Friday, November 28, 2008
McClatchy Newspapers
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — “Censorship,” talk-show host Rush Limbaugh exclaimed.
“Absurd,” claims conservative radio talker Chris Stigall.
“Unconstitutional,” says a lobbying group for broadcasters.
What are they worried about now?
Something called the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that once required radio and television stations to air differing views on controversial subjects.
It died in the late 1980s, but in the past month some Democrats and liberals — tired of wrestling with conservative radio — have stepped up talk of bringing it back.
“I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent” with the Fairness Doctrine, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, said just before Election Day.
Bingaman’s concerns are common on liberal blog sites and in newspaper columns, but it isn’t clear if all Democrats are enthusiastic about any drawn-out battle next year that isn’t about the economy.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do, and this would be a sideshow,” said Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project. “This is entirely a creation of a bunch of right-wing talk-show hosts trying to make a ruckus.”
Conservatives are still worried.
They’re telling listeners every day that Democrats are poised to bring the doctrine back and push them off the air.
“Will someone from the Federal Communications Commission monitor my show four hours each morning? Who judges what comments deserve equal time?” Stigall asked in an e-mail.
While some Democrats — notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — have supported the doctrine, President-elect Barack Obama does not, at least for now.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” a spokesman for Obama’s campaign said before Election Day.
Conservatives aren’t necessarily worried that a return of the Fairness Doctrine would mean more liberal and Democratic viewpoints on broadcast television and radio.
Instead, they say, station owners would simply drop controversial programming — airing music and entertainment programs, much as they did until the doctrine’s demise.
“In the early 1980s [when the doctrine was in place] ... talk shows were visiting with authors of new books,” said Mike Shanin, co-host of an afternoon talk show on KMBZ 980 AM radio in Kansas City. “This kind of regulation chills the discussion of controversial issues.”
In a speech earlier this year, President George W. Bush — who has been on the receiving end of a few talk-radio tongue-lashings — made a similar point.
“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: Shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson,” Bush said. “By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with.”
Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine admit the regulation can infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters.
But they say radio and TV licensees — who are granted exclusive rights to broadcast on frequencies declared public properties — have a special obligation, as public trustees, to present all sides of issues.
“The public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper,” concluded a 2007 study by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank headed by John Podesta, now leading the Obama transition.
But, the study added: “Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced [such as] the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.”
Last week conservatives argued that “local accountability” could mean harassment of licensees in each community, implicitly bringing the Fairness Doctrine back without actually re-enacting the regulation.
“Even allowing conservatives to be radio talk-show guests may provoke a FCC licensing complaint,” wrote Jim Boulet Jr., on the Web site Americanthinker.com. “For Obama, when it comes to radio talk, silence is golden, at least when it comes to conservatives.”
Most broadcast licensees can be expected to resist a return of the doctrine, particularly AM radio stations that now offer entire schedules of conservative talk shows.
“The so-called Fairness Doctrine would stifle the growth of diverse views and, in effect, make free speech less free,” wrote David Rehr of the National Association of Broadcasters last year.