Flashback: Liberals Used 'Fairness Doctrine' to 'Chill' Conservative Radio

Photo of Matthew Balan.

Liberal Democrats and their allies on the Left are eager to restore the "Fairness Doctrine," which would empower the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast media, including talk radio. Besides their addiction to government regulation, the Left may be remembering "the good old days" where they used the "Fairness Doctrine" for partisan advantage in the 1960s.

Former CBS News President Fred Friendly, in his 1976 book The Good Guys, The Bad Guys and the First Amendment, wrote about the Democrats' organized campaign to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to derail conservative radio. Friendly's account was summarized by the CATO Institute's Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa in their 1997 paper Chilling the Internet: Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcast.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The key excerpt from the Hazlett and Sosa paper:

In 1962 President Kennedy's policies were under sustained attack from conservative broadcasters across the country. Of particular concern to the president were vocal right-wing opponents of the nuclear test ban treaty being considered by the Senate at the time. The administration and the DNC seized upon the Fairness Doctrine as a way to "counter the radical right" in their battle to pass the treaty. The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was established and funded by the Democrats, orchestrated a very effective protest campaign against hostile radio editorials, demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine whenever a conservative broadcaster denounced the treaty. Ultimately, the Senate ratified the treaty by far more than the necessary two-thirds majority.

Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections. Democratic Party funding sources were used to establish a professional listening post to monitor right-wing radio. The DNC also prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine," which was handed out at conferences. As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

By November 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide, the Democrats' "fairness" campaign was considered a stunning success. The effort had produced 1,035 letters to stations, resulting in 1,678 hours of free airtime. Critical to the campaign was the fact that much of the partisan commentary came from small, rural stations. In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,

"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."

If liberals succeed in restoring the Fairness Doctrine, history would likely repeat itself. Instead of the “Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Band Treaty,” organizations like MoveOn.org and CAIR (who already has a track record of pressuring conservative talk shows) would doubtless demand “free reply time,” and the dominance of conservative talk radio, which has been driven by real demand and market forces, would be put into a deep freeze.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fairness Doctrine

IMHO...if the Fairness Doctrine was restored, I think that we would see a shift of talk radio from the public airwaves to satellite radio ala Howard Stern.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Fairness Doctrine?

A PROUD AMERICAN

I have to agree, I am a fan of Fox News, I almost never miss O'rielly, and Hannity. I listen to Rush and Hannity on the radio, I am not right wing I am a registered Independent American.  My point being I can get both sides from those programs, I don't need the left wing fringe of CBS, NBC or ABC, I refuse to read any news papers.  However Fox news has recently moved what I believed was right center to a little left center.  O'rielly and Hannity have been having that left wing twit Geraldo on quite often, I can't stand his whining and sniviling, they don't need him unless they are afraid of the Fairness Doctrine, in which case they have no good old American guts. Geraldo has his own show (I don't watch) two times a week, that is more then enough fairness for any one. And lets not forget Colmbs (Hannity's co host) asks a question then proceeds to run over the guests, if they are conservative and never allows them to talk.  Hannity lets the guest talk and bury themselves.  The guest hosts on the left that stand in for Colmbs are much better at comments and asking questions (ie Bob Beckel).  Colmbs and Geraldo need a permenant vacation.  Wake up Fox you didnt' get where you are today by pandering. Sorry if I spoke too long, but I'm angry!!!!

 

You didn't speak too long

and you deserve to be angry!

And I believe our message is getting across to them!  Let's keep up the good work!  The Silent Majority is silent no longer!!!!

Geraldo Rivera = grab the remote

Whenever I see Geraldo Rivera I grab the remote and change the station, as a result I see a lot less Fox News lately.  I don't want that smacked A$$ in my house.

CT.... Boy Howdy! I do

CT....

Boy Howdy!

I do the exact same thing with that man...throw in Shep too!

.....CLICK!

Fascists!

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

Why do we still call these people Liberals???  There's not a damned thing liberal about them.


 

Liberals = Totalitarian Thugs

Indeed.

A glossary:

When a liberal uses a word or a phrase in conjunction with a campaign or issue, it is usually safe to assume that they actually mean the opposite of the common meaning of the word or phrase. Thus when the liberals refer the "The Fairness Doctrine" what they really mean is un-fairness and forcing their views on people when they have failed in the competitive marketplace.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

I would be more concerned

I would be more concerned about the Democrats pushing changes in media ownership rules.

Fairness Doctrine & Newspapers

If the Fairness Doctrine gets re-instanted, does that mean we get to send cheerleaders into the Seattle Times newsroom when Chuck Schumer resigns?

 <insert witty signature here>

What about other forms of media?

That is an interesting point:

Does the Fairness Doctrine apply to all forms of media? Will this shut down the NYT, Keith Uberman, Bill Mahr, The Daily Show and so on?

 

 

If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell

Actually, I have challenged

Actually, I have challenged Liberals that are for the Fairness Doctrine telling them that if we should use the Fairness Doctrine so that Republicans and Conservatives can defend themselves from critics that come from left wing media.

99% of them say no.  The Fairness Doctrine, in their very small mind, should only be applied to Conservative radio.  

They hypocrisy is quite glaring. 

Liberals love to claim they are for Freedom of Speech, but their Freedom of Speech is saved for those that speak and sound like a Liberal.  Liberals love to silence their critics. 

 

Selective Fairness

The direct answer is that the FCC can only regulate broadcast media (network and local television and radio). Newspapers, cable and the Internet would (probably) not be covered, so the NYT, Olbermann, Maher, and the Daily Show could just keep on doing their old song and dance.

Fascism

Modern liberalism is fascism.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

wow, it never ceases to

wow, it never ceases to amaze me how Liberal politicians love to use dictatorial like tactics to silence their critics. 

The sad part is that most americans are very poorly educated when it comes to American politics and American history.  Democrats are trying to sell this as the Democrats being the poor victims of conservative radio talk and that they need fair amount of time to defend themselves from these attacks.  Many people, thinking on emotion and not logic go, "AHHHHHHH.....poor Democratic politicians, they should be able to defend themselves." 

Most people won't stop to think what the consequences are of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. 

I cry for America at the thought of a Liberal being in the White House in 2009! 

The Constitution?

What part of "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press�" do they not understand? Would Hamilton have put up with the "fairness doctrine"? Would he have placed an opposing view in The Federalist Papers? I don't see how this can pass Constitutional muster. The Bill of Rights is pretty clear on this.

 

 

If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell

The Constitution...lol

Liberals care about The Constitution about the same as Michael Vick cares about dogs.

The Constitution

But Judges do... or at least they are supposed to.

 

 

If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell

Wrong

You are aware that some judges get appointed, and they get appointed by whom ever is in the power seat, so there are liberal judges appointed (as well as conservative).  Remember the big hub-bub about the Supreme Court justices being appointed?

Your right, Arch

Arch, I don't think they understand or care what the Constitution says. They don't understand or care what the Constitution says about "separation of church and state." They just want to twist what it says to keep the church out of government. They are fine with secular humanism in government and schools. They don't care or understand what is says about freedom of speech with this "fairness doctrine" or when it comes to "hate crimes" bill concerning gays. They just want to shut the mouth of Christian ministers who preach the Bible and call it sin, which it is. This "hate crimes" bill also puts down "freedom of religion and the practice thereof." Needless to say they just want to shut the mouth of conservative opposition too. The law is only convenient when it enforces their views otherwise they want to twist it.

NB would get a permanent spot on MSM

If they reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, then NB would have to be allowed to spend at least a few minutes of every MSM news broadcast to point out the liberal bias of what they just presented 

No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket

As usual

As usual, this "fairness" proposal of liberals is based on the belief that those who listen to conservative talk are too dumb to make up their own minds about what is being said; whereas, it is really the liberals' underlying fear of truth and common sense (coupled with their phony elitism) that is driving this movement. If truth and common sense come into play, modern liberalism is finished.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Fairness Doctrine = Loss of Free Speech

If you look at the examples cited in the this article it is clear to me that a new Fairness Doctrine will equate to the loss of free speech only it won't be the government that is doing it directly. Instead, they will be enablers by removing "free choice" on the part of radio station owners.

It will eliminate the "need" for money on the part of dissenters to bring their message to the radio marketplace. Dissenters will not need as much in the way of "resources" to broadcast their messages if the Fairness Doctrine is reenacted.Well-financed ops like moveon.org will gain an edge that others won't have. The likes of moveon.org won't be taking on the risk that the rest of broadcast radio has taken on over the years.

Then, again, the likes of moveon.org are not interested in a free and competitive marketplace, are they?

Just my $0.02

Broadcaster Freedom Act

Broadcaster Freedom Act ftw.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

At least liberals are consistent

Things they want should be free and someone else should pay for it. In this case they want free airtime that will ultimately be paid for by those that have a differing viewpoint.

 

What liberals want the

What liberals want the Doctrine back? Is there anyone in Congress and the Senate that has this as a priority? If so, why not go ahead and include them in the article, Mr. Balan?

115 of them to be exact:

115 of them to be exact: http://www.govtrack....

This is not an up or down

This is not an up or down vote on the fairness doctrine, it is a preemtive counter strike to a bill that is not going to be introduced. What's next?

Your comment was a strawman

Your comment was a strawman to begin with. Balan's post was about the motives of liberals in regards to the Fairness Doctrine. This vote and the fact that no bill has been introduced only indicates to me that a majority of Democrats in Congress understand that the idea is not popular enough to win enough votes. It doesn't mean that liberals won't stop trying or that they don't think it's a good idea to reinstate the policy.

Why don't you tell us where you stand on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?

 

Other than Sen. Dianne

Other than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, no one in government has been talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine

jihad

the libs want the troops back home to protect them from the conservatives .. because the conservatives own most of the guns and would declare jihad if the libs cut off free discourse and debate .. sadly, it has come to that point with illegal immigration and liberal lying ..

 

never look a gift skunk in the tail ..

Affirmative Action for talk radio should be implemented

The left has never stopped calling for the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. I believe it was included in the 2000 Democrat platform. The assertion that the left seeks fairness is ludicrous. They do not want an equal opportunity; they want their desired outcome.

Since the left's pathetic attempts at talk radio have all (almost) failed , we must implement affirmative action at once! Once they fail at that, and they will, perhaps we should just do away with talk radio altogether.

Nothing Fair About Fairness Doctrine

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to legislate a result that the free market failed to provide, and there isn't much that's more truly fair than the free market.

Flashback: Liberals Used 'Fairness Doctrine' to 'Chill' Conserva

The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

This is probably the best

This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.  i agree it is the best proof but in the real world 'because ian said so' is not a valid proof even if it is the 'best proof'

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.