During the course of the just concluded presidential race we listened to members of Congress threaten to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine regarding the FCC rules of the airwaves. This pending action is due to hard hitting conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, whose EIB network show is “the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide,” and Sean Hannity whose nationally-syndicated radio program, The Sean Hannity Show, airs throughout the United States on ABC Radio Networks.”
If the Supreme’s, and I am not referring to Diana Ross and friends, permit Congress to impose restrictions on free speech as guaranteed by our First Amendment rights we may be forced to offer “electronic sidewalks” where an opposing viewpoint must be provided. As of now this obligation does not extend to satellite radio, the Internet or cable TV. There is no doubt the democratic controlled Congress has FOX News in their crosshairs as they may attempt to regulate political free speech.
One famous case regarding the “fairness doctrine” was
RED LION BROADCASTING CO., INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 395 U.S. 367 June 9, 1969, Decided MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
“The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory requirement of § 315 of the Communications Act that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967. The two cases before us now, which were decided separately below, challenge the constitutional and statutory bases of the doctrine and component rules. Red Lion involves the application of the fairness doctrine to a particular broadcast, and RTNDA arises as an action to review the FCC’s 1967 promulgation of the personal attack and political editorializing regulations, which were laid down after the Red Lion litigation had begun.
I.
A.
The Red Lion Broadcasting Company is licensed to operate a Pennsylvania radio station, WGCB. On November 27, 1964, WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a “Christian Crusade” series. A book by Fred J. Cook entitled “Goldwater — Extremist on the Right” was discussed by Hargis, who said that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; that Cook had then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; that he had defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency; and that he had now written a “book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater.” When Cook heard of the broadcast he concluded that he had been personally attacked and demanded free reply time, which the station refused. After an exchange of letters among Cook, Red Lion, and the FCC, the FCC declared that the Hargis broadcast constituted a personal attack on Cook; that Red Lion had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine to send a tape, transcript, or summary of the broadcast to Cook and offer him reply time; and that the station must provide reply time whether or not Cook would pay for it. On review in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the FCC’s position was upheld as constitutional and otherwise proper.”
A few months ago John Armor, counsel to the American Civil Rights Union, penned the following.
“Anybody Remember the Red Lion Case?”
“Those who are arguing for reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine have not done their homework. The Doctrine survived in Red Lion in 1969, because of the “scarcity” of broadcast outlets, as opposed to print media ones. Justice White was about twenty years behind the technology curve when he wrote that decision.
In the 21st Century no one who pays attention could say that electronic media are scarce without laughing. It is newspapers that are becoming scarce, because in what Thomas Jefferson called “the marketplace of ideas,” the electronic media are bringing more ideas, more quickly, to the public than print media can possibly match.
The Fairness Doctrine might somehow be reestablished, by Congress, or by appointments to the Federal Communication Commission by a new President. Either would be a serious mistake. But, as long as the Supreme Court remains capable of assessing facts, and honest in its approach to the First Amendment, even if the Democratic Congress could revive it, the Fairness Doctrine will remain legally dead.”
Juice Readers. Will reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine require Orange Juice founder Art Pedroza to offer equal time and space for Santa Ana City manager David Ream or Mayor Miguel Pulido?
I hope we don’t go down that road. We surely do not wish to see government regulation of the airwaves. It beings back memories of Pravda (“The Truth”) the leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991.
Our Founding Fathers very First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc”
Speech compulsion should not be on the table. If you don’t like what Sean Hannity has to say, be it on KABC or FOX News, change stations or shut off your radio/TV sets. Having over 100 TV channels to select from you do have other choices be it network, satellite or cable TV and a full range of AM and FM radio stations.
Larry – There is nothing fair about the “Fairness Doctrine.”
It is government censorship of free speech.
It is government control of the media.
It is 1984.
email reply:
Larry, it would be a bonanza for satellite radio. Watch out that the satellite folks aren’t quietly pushing from behind the scenes.
“Speech compulsion should not be on the table.”
There’s no real evidence it is on the table. Your sudden, new found concern for constitutional rights is precious in light of its non-reality.
If I were still a Republican, I’d worry more about re-building the GOP than quivering in fear over the fate of your favorite vein-popping talk show host. However, since I’m not, I hope your run yourselves ragged chasing this story.
DU
#3 has it right. No one is making an issue about this EXCEPT the right wing fear mongers who are just waiting for the Dems to do something like this because they have nothing else to say. I’ve already read that Obama has said that he has no interest in re-instituting anything like this. Nothing like trying to pick a fight when no one is scared of you or even has any interest in fighting with you.
Mechanical eye.
My favorite talk show host? Do you know who it is?
Larry Elder, not RUSH or Sean Hannity. Surprise, surprise.
As to your comment about real evidence.
Some people anticipate and research news stories while others read about them in the print media and clip and post after the fact. My preference is the former, not the later.
tmare.
We will simply need to take a wait and see position won’t we? In the mean time you are not obligated to read or add comments to any of my posts if you feel they are a waste of your time.
junior
Let us hope that this does not become a reality.
I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights.
A few years ago we did a Cutting Edge-atalk show “On Target” program in which we critiqued the news media over the past fifty years. That episode included a comment on the Fairness Doctrine. I say that because at one time it was a “free speech” issue that had to be dealt with.
I for one would like to see the PUBLIC AIRWAVES be used for the PUBLIC GOOD, I think it is essential for a democracy to have an informed electorate. The end of Fairness Doctrine corresponds with the dumbing down of the American people. According to the Media Access Project since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their air time to discussing controversial matters of public interest and to air contrasting views on those matters. Any time you leave a metropolitan area ALL you can find on the radio is Rush or some other conservative windbag. It’s this shameful state of the Public Airwaves that allows for a completely unqualified person like Sarah Palin to run for VPOTUS because the American electorate is so woefully ignorant.
I don’t feel that your posts are a waste of time and I never said that. I do believe that Rush and others are screaming fire where there is none.
whatttt!!!!!!!!
Let me suggest that you tune out conservative talk radio as you travel and listen to music or play some of your favorite CD’s.
And while you may not be happy with less than five conservative radio hosts I have to suffer with network TV programs from CBS, NBC, ABC and cable programs such as CNN and MSNBC. But the good news is that I have the power of the clicker. If I don’t care to watch AND listen to the left, I do the RIGHT thing and change stations to watch the History channel, sports, C-SPAN or shut the tube off.
How difficult is that for you?
And help me out here. What does Sarah Palin have to do with this post?
Read the papers. We lost your side won.
Case closed.
Move to Alaska if you wish to take Governor Palin to task. In fact you can challenge her when her term is up.
Have a great weekend!
I only mention Ms. Palin to prove a point, 58 million people were ignorant enough to vote for a presidential ticket that included her on it. I find this alarming. As to the freedom to change the channel, the reality is that we have very few choices. Six major companies control most of the media in this country, your “liberal” stations; Viacom owns CBS,GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC and News Corporation owns Fox. Three media giants own all of the cable news networks and radio is worse, Clear Channel owns nearly 1200 radio stations across the country. You may think that a large portion of our citizenry hearing only one viewpoint 24/7 is healthy for our country, but I beg to differ.
whatt!! said: “I for one would like to see the PUBLIC AIRWAVES be used for the PUBLIC GOOD”
Do conservatives get equal time for the liberal bile spewed out by the mainstream broadcast media?
junior, what part of “contrasting viewpoints” don’t you understand?
what!!, you are not going to get anywhere with Larry and Junior. Haven’t you noticed that they sincerely believe that the mainstream media – which you and I know to be timid to a fault and reverential toward its corporate masters and their favored political figures – is a vast leftwing conspiracy? Larry mentions “CBS, NBC, ABC and cable programs such as CNN and MSNBC,” as a sort of mirror image of unhinged loons like Rush and Hannity. That’s just really the way it seems to them, and on this subject it’s just like we’re speaking different languages.
Hope springs eternal, Vern.
Vern: “Haven’t you noticed that they sincerely believe that the mainstream media – which you and I know to be timid to a fault and reverential toward its corporate masters and their favored political figures – is a vast leftwing conspiracy?”
Vern – Are you saying that the left leaning “timid” mainstram media is not aggressive enough in promoting your and their liberal agenda?
whatttt!!!!!!!!
Let me ask you a question. How much of an impact did the liberal print and broadcast media have in the outcome of this election?
Did the Washingotn Post admit playing favorites as they gave us their version of the NEWS?
WE all have choices. In fact you could even have voted for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Perhaps you did
And for the record. We subscribe to the OC Register AND the LA Times. It’s real simple. We look to see what coverage is provided by both of the local papers. I also have a dozen national and international newspapers in my list of sources that I check out almost daily as I seek other opinions on our policy making and major news stories.
While we can each have favorite buttons on our car radio I will still argue that you are not limited to sources of news, weather and sports
Folks. Having been with Vern in Sacramento and in the city of Orange check out the RUSH bumper sticker on his car. He simply wants to stir the pot. Wait a minute. There already is a potsticker
Es como lenguas distintas.
The one-party rule of this decade has been so spectacularly disastrous that even a timid, corporate-controlled media couldn’t help but call the government out fairly regularly. The government’s cheerleaders (eg. Larry, junior) dealt with this by convincing themselves the media had a liberal bias.
As the clusterf**k of Iraq continued to drain hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in an orgy of corruption, incompetence, and Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, our timid media occasionally was forced to sit up and make mention of it. Then the government’s cheerleaders (eg. Larry, junior) would complain that the media was anti-Bush because they weren’t devoting equal time to soldiers painting schools.
As the Daily Show’s Rob Corddry put it, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
#11 you also are proving that other mayority that voted for the “non-experience at all” Obama are the great mayority in this last election and they won!!!!!!!. Stupidity prevaled! .That is what you are proving with your statement.We nee to respect everyone opinion and vote even if we are not agree.
Capitalized Mary, you crack me up!
Brother Vern.
As painful as it will be, let me know when you and I can sit in front of a tube and watch Keith Olbermann as he spews “fair and balanced” news coverage.
Pew Research Shows Liberal Media Bias
The Research study reveals that Obama and Clinton have gotten positive treatment in the media over two-thirds of the time, while the majority of McCain’s coverage was negative
The study says that fully 57% of the narratives studied about McCain were critical in nature. Meanwhile, 69% of the narratives on Obama have been positive, while 67% have been positive on Clinton.
See http://www.journalism.org/node/11266 for the full article.
Larry, you and I live in a metropolitan area, yes, WE have access to all sorts of media, but many people in rural areas do not. This is not about entertainment, but information. These folks are ill-served by a steady stream of Rush, Sean and Bill, these guys are making a million dollars plus a MONTH, their interests are not the same as your “average” workers and it is reflected in their daily diatribes.We have far too many people voting against their economic self- interest out of pure ignorance, I believe that they should at least have an opportunity to hear both sides of an issue.
OK Larry, Keith and Rachel I will not call “balanced” as much as I love them. They are definitely liberal polemicists who self-consciously strive to balance off your O’Reilly’s and Hannitys. Thank God for them. But I would never consider getting all my news from just Keith and Rachel.
Sure I’ll watch Keith with you Larry if you buy the drinks.
junior, a lot of that is just the impossibility of putting “lipstick on a pig.” Although they sure pulled if off with Bush especially during his first term… Nothing but fawning worshipful coverage and loyal stenography of gov’t talking points leading 70% of us to support the Iraq disaster and more.
Vern: “junior, a lot of that is just the impossibility of putting “lipstick on a pig.”
Vern – What is that comment supposed to mean in your response to my posted comment regarding scientific research which verifies claims of liberal media bias?
It means it must have been a real challenge to do positive stories on the campaign that McCain, Palin and Joe the Plumber just ran, although I’m sure they tried.
oh, right Vern “real challenge.”
You are now the one “putting lipstick on the pig” of scientifically verified liberal media bias.
junior.
Notice how Vern tries to shift attention to Sarah Palin when this post is about possible “censorship” or government control of the airwaves.
As stated above. No one forces us to tune in if we don’t like what is being broadcast. Furthermore we have an obligation to ourselves to “trust but verify” data even if it requires a little work on our part.
While I occasionally listen to both Hannity and Colmes, that does not force me to decide which one of the them has the correct solution to the challenges which they cover.
Larry, I suggest that you and junior go to the Media Matters website for a look at the corporate (i.e. conservative) media bias that assaults the american airwaves on a daily basis.
No, L and J. I’m taking J and Pew at their word that there were that many more positive stories on the Dems than on McCain. And I’m not changing the subject by mentioning Sarah, she was very much part of the McCain story ever since he picked her, much more important than the Biden pick was to McCain.
I just think it must have been very difficult these last couple months to put the doings of McCain and his campaign in a positive light. What time period did the study cover anyway? (I know, I could go to the link but I’m trying to write a piece of music right now.)
This tilt toward the Dems (if it exists) is certainly a new thing though, it sure didn’t exist during most of the Bush administration.
Conservatives are becoming a bunch of whining babies.
whatttttttttt
If I want to check out fair and balanced media coverage I surely would not select Media Matters. A more credible source would be Accuracy in Media
http://www.aim.org/
tmare
Let’s wait until Obama takes office to see if Congress presses for some form of government control of the air waves.
Whining? Is that what you call the ongoing protests against the passage of Prop 8? Do we now have selective whining? Just curious!
Larry, I checked out Accuracy in Media, this is NOT a fact checking site, it’s an opinion site. Take this article;”Global Socialists Toast Victory over America” it is a mish-mash of poorly connected points, prophecies and opinion, this is media oversight? The last line in the article; “This isn’t “international capitalism.” It’s the victory of global socialism. The stage is perfectly set for the U.S. presidency to be occupied by a revolutionary Marxist. “We are the world” is coming true.” Pure conjecture and opinion. Now look at an article from Media Matters; “Media figures falsely assert or suggest autoworkers make $70/hour without noting figure includes benefits paid to current retirees.” The article begins with a summary, goes on to cite media examples, continues on to the actual breakdown of current GM employee salaries ($41/hour) and ends with a transcript of a broadcast. Just the facts Jack. That’s media oversight.