Broadcast Blackout of Left’s 'Fairness' Doctrine Push

Photo of Rich Noyes.

Barack Obama’s transition team has tapped former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera, a longtime proponent of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," to head the team looking for the man or woman who will soon give Democrats a 3-to-2 advantage on the Federal Communications Commission. [CORRECTION ADDED, 11/14]

It’s another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be described as the "Censorship Doctrine" because of its chilling effect on free speech. In effect from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was an obstacle to open discussion of public policy issues on the radio; its removal in the Reagan years spawned the robust talk radio marketplace of ideas now enjoyed by millions.

While talk radio hosts often warned during the campaign that free speech could be trampled by an all-Democratic majority, the broadcast networks have failed to react to this dangerous threat to the First Amendment. A review shows the broadcast networks — whose affiliates could also be regulated — have failed to run even a single story mentioning the push for a new Fairness Doctrine.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The most recent mention of the Fairness Doctrine was on May 30, 2007, when in an interview on CBS’s The Early Show, Al Gore bizarrely called it a "protection" that was removed during the Reagan years.

But there has been news to report, as Democrats have been more than candid about their plans. On Election Day, for example, New York Senator Charles Schumer justified regulating political speech. "The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air," Schumer told the Fox News Channel. "You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent."

In late October, Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman told a New Mexico radio station how he "hopes" the Fairness Doctrine returns so radio will be more to his liking: "For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Democrats have launched various attempts to control of broadcast content since the Fairness Doctrine’s demise in 1987, but the push has become more insistent in the past couple of years. After the failure of a liberal immigration bill in 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fox News Sunday that she was "looking at" a new Fairness Doctrine because "talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." As with Schumer and Bingaman recently, none of the broadcast networks thought Feinstein’s threats worth reporting.

Journalists aren’t known for turning a blind eye to free speech issues. In 2003, ABC, CBS and NBC ran 33 stories on criticism of the Dixie Chicks for speaking out against President Bush and the Iraq war. ABC’s Jim Wooten darkly warned: "All this has reminded some of the McCarthy Era's blacklists that barred those even accused of communist sympathies for working in films or on television."

When Democrats first pushed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1987-88, both the New York Times and Washington Post came down strongly on the side of free speech. In a June 24, 1987 editorial, the Post called the concept of a Fairness Doctrine repulsive:

"The truth is...that there is no ‘fairness’ whatever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include....The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism — substituting governmental dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive."

Now that the Left is gearing up to suffocate talk radio, the media’s First Amendment solidarity seems to have been eclipsed by their loyalty to the would-be censors of the Democratic Party.

CORRECTION, 11/14: Widespread reports that Henry Rivera would head Obama's FCC transition team turn out to be erroneous. TVNewsday reported on November 14: "Various press reports had said that former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera would lead the team. Rivera is working on the transition, but is leading the team assigned to the National Science Foundation. Rivera may have been bumped from the FCC team because of ethics guidelines. Rivera is a communications attorney at Wiley, Rein with an active practice before the FCC." Instead, the Obama FCC transition will be led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach.

—Rich Noyes is Research Director 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.

The Censorship Doctrine will come back

So we'll just have to go to internet radio :)

Every Republican Must Call it the Censorship Doctrine

In this case, it is important to borrow a propaganda technical and call it the "censorship doctrine".  When talked about on old line media shows, Republicans should insist that it be referred to as the "censorship doctrine"

fairness doctrine

Of course, having control/influence over the media that is in decline,print/television, the dems must silence the only viable option left since that acts as a catalyst for all of us 56 million non believers.  They need to contol communications.  The web alone is simply not enough.  Besides, China has proven that control of the web can be done.  Same excuse, internal security will be used.

They will just find some way

They will just find some way to screw up the internet as well.

Hmm..

I was just reading how Sirius XM is losing more and more money.

Just imagine Rush, Savage, etc on an UNCENSORED global medium.

follow the money!!

CHARLIE The real reason isnt the censorship of ideas, but of less advertisement money. Time some of these talk jock,s and see how they have more commercials than actual discussion. The windbag is the worst, no guest, controlled call ins and old news he pontificates about and no real solutions. On the other hand the left is on all public funded stations outside of, air/amer who suffer because of ad time to sell.

The real reason isnt the

The real reason isnt the censorship of ideas - Stainz Im not sure I understood your points.  The battle is over that of ideas and the medium of transfer.  Radio is taken over by the rightwing coonservative because they are forced to do so.  NPR and affiliates have shut out the conservative idea and message.  Some comes through but only from their pet reporters and they are controlled in what they say.  All of the media including TV and newspapers are that way also.

So the only avenue available was radio as there are plenty of fairly inexpensive satitions.  They sell airtime and teh sponsors, unlike Air America, want teh most bang for their buck.  So you need listeners which the talk radio format has.

Talk radio caters to a certain people and they come to hear like voices they dont hear in other media.  Sulf sustaining and capitalistic and that is why teh left desnt like it.  They cant compete with their message because people dont want to hear it, or lets say there are not enough people taht buy teh products of teh sponsors.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

'A' Hat STANSZ

Rush Limbaugh puts out more useful information in one minute than you will hear on an hour of NPR or Air un-American.  You might not like it, somehow I doubt you listen to Rush, but he has a larger listening audience than any of the Libflops out there.  Net result he can charge his sponsors significant dollars and there is a long line of advertisers ready to buy time there.

 Facts are facts, money talks and BS walks.

IN IT FOR THE DOUGH!!

CHARLIE who HE GOLFS WITH !!, is information?. The guy has lost all creditability when he was caught popping pills. He is to blame for most of the republicans losses as that,s why they never were heard from on issues as they figured they had the commercial queen doing the work for them. The guy is just a big coward and fraud and will not be able to go mano/e/mano so he will fade from the scene.  

The guy has lost all

The guy has lost all creditability when he was caught popping pills.

Only in Liberaland does an aquired addiction to prescription medication equal recreational drug use.

"The windbag is the worst,

"The windbag is the worst, no guest, controlled call ins and old news he pontificates about and no real solutions."

So, the guy who gets the best ratings, attracts the most listeners, and makes the most money is the worst of them all? The talk show host you call "windbag" is the one that, according to you, talks the least.

Interesting.

Rush should really wise up and do things differently, you know, since what he does now doesn't seem to be working for him. If he were smart, he would talk more and sell less advertising, or, for those in Rio Linda, he should work more for less.

go to internet radio AND....

.....AND we find a way to hold MSM to the VERY same "standards!!" It works both ways, folks. Put Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh et al. right there on CBS, NBC, and ABC -- every single night! THAT'll work just fine for me!

Un-Fairness Doctrine

We must rise up against this...I heard a great story yesterday on Glenn Beck..I wish I knew who he was talking to for reference, but the woman said that an unexpected result of the removal of the Un-Fairness Doctrine was an increase in book sales. Turns out those who listen to talk radio are also big Readers. When Rush touted a book on his show in the early 90's that the NYT had given a poor review...the book rose to the top of Book sales...thus beginning the trend of writers bringing their books to Talk Radio to market.

 

http://www.withbias.net

Will the Fairness Doctrine Clean up the MSM

Why won't a fairness doctrine apply to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN?  If that happens Republicans will have an opportunity to clean up the main stream media.

"Why won't a fairness

"Why won't a fairness doctrine apply to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN?"

 

Because liberals will decide what is fair and what is not.

I accidently saw Glen Beck

I accidently saw Glen Beck on some fatuous morning show today.  I was somewhat disappointed in his comment that we as a country are facing very difficult times and all of us need to support our President (...pardon me as I throw up...OK...) and that no matter how we voted, the deed is done and we should try to unify.

What the HECK does UNIFY mean!?  Is that where we all suck it up and buy the entire line of excrement being laid down by the socialists in charge?  Why do supposed conservatives get so mealy-mouthed?

I'm not saying he should have suggested a revolution (since that's SO left-wing, anyway) but why not just not say anything rather than parrot the nauseating "unify" crap?

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that "unify" and "reach accross" or "come together" always and only means "buy the entire liberal agenda and get rid of any hope that even a smigeon of your cause get's in"

Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."

fairness doctrine

Helen S got it right.  Bush's Presidency proved what "crossing the aisle" gets you. Talk radio must be silenced in order to keep us "non-believers in exile" in control and from mounting any viable opposition.  This sure isn't what those brave men who stood at Lexington and Concord died for.  233 years was a long run. RIP America.

Rush Limbaugh

The only person on the radio for me is Rush Limbaugh. He has a consistent message: the problem with most Americans is that they do not understand the "liberal". These calls for "unity" are simply a surrender to the enemy within. If you are a conservative, and you subscribe to the conservative way of life, Barry Obama is your enemy. He will work against everything you believe in and hold dear. He will fight you, so why are you giving up fighting him? The way I see it, people like Glen Beck have been bought off. Any conservative who tells you to support the Chicago thug and his henchmen is looking out for himself, plain and simple. Don't let the likes of Glen Beck (or Rush for that matter) have undue influence on you. Think for yourself or you have nothing. Where do you stand on infanticide, free speech, affirmative action, weak foreign policy, illegal immigration, government bailouts, etc.? Where do Barry and his pals stand on these issues? Resist the calls for "unity"; they are simply cries for capitulatiion, and the surest way to lose all your freedom. Barry Obama got a vote from 60+ million out of 300 million people in America. No mandate, and no reason to give into his message of "change".

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

I don't think "unity" means

I don't think "unity" means you have to cave on every single issue. To me it means you try to work with the other side of the aisle, and try to reach compromises that are for the good of the country, to not get caught up in being partisan just for partisanship's sake.

Now, having said that, I don't know that any administration has truly been able to accomplish this feat.

With respect, I disagree

Bal, you’re right about the headline-grabbing ideological issues, but the smaller wars come with staff and appointments. They're calling for unity to erode any opposition to nominees. For the next couple of years Obama can nominate whoever he wants, and they’ll sail through without a whiff of opposition. 

I still argue that the Bork nomination was the watershed moment in partisan politics. The shameful opposition to Bork sparked a war, and the Republicans couldn’t get their nominees out of committee. That provoked the first Bush to nominate only shadow candidates and surprises (i.e., Souter). They didn’t think even the Democrats would oppose Clarence Thomas, and they were astonished when the Democrats did.

  • The GOP retaliated in the Clinton years, and we could argue how much. But when Bush 43 came along, everyone agrees it became a pure stonewall. There are reports that departments are dangerously understaffed simply because the Democrats have blocked every nomination, no matter how vital.

  • One of the reasons Bush 43 is considered to be so ineffective, besides his own bumbling, is that he has almost zero influence on the levers of government. A lot of that is due to the fact that he doesn’t have any of his people in key places, and that comes from Democrat opposition. 

  • Since Obama will get his nominees confirmed without opposition, as a result, Obama will appear to be a much better manager. He has no executive skills, really, but he will appear to be better, simply because he’ll have a staff and officers who actually obey him, rather than undermine him as they did for Bush 43.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see it coming. The media will praise Obama as a “surprisingly” effective administrator. But he's installing the Clinton crew. My guess is that we'll have a pre-9/11 foreign policy.

I hope not with the same consequences.

Kind of like Nancy Pelosi's

Kind of like Nancy Pelosi's "unity" speech right before the initial bailout vote. Right?

Now that's what I call leading by example.

"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain

unity

I say we give them the same level of respect and unity they gave bush ,zero! they attacked bush on nov4 2000 and still continue too. so obamas fair game as far as Iam concerned.

DITTO

Carbon Credits Smoke'em if you got'em!

Glen Beck

I listen regularly to Glen (I actually download the show via podcast), so I think I can say with authority that this is not what Glen means.  What he is saying is that we have to respect the office of the president.  The last eight years have been characterized by the most vicious, petty, divisive rhetoric coming from this country in it's history.  The administration started with  absolutely abhorrent behavior being perpetrated by the previous administration (anyone remember how all the w's were missing from the keyboards?), and continued in this vein for the entire time.  Glen is saying that we need to be the bigger people - the adults in this conversation.  Don't attack Obama just for being in the office.  Watch, observe, verify, righteously and peacefully work against the decisions that you believe are wrong for this country.    Work to expose the untruths, the half truths, the double speak without coming off as one who just spouts the talking points without checking your brain first.  Glen is as disgusted as any of us, and believes that this country is on the wrong path.  But we won't get anywhere stomping our feet, whining, and criticizing Obama's every move -- even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Choose the decisions that have the most importance, and work to make sure that these things do not pass.  If we imitate the hateful left, we won't get anywhere, because they control the media, and thus the perception of our behavior.  We will have to work twice as hard and behave in a way that can leave no interpretation to our message in order to succeed.

He means don't be a

He means don't be a hypocrit like the left did with Bush.  Basically disagree with him on policies and behavior, because they are bad ideas and what not.  Pray for Obama that he will make righteous and wise decisions. 

Glenn see us as Americans not this group vs that group.

Glenn did not mean we must bow down to Obama and accept socialism and rip the constitution.

Leftists file Chapter 11

Once again this demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt the Left is and the fact that they have been for a long time.  See, they cannot confront Limbaugh's or Hannity's (or whoever's) ideas head-on intellectually, so their only response is a demand that they immediately SHUT UP. 

Correct me if I am wrong: aren't the same people who consistently, constantly demand that any political opposition to them SHUT UP the same people who have whined that the past eight years has been an evil dictatorship under which their freedoms are getting taken away?

"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!!  A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)

Gotti

I remember when John Gotti used to give huge parties in his New York neighborhood. Hundreds of "law-abiding" citizens would give up their principles, come out and enjoy the fun. But the next day they would once again be under the thumb of Gotti and his thugs. No freedom in that neighborhood, unless you did just as you were told. There simply was no such thing as "bi-partisan" because Gotti wanted it all his way. If anyone believes that there will be anything remotely resembling bi-partisanship in an Obama reign, I've got that bridge in Brooklyn still for sale. Barry chose Rob Emanuel, a rabid partisan, as his chief of staff, for crying out loud. Do "conservatives" just love to be kicked in the pants? Scheeze!

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

well said great example dont

well said great example dont give an inch and justify his leftist agenda

Air America failed because

Air America failed because their target audience does not exist in sufficient numbers on the left to sustain that type of programming.  [Warning: Huge Generalization to Follow!]  The left leaning individual in this country falls into three categories: someone with a hand out, who directly benefits from the liberal agenda of welfare and medical assistance; blue collar workers following the dictates of union bosses; and the uber-educated psuedo-intellectual products of our liberal arts colleges.  The first group doesn't listen to talk radio, because they're in a bar spending that money they say they don't have on cigarettes and booze.  The jukebox is what's playing there.  The second group watches NASCAR and football on the weekends, not because they're un-intelligent, but to put a little excitement into their routine.  The third group is either too busy being educated or too above the mundane pursuit of talk radio.  In any case, they are too small of demographic to sustain libtalk.  The incredible shrinking markets of Air America proves this out.  They can't even maintain by stealing money from youth groups. 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

In this day and age

In this day and age of thousands of  radio and television channels on broadcast, cable, and satellite with multi-tiered packages to allow the consumer to select what they want to hear and see, with more digital, high-definition channels being added to both mediums every day, the call for a fairness doctrine can only be seen as Big Brother.  This is a blatant call to stifle any opinion counter to their beliefs.  The Left will now seek to solidify their position by supressing any dissent.  Any lib who cannot honestly see that is really too stupid to be allowed to vote.  Maybe there is a need for a few of these idiots to have a true fairness doctrine, providing all views in one place, because they keep taking the knobs off their TVs and radios and loosing them in the sandbox during playtime.  To those libs I say, "The knobs are round and uniform.  Those irregular lumpy things came from the cat."   

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

I hope we will choose to defend this hill...

I hope we will defend this hill because if we don't, it will lead to what Europe is now facing. It's time.

RADIO FREE EUROPE-RADIO FREE USA

seems like we will be the folks under the thumb.

vear ar your papers!!!

instead of a Star of David on ones chest-it will be a big R

with the civil force(Gestapo) looking into your activities.

fire up the radio and listen in the basement!!!

 

 allow me to Love America

 

my take --

1. I think the people who listen to talk radio will make a stink about this, or at least they should.

2. Rush & Sean will find a way, even if it's on satellite or free podcasts. They will not fail to exist. And I will follow them wherever.

3. I cannot believe the blatant censorship that appeals to the Left. These people are truly haters of freedom and democracy if they support this. It's un-American, plain and simple.

4. This scares the hell out of me. Animal Farm, anyone? I am 31 and I do NOT feel good about the future of my country.  

 

 

I'll give your President the same respect you gave mine.

Another reason

Long time reader...first time poster.

IMO, Air America also failed because they simply weren't entertaining to listen to.  Too many of their hosts relied solely on incessant Bush-bashing, trashing Republicans/Conservatives, etc...thinking that would be enough to attract and retain an audience.

They didn't realize that a big part of Rush Limbaugh's success lies in his ability to entertain, as well as inform, his audience.  Rush spent many years in radio honing his craft, long before the launch of his current show 20 years ago.  He knows what it takes to be successful in radio.

ConservativeHokie

Long time reader...first time poster.

Welcome to NB!!!

I can't figure out the

I can't figure out the problem the Dems have with Right Voices on Radio....Surely they could ask their buddy, Soros, for $$ to get more lefty talkers on radio??

 

Oh, and I think this may not play so well with the college kids...trampling Free Speech.  Rush, Hannity, Ingrham need to post flyers (pics of students w/red duct tape covering their mouths) on campus' and get this on MySpace, pronto!!

"Oh, and I think this may

"Oh, and I think this may not play so well with the college kids...trampling Free Speech. "

You give college kids too much credit. They voted for the new thug-in-chief in overwhelming numbers, and typically idolize the likes of Che Guevera and Fidel Castro, not exactly poster children of the free speech movement. 

No, as long as it isn't THEIR speech, they're just fine with trampling Free Speech. 

Fairness Doctrine Would Apply To Satellite Radio

If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, it will also apply to satellite radio. This attempt at censorship is part of a greater effort to destroy all dissent of the Liberal Messiah. Liberals will not care about the means by which the dissent is being broadcast.

Repeal... I have heard

Repeal...

I have heard the opposite...that it cannot get it paws on satellite.

Fill me in please...I, very, much want to know.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT: me too

I heard too that satellite is out of bounds.  If anyone knows otherwise please advise.  The unfairness doctrine should at least allow us to pay for what we want to listen to.  Pretty soon we'll be listening to Rush on VOA and having it piped in from Tibet! 

It's America, not Omerica

 

Good morning BT and TheAssessor

No matter what the doctrine applies to, what worries me is what a more liberal SCOTUS will make it apply to. More and more I regret that America told Jesus to get out. I believe that more of us have to invite Him back. Something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Guess who rushed in when Jesus left.

Coco

Amen to that Coco.   

It's America, not Omerica

 

Fairness (aka Censorship) Doctrine

I work in radio, and have been keeping a close eye on this issue.  As far as I can tell, it would only apply to broadcast radio, not satellite.

Of course that won't stop the libs from trying to find a way to make it apply - to satellite, cable, internet, and whatever else they want to control. 

Some of the trade publications I read say the Fairness Doctrine has little chance of being reinstated.  Because there are often more than two sides to many issues, it would be extremely difficult to comply with or enforce.  I hope they're correct.

Please explain..

How can the Firness Doctrine possibly apply to Satellite Radio?  The Libs may want it to apply but it would take an Admendment for that to be the case.

Credibility

Those on the left are very forgiving of their own leaders failings but hyper critical of the failings of those with opinions they do not agree with.

Nobody seems to care that Al Gore uses enough electricity to power a small town, yet he is supposed to be a spokeperson for energy abuse. He is, however the message he delivers is different than what he intends.

John Edwards is a great spokesman for the Two Americas? Which is the one in which it is ok to father a child out of wedlock? On the same subject, Jesse Jackson anyone?

Leftists attacked Governor Palin for everything they could imagine yet the very real and scary associations of Barrack Hussein Obama are ignored as if character does not count.

Rush may have his failings but he is more honorable than the nightly "news" talking heads. Limbaugh is honest about his presentations being editorials. The big media won't admit they are not reporting the news but spinning it.