's job to clarify.
1st Amendment US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. No where in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, 2, or 3, are there provisions for the sitting president to address fair and balanced reporting, or appoint czars! I am at loss to find where the US Constitution addresses the needs of a ‘market’, what society really cares about, or a media that should reflect true diversity and (the) spirit of our country. It is a vulgar stretch of legerdemain for our government to clarify, to be read 'dictate', what the public may or may not actually realize what it cares about. The FCC (via Obama Communications Central) and local commissions (aka Acorn), after reviewing their favorite subjects, are going to shove what we are supposed to care about down our throats. In as much as the entire Federal government did not know what was in the flim flam stimulus package, how in the Devil can they even begin to know what we care about? Dumb down the public, make them even more ignorant than they now are, if possible, tell them what they need to care about, and blissful Obama-nirvana will follow.
Yellow Pages Kentucky | 6.22.09 @ 12:02PM
Excellent article , i just share it with my friend of Italy. I Stumble UP your blog post , you will notice an increase of traffic within 24 hours for targeted people. Cheers . Feel free to check out my site Kentucky address directory when you got time.
Louisiana address directory | 6.22.09 @ 12:04PM
Nice, I think it could be interesting to add some more entries following this one, and probably it's not only me having this opinion. Cheers! I would love some feedback on my site Louisiana business listing when you got time.
Everly Waverly| 6.22.09 @ 1:30PM
Could radio be considered an industry? Does a healthy radio industry provide jobs and revenue to the treasury? Now with what the leftists have done to formerly prosperous business, regulating them out of existence, unionizing them into unprofitably, just tossing jobs aside, with no other concern than politics and coerced votes. Do the liberals get a free hand to destroy yet another industry, just to enforce their failed sense of what a business should provide, just a venue to express their views and propaganda. Obama is setting the stage for a revolution and it my be more than peaceful, he's going too far....
Eric Olsen| 6.22.09 @ 4:27PM
Should local advisory boards become reality, I full heartedly believe a second shot from the North Bridge in Concord will be heard around the World. At that time we need only be able to fend off the blue helmeted UN Peacekeepers as we reinvent our beloved land.
Joe| 6.22.09 @ 9:20PM
Beside the fact that a "fairness doctrine" is unconstitutional, the minute the government attempts to push something like the "fairness Doctrine", we need contact our representatives and tell them that we want the same standards applied to Television, Cable, Public Broadcast, newspapers, magazines and internet. If we need "fairness" - what ever that means - on AM radio, we need it in ABSOLUTELY every other media as well.
Pingback| 6.23.09 @ 4:56AM
The Unfairness Doctrine | Tea Party of Northern Colorado links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Cathee| 6.23.09 @ 10:06AM
Soon we'll be rioting in the streets like the Iranian civilians. It will take our being de-voiced to finally rile the sleeping giant within America. We'll be able to thank Barry Sotero a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama for waking us up. Let's hope it won't be too late to get our voice back and reclaim our beloved America!
Joan| 6.23.09 @ 10:28AM
Old Texican
Could you elaborate on the novel "Human Plus One"? Can't locate a copy.
Author?
Radioguy| 6.23.09 @ 2:41PM
I have been in the radio industry for over 48 years, so I guess I know something about it. I can see where the "local advisory boards" would provide more than just advice. They would distate to the stations what they should air and what they should not. In the name of "diversity," of course. The stations would have to air news coverage and editorials that push the point of view of the "advisers," whether or not this fits the format or if the listeners want to hear it. Sort of like Radio Moscow, you see. And then there would have to be some sort of a govenment bail-out to support the stations because nobody will be listening to them. Hey -- America doesn't need a government bail-out! America needs to get Baal out of the government!
Cathee| 6.24.09 @ 10:57AM
Amen Radio guy!
Radioguy| 6.24.09 @ 1:09PM
Cathee, I'm glad somebody agrees with me! Most people don't know how bad off most radio stations are financially. The reason why a lot are using syndicated programming -- and some are little more than a satellite receiver, a computer, audio processor, transmitter and antenna -- is that that is all their advertising revenue will allow them to do. For them to hire a local staff to produce all that wonderful, "diverse" local programming is just not economically feasable. They would have to go off the air instead. Prepare to say "goodbye" to AM radio, and most FMs too. So just how does that promote a "diversity of voices"? It doesn't. It just shuts down all but those that the government holds worthy.
Pingback| 8.2.09 @ 3:38PM
His Royal Fairness | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
weight| 11.12.09 @ 2:47PM
hoodia
Andrew Paul| 12.30.09 @ 8:57AM
Thanks for the information.
Dissertations
Course works