Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reinstituting this archaic edict.
As NewsBusters reported on June 30, such an amendment overwhelmingly passed in the House a few weeks ago by the tally of 309 to 115.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats didn’t even want to debate this issue, and, instead, lead by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), objected.
For those interested, an unofficial transcript of Coleman and Durbin’s exchange – which marvelously depicts the differences in how liberals and conservatives view the Fairness Doctrine – follows (video available here):
Presiding Officer: The Senator From Minnesota.
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.
Presiding Officer: Is there objection? The objection is heard.
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I am disappointed that an objection has been raised. I intended to offer amendment 2189. It's at the desk, the Coleman-DeMint-Thune-Inhofe amendment prohibiting the F.C.C. From reinstating The Fairness Doctrine. Let me just tell a little bit of what we intend to do. I'm not asking if a vote here. I'm not asking for any kind of limitations in time. I just want an amendment to be put in the queue an amendment, an issue which the house dealt with and in the house this bill passed with over 300 votes in favor and 113 votes by the democrats, 309-115 and it would say that the F.C.C. Would not be able to reinstate the fairness doctrine. It says, and I'll read "The commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or promulgating in whole or in part the requirement that broadcasters, including the arms forces network present opposing viewpoints and controversial issues of public importance commonly referred to as the fairness doctrine."
First, Mr. President, there is nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said it is time to reinstate the fairness doctrine. We have troops putting their lives on the line and part of what we protect in this country is the first amendment, freedom of speech. The fairness amendment is a relic of a bygone past and tossed on the around heap of history in 1947, it was it place from 1949 to 1987. In effect the federal government monitors what is said on the other side of the aisle have said it is time to reinstate the fairness doctrine. We have troops putting their lives on the line and part of what we protect in this country is the first amendment, freedom of speech. The Fairness Amendment is a relic of a bygone past and tossed on the around heap of history in 1947, it was it place from 1949 to 1987. In effect the federal government monitors what is said on the airways and then they must present balance.
The effect was much different than that. Much different than that. In fact, it stifled speech. You're a broadcaster, you owned a station and you're subject to fine, some kind of penalty if you don't provide the kind of balance that the government says you must provide, then you run the risk of some kind of penalty. You may well choose -- and, in fact history showed what happened -- you may well choose simply to play country music. And I love country music. But I also love free speech. And we don't want to put in place anything that stifles free speech. We've moved from 1949, when you had a few TV stations and -- and the information that you got came from a relatively few sources -- to a world today in which we have broadband and high-speed internet and satellites and blogs and a whole range of information. And that's a good thing. That's a good thing. In the end, we in this body have to respond, have to listen to the voices of the people and we want an informed and educated citizenship. And we want them to get diverse views. And the reality, Mr. President, in part why this issue even comes up because of concerns from my friends on the other side of the aisle that talk radio show is dominated by conservatives. One may argue that perhaps broadcast journalism may be dominated by liberals. There have been studies that have shown that. But for us, we shouldn't care in terms of whether it's dominated and at the response of the government coming in and try to somehow measure or regulate.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a question?
Mr. Coleman: I will yield.
Mr. Durbin: I would ask the senator if he believes in the interest of an educated electorate, whether he thinks Americans could hear both sides of the story, a kind of fair and balanced approach when it comes to information?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I absolutely believe that Americans should hear both sides. Absolutely. But I believe -- strongly should not be in the position of believe -- that the government deciding and dictating -- now here is the other side. There is -- we have in the -- in the world of communications today, Americans have all sorts of options to hear the other side. All they got to do is turn a dial. All they've got to do is push a button. All they've got to do is press a mouse. And they have that ability.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a further question?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I yield to a question.
Mr. Durbin: Does the senator concede that the airwaves belong to the American people?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I concede the airwaves belong to the American people.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a further question?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I yield for a further question.
Mr. Durbin: Would the Senator concede that those who use the people's airwaves to make a profit have to do it with a license from our government?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I -- I understand and agree that we have a licensing process.
Mr. Durbin: Would the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I will yield and I would yield for the senator from Illinois to present the entire question so that I can continue with -- with maintaining the floor and discussing amendment.
Mr. Durbin: And I'm not trying to delay the Senator from Minnesota. I concede that since the fairness doctrine has been set aside under the regular reagan administration, things have changed in broadcast journal in many other aspects of journalism. I just want to make sure -- I haven't seen the senator's amendment. I sense i know what it might be leading to. But I want to make sure that the premise is something that we may agree on. The airwaves belong to the American people. Those who profit from them do by permission of the people through their government. And that those who use those airwaves should do it responsibly and should seek to provide both points of view, both sides of the story so that Americans can reach a decision. I'd ask the Senator from Minnesota if he disagrees with any of those things.
Mr. Coleman: Here's what I -- Mr. President, I would say to my -- to my learned colleague from Illinois, here's our point of disagreement. There is no question, in fact, that there's a licensing process process. I was a former mayor. We licensed a lot of things. But I think one of the basic principles at stake is that we don't license and measure content when it comes to speech. And that's my concern. That, in fact, because of the multiplicity of -- of communications options that are available to citizens today -- as I said before, blogs and internet and broad broadband and satellite which we didn't have -- didn't have 20, 30 years ago. Where my objection lies and the importance of this amendment is to say government shouldn't be monitoring and regulating content. We're not talking about obscenity. There are things that the senator from Illinois that government has an absolute right to -- to monitor or to deal with. But we're not talking about -- when we get to content, and that's my concern, that those who have raised the issue "bring back the fairness doctrine," are bringing it back. And the cry then is to regulate content and that's what i object to.
Mr. Durbin: If I could ask the senator to yield further to a question. There was a recent episode within the last two years where the public broadcasting corporation took a show off the air by Bill Moyers and wanted to replace it with a show offered by The Wall Street Journal." And there were complaints obviously that Mr. Moyers was too liberal in content. Does the senator from Minnesota believe that that was a fair outcome or would he concede it would be a fairer outcome to allow the American people to watch both shows by The Wall Street Journal and Bill Moyers and to hear both points of view and decide what they agreed with?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, two observations. First, I'm thrilled that I'm having this discussion with the senator from Illinois. And -- and my concern is, I just offered an amendment which was objected to. I believe had the amendment not been objected to, we would have time for a full debate on this amendment. And the Senator from Illinois, I know the Senator from South Dakota has a great interest in this issue. I presume that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Massachusetts, Junior Senator from Massachusetts, has raised concerns about the fairness -- that we should reinstate the fairness doctrine, has said that publicly. I would love to have this debate debate. And yet I stand here offering an amendment, it's objected to which will limit the debate and so we're having this -- this colloquy. And I appreciate that and will respond.
But I'm disappointed that the other side of the aisle will not give us an opportunity for a full debate on this issue. In fact, I think -- I want all sides to be heard. What I don't want and where the fundamental disagreement is for the regulatory power of government to sit in judgment as big brother, to oversee and take stock with pencil and pad and take notes, well, we had Sean Hannity over here and now we've got to get somebody on the left over there. Balance should be heard but we have a marketplace that provides that opportunity. We have folks who support the Senator from Illinois's perspective. We have folks who support my perspective. Sometimes we're the same. But for government to dictate, that's the concern. That's why the -- that's why the F.C.C. Got rid of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. It's why the Supreme Court has raised questions about the necessity of the fairness doctrine. I don't think it's constitutional. We haven't got to that question.
Mr. Durbin: Would the senator yield for a question?
Mr. Coleman: I would yield to one further question.
Mr. Durbin: I'm sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the -- a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I'll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not -- does not -- have the responsibility.
Mr. Durbin: If I could ask the Senator to yield further to a question. There was a recent episode within the last two years where the public broadcasting corporation took a show off the air by Bill Moyers and wanted to replace it with a show offered by the The Wall Street Journal. And there were complaints obviously that Mr. Moyers was too liberal in content. Does the Senator from Minnesota believe that that was a fair outcome or would he concede it would be a fairer outcome to allow the American people to watch both shows by The Wall Street Journal and Bill Moyers and to hear both points of view and decide what they agreed with?
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I'll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not -- does not -- have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That's what the first amendment is about. It's exactly what the first amendment is about. Government's not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network tv stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance.
But now we're in 2007. We're at a time where we've got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be -- I -- I can't even conceive -- I can't even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end -- in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that's okay and I think it's very dangerous, okay. I say to my -- my friend from Illinois, I think it's very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what's fair and balanced.
Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned -- hopefully learned individuals who've the great humble opportunity to serve in the U.S. Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a first amendment is that we get government out of -- out of the -- the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that's my concern. And that's what this amendment is about. And I would love to have the debate with the Senator from Illinois. I would have hoped that this amendment would simply have been put in the queue, would have been heard. I think Americans love a fair fight. I think Americans love this kind of dialogue.
There's nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. There's nothing fair -- if the intent here really -- and I think we've got to lay it on the table -- the intent of this is to kind of shut down or to limit the -- the, you know, conservative talk radio. That's where the concern is. And yet, as I said before, one can raise questions about balance in the print media, one can raise questions about balance in the broadcast media. But I don't think it's the role of government to be sitting there listening and then weighing, deciding what's fair and balanced and then requiring under personality a broadcaster to say you have -- penalty a broadcaster to say you have to present this opposing point of view. Because what's going to happen,
Mr. President -- and history has shown this -- broadcasters are simply going to say let's do something else why be in that position that there's a line that maybe crossed and I don't know what that line is? That line may change depend on who's sitting there as an F.C.C. Chair. And again, as I said before, beyond the market principle -- excuse me, first amendment principles, there are market principles. Talk radio has flourished because the market, the consumer says I want to listen. And they have then been given choices. They can simply turn off the dial, turn - turn off the dial, turn the -- shut off the radio. It has flourished. And that's because of demand, not because of the government. Not because of government command, not because of government control.
We don't want the government regulating content. Like never before, Americans have a wealth of information, a viewpoint thanks to cable, television, radio and internet. And that's a good thing. And let it flourish. John Kennedy stated, "we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let's. Its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Mr. President, I'm not afraid of -- of the people. I'm not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That's the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the F.C.C. is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
