The Fairness Doctrine
The liberals’ re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine is neither puzzling nor unexpected. Immigration is the powder cap that set off this year’s eruption. The Democrats blame the voters’ dislike of amnesty on conservative talk radio. They are now demanding a more balanced voice in this programming format through legislation.
As the topic escalates, keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine was never law, but rather composed of the policies and guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for broadcasters. The government’s right to control content is embedded in the fact that “the public” owns the airwaves the “licensees” use.
Most of the early fairness policies were based on the “scarcity” of outlets. The rules paralleled Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937, which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all political candidates running for office. News programs, interviews and documentaries were not bound by this law. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the FCC’s position.
During the 1980s, the “scarcity” argument became moot. The abundance of news outlets, including cable TV, the popularity of FM broadcasting, and access to the Internet opened an incredible array of vehicles for information dissemination. The FCC issued a Fairness Report in 1985, which concluded the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" on news reporting, and could be in “violation of the First Amendment.” The FCC stepped back.
The Democrats were not deterred by this report. Their renewed efforts to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine were vetoed by Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush. Thus, the Democrats’ current attempt to implement the Fairness Doctrine into legislation is nothing new.
It’s common knowledge that liberal radio talk programs rarely raise or sustain an audience. Why? More than likely because their viewpoints are readily available in most every newspaper, weekly magazine, on the network news broadcasts and on most cable news programs. Plus, the left’s viewpoint dominates most Internet political blogs.
Conservative talk radio's success is the natural outcome of the liberal domination of other mediums which express political viewpoints.
Way back when, some savvy marketer realized the marginalized conservative and moderate voices might rally around talk radio. They did. Sponsors flocked to its popularity. Had the liberal and conservative voices been balanced in other media, talk radio would be a “me to” offering. Balanced news reporting would dramatically shrink its impact.
Because the left sees its opinions re-enforced in 80% to 90% of the media, it is led to believe its thinking is mainstream. Were this true, most all Independents and Democrats would have supported amnesty. But 80% of the population rejected it.
The left’s fervor to cripple talk radio may cause an implosion. The Democrats see the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine as a way to squash political dissent. Americans have witnessed the subjugation of the news outlets in Third World and totalitarian societies. The leftwing of the DNC believes mainstream America is ready to follow suit. We’ll see.
As the topic escalates, keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine was never law, but rather composed of the policies and guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for broadcasters. The government’s right to control content is embedded in the fact that “the public” owns the airwaves the “licensees” use.
Most of the early fairness policies were based on the “scarcity” of outlets. The rules paralleled Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937, which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all political candidates running for office. News programs, interviews and documentaries were not bound by this law. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the FCC’s position.
During the 1980s, the “scarcity” argument became moot. The abundance of news outlets, including cable TV, the popularity of FM broadcasting, and access to the Internet opened an incredible array of vehicles for information dissemination. The FCC issued a Fairness Report in 1985, which concluded the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" on news reporting, and could be in “violation of the First Amendment.” The FCC stepped back.
The Democrats were not deterred by this report. Their renewed efforts to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine were vetoed by Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush. Thus, the Democrats’ current attempt to implement the Fairness Doctrine into legislation is nothing new.
It’s common knowledge that liberal radio talk programs rarely raise or sustain an audience. Why? More than likely because their viewpoints are readily available in most every newspaper, weekly magazine, on the network news broadcasts and on most cable news programs. Plus, the left’s viewpoint dominates most Internet political blogs.
Conservative talk radio's success is the natural outcome of the liberal domination of other mediums which express political viewpoints.
Way back when, some savvy marketer realized the marginalized conservative and moderate voices might rally around talk radio. They did. Sponsors flocked to its popularity. Had the liberal and conservative voices been balanced in other media, talk radio would be a “me to” offering. Balanced news reporting would dramatically shrink its impact.
Because the left sees its opinions re-enforced in 80% to 90% of the media, it is led to believe its thinking is mainstream. Were this true, most all Independents and Democrats would have supported amnesty. But 80% of the population rejected it.
The left’s fervor to cripple talk radio may cause an implosion. The Democrats see the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine as a way to squash political dissent. Americans have witnessed the subjugation of the news outlets in Third World and totalitarian societies. The leftwing of the DNC believes mainstream America is ready to follow suit. We’ll see.
Labels: Democrats, FCC, Republicans, Section 315
posted by David at
6:29 AM
