Free Congress Foundation Commentary Paul M. Weyrich April 15, 2007
Conservatism survives and continues to evolve no matter who holds the majority in Congress or lives in the White House. Our essays and panel discussions on “The New Conservatism” have been honing the finer points of theory and practice for several years. However, if the current Congress gets its way over the next few months or if the President in the next term is a Democrat it will be nearly impossible for us to get the word out on radio anymore.
As I wrote in my Notable News Commentary of February 5, 2007 (included following this commentary) the Majority Leadership is threatening to enact into law the so-called Fairness Doctrine. And even if they do not succeed in Congress, the next President simply could “persuade” the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue a regulation which would accomplish the same thing. Thus there may be two bites at the apple.
For those who don’t really understand what this means, the Fairness Doctrine is an antiquated rule left over from the days of the “Big three” television networks and a limited number of radio stations. It was repealed by the FCC in 1987. Now the liberals want it back so they can have equal radio time – free equal radio time – to take on commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Unable to compete on a level playing field they have fallen back on their old standby plan of regulating. If you can’t compete, they reason, cry foul and force popular radio programs that make a profit to give you equal time. If the Fairness Doctrine were imposed liberals would finally have their dreams come true: they would have control of all media, from the majority of the nation’s newspapers to the television networks to cable television and the Internet and radio. Conservative talk radio, which has been so successful the past 20 years, would be a thing of the past.
On a recent Friday the 13th, Rightalk held an on-air panel discussion of this imminent threat, appropriately enough on radio. Moderated by Free Congress Foundation analyst and military historian William S. Lind, the panel included well-known conservative activist and editor of Accuracy in Media Cliff Kincaid; the former Secretary of the State of Ohio, Ken Blackwell; libertarian personality and host of the radio show “Battle Line,” Alan Nathan, and the irrepressible political consultant and longtime media commentator Dick Morris. It was interesting to hear each man speak to the issue and remind us of the history of the Fairness Doctrine and why it would be a pointless and purely political move to reinstate it.
Opening the discussion, conservative businessman, educator and diplomat Ken Blackwell suggested that liberals should stick to making ice cream and writing entertaining television shows inasmuch as this is what they do best. Radio is just not their medium, he stated. Dick Morris related several of his experiences with former President William J. Clinton and his wife and current presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and their feelings about people such as Rush Limbaugh, whom the Clintons believe is guilty of “hate speech.” Cliff Kincaid reminded the audience that “hate speech” is the way liberals have come to define all words and theories with which they disagree. Free speech, he warned, as defined by the current majority in Congress, means you must agree with the concept of political correctness. If you don’t buy that, then free speech doesn’t apply to you. Kincaid also predicted that the recent uproar and subsequent firing of radio personality Don Imus, for using crude language about a women’s basketball team consisting mostly of young black women, might be used as a blueprint for the future firings of conservative radio personalities.
Moderator Bill Lind agreed with Kincaid. He further stated that the theory of “cultural Marxism” has been applied to many aspects of our society and that fairness applies only to the traditional “one world” viewpoint. Lind also suggested the Fairness Doctrine be re-christened as the “Unfairness Doctrine.” Finally, radio personality Alan Nathan, who “battles the left and the right” as a libertarian, had some thoughts on why the Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t work, would be impossible to enforce and wasn’t needed. All in all, it was a lively discussion of an issue we all thought long dead, but which, like the Equal Rights Amendment, may soon be given new life in the laboratory of some obsessed – though no doubt politically correct — mad scientist of the left.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
___________________________________________________________
Free Congress Foundation Commentary
The Effort to Reimpose the So-Called Fairness Doctrine Grows
Paul M. Weyrich February 05, 2007
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created by Congress in 1934 to oversee the publicly owned airwaves. At the time this meant radio only, but soon Mr. Farnsworth’s television sets created an entirely new industry the regulation of which fell to the FCC.
As those of us who grew up in the days of transistor radio and black and white television might recall, the FCC required all radio and television stations to devote a certain percentage of airtime to public information and political issues. In 1949, this in turn led the FCC to institute the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” an uncodified regulation based on the principle that the American people were entitled to all sides of controversial political issues on publicly owned airwaves.
In practice what Fairness meant was that if a television or radio station owner – the “licensee” in FCC terminology – got two minutes of airtime to explain why he was in favor of a municipal bond issue someone else was entitled to equal time to rebut the argument. Though FCC enforcement procedures could be onerous — and many believed they were unconstitutional — at least they made some sense in the days of radio and the so called “Big Three” television networks: the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) and the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS). Today with more than 500 channels proliferating on cable and the Internet saturated with every political opinion under the sun, it would make no sense whatsoever to bring back the antiquated Fairness Doctrine. Yet that is what the liberals in the 110th Congress are proposing.
A brief recap of the history of this regulation is enlightening. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine. The Court concluded that the FCC was within its rights to enforce its regulation. The decision was based in part on the “scarcity” principle because of the limited number of radio and television frequencies. Fifteen years later in 1984, with the proliferation of cable television and FM radio, the Court concluded that this rationale was flawed and that the Fairness Doctrine limited free speech under the First Amendment.
This did not stop the House of Representatives and United States Senate from voting overwhelmingly to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine a few years later. In 1987 the FCC repealed its Fairness Doctrine regulation. The Democratic Congress then sought to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine in federal law. Fortunately President Ronald W. Reagan vetoed the legislation and despite one or two attempts at reviving it in the nineties, the Fairness Doctrine seemed to fade away. Now the Democrats are poised to hold hearings and debate in preparation for another vote and Congress again may enact the Fairness Doctrine.
So what are the arguments in favor of re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine? In its defense, a columnist in New Jersey named Gene Racz recently wrote the following:
“…Sadly, in many large American markets, the only perspectives presented on both TV and radio are from the right or the hard right. It’s difficult to spot a labor leader, an environmental activist or an anti-war/peace advocate.”
Difficult to spot “an anti-war peace advocate” on television? How many hours has CNN given Cindy Sheehan and her ilk in the guise of news? How many hours did ABC devote to the Abu Ghraib Prison fiasco while barely mentioning the bravery of posthumous Medal of Honor winner Corporal Jason Dunham, who threw his body on a live grenade saving the lives of perhaps a dozen of his fellow Marines? I could go on with many more examples. In truth, the only place where conservative opinion predominates is in talk radio, which is precisely why the liberals want the Fairness Doctrine back.
In addition to dominating the network news, cable news (with the exception of Fox News) and much of the social agenda we see in television programming, the liberals want equal radio time – free equal radio time – to take on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Since liberal-owned Air America Radio filed for bankruptcy protection in October of 2006, listing debts of over $20 million and proving that liberals cannot operate businesses any better than they have operated the government, liberals know they cannot compete in radio on an honest and level playing field. So they have fallen back on their old stand-by plan: when you need money, let the taxpayers foot the bill. When you can’t compete, force popular radio programs that make a profit to give you equal time. Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and the liberals get free airtime while conservative talk radio continues to operate as a business should, meeting its payrolls and paying taxes.
We don’t know what President George W. Bush would do if the Congress re-enacts the Fairness Doctrine as codified law, but he should veto it as firmly and decisively as President Reagan did nearly 20 years ago.
