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.
