Pace Paw Print

Imagine if talk radio and other public broadcasts were suddenly monitored by the FCC for what they deem to be fair debate. What if it were up to the FCC to determine if the content of your arguments was fair to the opposition?

That was where this nation found itself from the early forties until the 1985, when the Fairness Doctrine was finally repealed. In 1985, the FCC ruled the Fairness Doctrine, "inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance . . . impedes the public's access to the marketplace of ideas and poses an unwarranted intrusion upon the journalistic freedom of broadcasters."

The Fairness Doctrine was ultimately a regulation that allowed the government to censor the coverage of issues of national importance, and enforce what they called fair coverage. While on the surface this would seem like a good decision, in reality the Fairness Doctrine, "stifled the free market in opinion and effectively [pushed] politics to little watched schedules. . . . Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses," reported Bruce Chapman of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The legal costs of the fairness act had grown to astronomical levels. According to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the government sued NBC only to find that they weren't in violation of the Fairness Doctrine; however they were forced to pay the $100,000 in legal fees.

Small broadcast stations could not afford to pay these legal fees, so it forced another phenomenon. Congress found that "most broadcasters, especially in smaller areas where they cannot afford $5,000, or $10,000, or $100,000 in legal fees to contest one of these fairness issues, simply avoid controversial topics and nobody sues."

It is clear that this is not the type of free speech that we have come to know and love in the United States, but unfortunately the government somehow feels that it can slip this one by claiming the very facts that were repealed by the FCC over 20 years ago. Honestly, how obnoxious would it be if every public broadcast show were like Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes? Personally, I'd rather watch both sides of the issue for myself rather than having two annoying TV personalities do it for me.

This also creates another issue that just forces people to avoid political commentary altogether. Who determines how many sides to an issue there are, what is fact and what is commentary, and how many hosts need to be in each show to make it fair? The Fairness Doctrine should just rename itself the overly complicated doctrine and call it a day.

Many believe that the Fairness Doctrine is just a ploy to silence powerful grassroots voices in broadcast that have had an immeasurable effect over the last year. Silencing these powerful voices is just the sign of weakness on the oppositions point of view, or in other words, "[t]he best response to an idea one detests is not to suppress it, but to offer a better idea." This shows confidence and strength rather than fear.

The push for the reinstatement is the work of Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry Waxman. According to the ACLJ "he has instructed the Committee's investigative staff to actively pursue a strategy for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. From various sources around Capitol Hill, reports are coming that Waxman and his staffers are pushing the Federal Communications Commission to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, even beginning to quietly claim that the FCC's rejection of the Fairness Doctrine in 1985 was politically motivated."

Fortunately for those of us who prefer to choose what broadcasts we listen to, and would like for these cowards to try to offer their own ideas rather than stifling their opponents, there is a possible solution: The Broadcaster Freedom Act.

The strategy that several congressmen are invoking is the rarely used Discharge Petition. The ACLJ reports that if 218 members of the House of Representatives sign this petition, they can bypass the usual committee proceedings forcing the leadership to put the bill on the calendar.

This means the House will be afforded he opportunity to take a Yes or No vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. The ACLJ reports that 309 members voted for an amendment supporting the principles of the Broadcaster Freedom Act. This radical Discharge Petition allows those 309 members to vote for a Bill they are already in favor of, before the minority trying to pass the Fairness Doctrine can rush it through.

In order for this to work, congress will need 218 congressional signatures to make the petition go to the floor. If you want to see this bill have a chance to be voted on, write to your congressmen and prompt them to sign the petition, or you can just play fair and keep your opinion to yourself.

Article Tools