Thread: Unfairness Doctrine

Unfairness Doctrine
By Rich Galen
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca) said on Sunday that she thought it would be a good idea if the Congress would pass a law bringing back what used to be known as "The Fairness Doctrine."

It is a perfectly horrid idea.

Dear Mr. Mullings:

"Perfectly horrid?" What, did you recently watch The Princess Bride or something?

Signed,
The National Association of Thursday Night Bowling Leagues

Ok. Not "perfectly horrid." How about …

That's an idea that stinks out loud.

Not perfect, but better. Much better.

On Fox News Sunday this past weekend, Feinstein, according to Broadcasting & Cable Magazine said that "talk radio is one-sided and 'explosive.' She said it 'pushes people, I think, to extreme views without a lot of information.'"


Which sounds much like she's describing the Senate Floor debate on the immigration bill, but maybe that's just me.


The basic law covering the use of radio waves in the United States - including everything from radar to your local disc jockey - is built on the Communications Acts of 1934 and 1937 which, in turn, were based on the Radio Act of 1927.


Part of those laws included Section 315 which provided for equal time - or more precisely - equal opportunity for all legally qualified candidates for public office.


This was back in the time when newspapers were openly partisan. It was not at all unusual to have one newspaper in Upper Iguana named the UI Democrat; and another named the Republican Iguanian. And they really were partisan.


Because there are a finite number of licenses available for AM, FM and Television broadcasting it was decided that if a radio station made time available for sale to candidate A in the race for City Council, it had to make the same amount of time available at the same rates to Candidate B.


If Candidate B was underfunded, there was no requirement that the station give him time to match what Candidate A bought; merely that Candidate B have the same opportunity.

According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

The Federal Communications Commission 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.

In the way of Washington, the FCC later determined that it was not enough to afford reasonable opportunities for such discussions, but the stations had an obligation to "actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."


This was not a law but a regulation of the FCC. Came the Reagan era and deregulation was all the rage. On of the regulations which was dee'd was the Fairness Doctrine.


Twice Democrat-controlled Congress tried to pass a law re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine, twice it was vetoed - once by President Reagan and once by President George H.W. Bush.


The realities of broadcasting are: The market tends to work. If a local radio station thinks it will get better ratings (more people listening, hence higher ad rates, hence more income) by airing Rush Limbaugh, then will rush Rush to air.


If it thinks it will make its numbers by airing Air America, then it is free to do that.


The Fairness Doctrine would, in effect, require a station airing Limbaugh to air a Liberal talk show for the same amount of time. There is no requirement on the listeners to hang around, however, so it is likely that higher ad rates will be paid for Limbaugh than for Ben Mankiewicz on Air America.

Who?

Exactly.

It is true that there are a finite number of broadcast licenses. It is also true that with 1,873 cable channels on TV and XM/Sirius satellite radio there is no shortage of choices for Americans who want to watch or listen to news or what passes for news.


It is also true that there are a finite number of hours in the day and forcing Americans to listen to or watch programming in which they have no interest - because people in Congress think they know what's best - is what's worst.


Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives for about 15 years, Republicans for 12. The Senate is even closer.


Sounds pretty fair to me.


Once again, the Congress thinks it has a solution and is looking for a problem to fit it.




Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich and writes at Mullings.com

Be the first to read Rich Galen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.



http://www.townhall.com/Common/Print.aspx

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca) said on Sunday that she thought it would be a good idea if the Congress would pass a law bringing back what used to be known as "The Fairness Doctrine."

This old bag of hot air. She is in bad need of a good laxative.

I'm still trying to find a role call of who voted for this bill and who voted against it.

Does anyone have it? If not, I'll keep searching. I am really interested in finding out how my Senators voted.

CCUSA

Here you go:

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/sena ... n0507.html

Don't Hispanics / Latinos have their own radio programs?? Haven't blatantly pro-immigration Hispanic radio jockies been mentioned on this forum??

Aren't those radio programs "explosive" and "pushy"??

I guess they can be explosive and pushy without being "explosive" and "pushy".

Originally Posted by Bismarck

Don't Hispanics / Latinos have their own radio programs?? Haven't blatantly pro-immigration Hispanic radio jockies been mentioned on this forum??

Aren't those radio programs "explosive" and "pushy"??

Yes!

These are very good points. If the Doctrine gets forced on us, I bet they exempt Spanish-language radio shows from the so-called fairness rules, just like they exempt the illegals from all our other laws.

Duh

Thanks Pjr40.

I'm looking through the page and I still can't find the results for Rep. Pences bill to stop reinstating the fairness doctrine that passed the House. This is great news for Americans. Our radio and internet won't be silenced.

What gets me is how much true news we are getting from MSM. Do we ever hear of accidents caused by illegal aliens, are they keeping up with the progress on the border fence or interior enforcement, the NAU, reporting on the underhanded tricks of our congress or Bush, I don't think so.

Maybe its time to tear down and break up these big corporations they have let happen in the media. The news stations give us nothing of substance and when they get on a subject man can they run it into the ground!!

This 'fairness act" is a number one issue because they are trying to shut us up/ I hope California throws that woman out of office!

The Don Imus debacle was a wake-up call. I'm convinced the Hillary hatchet machine was behind Sharpton's attack. Imus detested Hillary, would not allow her on his program, and attacked her viciously. Called her Satan! Like him or not, his unceremonial firing was an omen of things to come.

However, the People spoke on Thursday and Feinstein et al is going to have one heck of a battle ahead of her!!! It's not going to happen!!!