The Republicans in the 110th Congress are going to learn a painful lesson. As well they should. They got arrogant. They thought they were invulnerable. They thought it would last forever. They were wrong.
But we have to do more than merely punish them. We need to prevent this sort of nonsense from returning. This is a nuts and bolts sort of issue. It may not be sexy, but you know what happens to that sexy whip you're driving at 80 mph when the lug nuts come off a tire? It quickly becomes a burning hunk of twisted metal. So if you want sexy, sometimes you gotta pay attention to the nuts and bolts.
The recent win against KSFO convinces me the time is right to raise an issue I've been pushing for years. Congress, like any public institution, is a creature of the surrounding community so my focus today is on restoring a community institution. We need to restore the Fairness Doctrine, a firewall designed to protect us from the kind of poison Clear Channel has been shoveling into people's ears for years. If you think the Fairness Doctrine is for losers who can't compete in the marketplace of ideas without help from big gum'mint, then you drank the kool-aid.
Let me introduce you to the antidote...
The Fairness Doctrine (a brief history)
Here are some excerpts from the Museum of Broadcast Communications:
The policy ... that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" [was] an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.
This doctrine was promoted in an existing context of dynamic change.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.
The use (and abuse) of mass media for political purposes is as old as the printing press. So it is no surprise that the Communications Act of 1934 had included section 315 which required equal opportunity to all legally qualified political candidates for any office.
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937[sic] which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.
That last line is where we pick up the story....flash forward some thirty years.
The Death of The Fairness Doctrine
Reagan is in the White House and deregulation is all the rage. In 1985 the FCC issued a report saying the "scarcity" argument no longer applied. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Meredith Corp. v. FCC that since the doctrine was not a congressional mandate, the FCC exceeded its authority enforcing it. Reagan issued an executive order killing it. Congress tried to reinstitute by legislation that actually passed in both the House and Senate. But Reagan vetoed and killed it again. When Bush Sr. was in office, Congress again passed legislation reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, but he vetoed it as well.
It is no accident that this period marks the beginning of Right-Wing Talk Radio. No less a luminary than Richard Viguerie (known as the "Funding Father" of the Conservative Movement) has repeatedly credited this move with the birth of right-wing radio and cable TV.
Consider the career of Rush Limbaugh. Although he first went on the air around 1984, Limbaugh's big break came after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. He changed his format and was syndicated in 1988. Things really took off ten years later when Limbaugh's radio syndicator merged with Premiere Radio Networks. Then, in 1999, Premier merged with Clear Channel Communications. At that point, the dual threat of unbalanced coverage and media concentration finally was an established fact.
About the same time, FOX News was getting started. This was intentionally set up by Rupert Murdoch to counter what he perceived as a generally liberal bias in American media. He chose Roger Ailes as head of the network. Ailes is a well-regarded media executive with impeccable conservative credentials. He formerly produced Rush Limbaugh's show and also served as political strategist to both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
The consequence of this warping of discourse has been clear. We all remember the dramatic turn-around the media took from being Clinton's wolf pack to being Bush's lap dog. It was no accident. We all watched in disgust as formerly balanced discussions shifted from left vs. right to right vs. fascist. The final nail in the coffin was the case from Florida's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In February 2003, mere weeks before we invaded Iraq, the owners of FOX News convinced the appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling against them by arguing they could not be held responsible for violating the FCC news distortion policy since it was not a "law, rule or regulation" that was legally binding. The court agreed and the whistle-blower claim that FOX intentionally distorted its reporting was overruled.
Note: That argument was precisely the same argument Reagan used to issue his executive order killing the Fairness Doctrine.
A Clear and Present Danger
I don't need to revisit the litany of lies, distortions, propaganda, and informational warfare tactics that have been visited upon the American public over the last few years. Suffice to say, it is well past time to put an end to this travesty. We need to clean up the airwaves and restore civility, accuracy, accountability, and diversity to the discussion.
A recent twist in this sordid tale has been the rise of the notion that corporations have 1st Amendment rights which they can exercise through the use of paid political advertising. I'm not going to get into the whole legal fiction of corporations as individuals. That is a separate topic, but I don't think I need to belabor the point of how distorting that doctrine can be to public discourse. If you really need an example consider these two words: "Swift Boating."
This new development raises a crucial issue that has to be addressed in any reform. There is a lot of money to be had by TV affiliate stations in running paid political advertising. For example, EW Scripps, in their quarterly revenue report for April 2005 noted, "[T]otal revenue was down 4.5 percent to $72.3 million during the first quarter, primarily because of the lack of political advertising revenue. Political advertising revenue during the same period in 2004 was $4.2 million." That is just one company talking about one quarter of operations. It is clear that addressing this problem of concentrated corporate, political, and media power is going to require the clout of a governmental institution. Specifically, the Congress. Fortunately, there are two vehicles worth considering that can help drain this swamp. Both were introduced in 2005, neither made it out of committee. It is time to push them to the floor for a vote.
Resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine: With TEETH
H.R. 3302: A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent excessive concentration of ownership of the nation's media outlets, to restore fairness in broadcasting, and to foster and promote localism, diversity, and competition in the media; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 501: A bill to enforce the public interest obligations of broadcast station licensees to their local communities; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The first was introduced by Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and had sixteen co-sponsors. The second was introduced by Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and had twenty-three co-sponsors. If anyone knows how to create stable links to Thomas for embedding, tell me how to link to these directly. Short of that, you can go to Thomas and search the 109th Congress by the bill number for details. NOTE: you must select "Bill Number" from the drop down menu when you do the search by bill number.
Here's the bottom line: If you have been following Spocko's foray against the echo chamber, if you recommended WinSmith's recent entry, if you have ever found yourself screaming at the TV, if you are tired of watching the media used as a tool to manipulate and degrade the republic, now is the time to act. Contact your representatives. Tell them to support the return of fairness, civility, accountability, and responsibility to the public airwaves.
I know that Louise Slaughter visits us occasionally, so here's a gentle prod...
REINTRODUCE AND PASS HR 501 AND HR 3302
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.....