Americans interested in free speech got a boost Monday when the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin J. Martin, came out strongly against any reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine.
As reported by the Associated Press Thursday (emphasis added):
Martin, in a letter written this week to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and made public Thursday, said the agency found no compelling reason to revisit its 1987 decision that enforcing the federal rule was not in the public interest.
This letter (PDF available here) quite supported the views concerning this issue being expressed by Congressional Republicans in the past few weeks since this matter took center stage (emphasis added):
In my judgment, the events of the last two decades have confirmed the wisdom of the Commission's decision to abolish the Fairness Doctrine. Discussion of controversial issues over the airwaves has flourished absent regulatory constraints, and the public now enjoys access to an ever-expanding range of views and opinions. Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened ever further since 1987. In short, I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment, and believe that such a step would inhibit the robust discussion of issues of public concern over the nation's airwaves.
Martin's correspondence was in response to a July 19, 2007 letter from Congressmen Joe Barton (R-Texas), Fred Upton (R-Michigan), Mike Pence (R-Indiana), and Greg Walden (R-Oregon), wherein his opinion was sought concerning "the appropriateness of the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment."
After receiving the Chairman's letter, Congressmen Pence and Walden issued the following joint statement (emphasis added):
"We commend the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission for his commitment to free and independent airwaves in America. Chairman Martin's comments should encourage millions who cherish the vigorous debate of American talk radio. Nevertheless it is imperative that Congress pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act to ensure that no future administration or FCC chairman have the power to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine without an act of Congress. Congress should heed the call of Chairman Martin and permanently reject the Fairness Doctrine by enacting the Broadcast Freedom Act into law."
Hear, hear!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Who cares that the person
July 26, 2007 - 11:51 ET by BeowulfWho cares that the person with the most expertise on this "doctrine", its implementation, its utility, and its reprecussions opposes it? DiFi wants it, therefore it is eminently necessary to the welfare of the citizens of the United States.
'Nuff said.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Is there a provision in the
July 26, 2007 - 11:53 ET by mattmIs there a provision in the constitution that would allow a "summary judgement" stating the unconstitutionality of the "Fairness" doctrine? I would be helpful if we could get a ruling declaring it to be in violation of the First Amendment so only a constitutional amendment could change it...
}}}----> Free Speech
July 26, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Cool ArrowWould that be the 1st Amendment?
Starts out a little vague though: Congress shall make no law.
Dang framers! Wish they could've been more specific.
Notice none of these Amendments say: The people shall not...
C'mon you think that all
July 26, 2007 - 13:15 ET by TotheRightofReaganC'mon you think that all those white slave owning males could of thought about radio, tv and the Al Gore created internet.
Isn't the consititution a "living breathing document" (one of my other favorite liberal buzz words). it can bend and twist to work with today's more complicated society. (Because you know starting a country from nothing isn't really all that complicated, all you had to do is write out a few declerations, etc. , etc. and viola you have country).
I mean it was much more fair when there were only three major networks to channel the liberal message, err news and information from.
Liberals like the freedom of speech to be just like building a Model T...you can say anything you want as long as it agrees with us .
Okay I am off the bitter bus now!
“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. “ – Ronald Reagan
Fainess Doctrine??
July 26, 2007 - 13:16 ET by danybhoyThat's how I remember the 1st Admendment, of course, this should be shot down at the Supreme Court level should it get that far.
One reason is that the Fairness Doctrine(an oxymoron if I ever heard of one)came about is that around the 1940s when it was inacted, there were very few media outlets, I think it's safe to say that we have a few more radio broadcasters then back then. In addition to more TV, cable/satellte TV, satellte radio, newspapers(for now), & last but not least-the internet & all of the sources of news, information, talk, & opinion that it provides. If you can't make your voice heard today with all the choices out there, no fairness doctrine can help you.
If you "progressives" believe the Fairness Doctrine will help level the playing field, look at the ratings of Error America, or of hosts like Bill Press, Mike Malloy, or Ed Schultz. Not exactly lighting it up. You need to atract listeners to sell ads so you can make money, when you can't, you go away. It's called the free market & it works.
"A goverment big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away" Barry Goldwater
That's a key point. Too
July 26, 2007 - 14:21 ET by mattmThat's a key point. Too many people have the mistaken idea that the Constitution says what people can or cannot do, when it really outlines the limits of governmental power.
I think, however, that without a ruling officially declaring the FD to be unconstitutional, it may be implemented in the future, and then a long drawn out process would have to be undertake to get it ruled out...which might not happen if the Libs stack the court with activists....
I think I might "hear hear"
July 26, 2007 - 13:16 ET by sarcasmoI think I might "hear hear" a hint of bureaucratic self-preservation in all this, but I guess I'm with him despite my dislike of his expanding FCC. Admittedly, the best outcome for me politically might be that they get the "fairness" they want and it's as unfair & offensive as we all predict, because that might actually lead to no-more-FCC.
JMR
Good Point Sarc
July 26, 2007 - 14:01 ET by rob6677Since I was a kid I could never grasp the idea of the FCC, If we are supposed to have freedom o............s t a t i c............We will now begin a test of the emergency broadcast network!!!
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!" Groucho
Thanks. Like the Department
July 26, 2007 - 14:11 ET by sarcasmoThanks. Like the Department of Education that educates 0 kids, the FCC an example of how government agencies that seem "needed," once born, are practically-impossible to kill. This is true (see the WW2-era Texas helium repository it took years of Dave Barry columns to kill by relentless-sarcasm) even when their continuing usefulness to taxpayers is questionable, to say the least.
JMR
Spot on! I think we could
July 26, 2007 - 14:32 ET by rob6677Spot on! I think we could classify the democratic party as one of those agencies that is no longer needed?
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!" Groucho
I do not agree
July 26, 2007 - 14:42 ET by sarcasmoI do not agree. The Democrats need to get back to their roots (see rants #7, 8, 19, or hell, maybe read the whole damn thing -- written by a guy who wrote an excellent book that scares Canada, and who ran for Congress as a Democrat). And so do the Republicans, come to think of it...And those 2 parties might even need some strong competition to be possible from one or two other parties, if needed. What American taxpayers don't need is a Republican big-spender monopoly that's not very scared of being defeated in elections. We've recently seen that, and it wasn't pretty....
JMR
I Feel Your Pain!
July 26, 2007 - 15:14 ET by rob6677"We've recently seen that, and it wasn't pretty...."
I'm sorry you feel that way, and I know where you're coming from, but what kind of downward spiral would we be in if "Big Al" was in office? I am certainly happy Bush is the president!
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!" Groucho
I prefer to think of it this
July 27, 2007 - 04:54 ET by sarcasmoI prefer to think of it this way...What kind of upward spiral would we enjoy if AlGore/Kerry & Bush had actual competition from other political parties in a fair political marketplace, instead of a maze of restrictive ballot access laws. Anyway, especially with their recent performance, we certainly don't need even LESS competition for politicans than what little get right now, when most districts aren't even contested in elections despite a hugely-cushy job/paycheck/pension/healthcare-plan for congresscritters.
JMR
I'm with you on this, but
July 27, 2007 - 12:25 ET by rob6677I'm with you on this, but when it comes down to only two candidates on election day, all I can say is republican!
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!" Groucho
It'll never be fair sarc,
July 26, 2007 - 15:06 ET by BeowulfIt'll never be fair sarc, since the publicly targeted outlet is "conservative talk radio". We all know the well documented bias of the MSM would never be challenged by this doctrine.
If it had even the slightest chance of being "fair", there would be no specific targets, especially politically motivated targets.
I, of course, am against the entire concept of government deciding what I see and hear from any media source. This is just one more in a long string of Dems treating the American public like a bunch of infantile children who can't make any decisions for ourselves.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
You're Out!
July 26, 2007 - 14:37 ET by BarkerDo you mean the government can't require a Red Sox fan to be in the Yankees broadcast booth? How unfair!
I can only hope
July 26, 2007 - 14:50 ET by Cape Conservativethat my telephone calls actually did help after all! Sometimes it seems futile, but I refuse to sit idly by any longer - count me out of the "silent" majority and in with the "vocal" majority :~)
The Fairness Doctrine-pulling the wool over the publics eyes
July 26, 2007 - 15:20 ET by TruthtellerThe Fairness Doctrine, in it's latest incarnation, is based on a false premise. It was proposed to shove a boot down the throat of conservative talk radio. In the eyes of the spoon-fed public, this is where the injustice lies; that conservative talk radio gets to weild it's influence, unanswered by differing views.
What the public does not consider, and what Democratic legislators sweep under the rug is the reality. Every airline passenger in the U.S. waits for their flight while watching CNN. Most visitors to McDonalds, watch CNN as they eat. CNN is decidedly left wing in it's interpretation of the news. Then there are the 100 million viewers of Public Television every week. Add to that Public Radio and CBS, NBC and ABC. The latter reach 93% of American households. FoxNews reaches 38%. Sound fair? I wrote about the enormous discrepency that benefits the left, while the public is in the dark about the truth
http://www.livebreatheanddie.com/2007/07/01/liberal-control-of-the-message/