From start, Fairness Doctrine was about silencing opposition
Kennedy aide said: 'We had massive strategy to challenge, harass right-wing broadcasters'
WASHINGTON – While Democrats in Congress claim they are only seeking balance, accuracy and truth with renewed calls for the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, history shows government enforcement of the broadcast rule was selective, heavy-handed and used purposely to squelch political opposition – by both Democrats and Republicans.
According to a Heritage Foundation report, President Richard Nixon, facing a hostile press, began a systematic campaign of harassment of radio and TV stations considered unfriendly to his administration.
But Nixon hardly invented the idea of using the Fairness Doctrine to stifle debate and criticism of government policies.
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce in President John F. Kennedy's administration, candidly recalled the way the doctrine was used in the early 1960s.
(Story continues below)
"We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue," he explained in Fred Friendly's 1976 book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment."
That strategy was developed in 1962 when Kennedy's plans for approval of a nuclear test ban treaty by the U.S. Senate were facing sustained attack from opposition broadcasters.
The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, established and funded by the Democrats, began demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine any time a broadcaster denounced the treaty. The campaign was successful. The Senate overwhelmingly ratified the treaty.
In the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson and his Democratic machine prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine." The campaign produced 1,035 letters to stations and 1,678 hours of free air time for the Democrats, playing, in the eyes of the practitioners, no small part in Johnson's landside defeat of Sen. Barry Goldwater.
In a confidential report to the Democratic National Committee, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former Federal Communication Commission staffer, explained: "The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
While the House of Representatives voted last month 309-115 to deny federal funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine, the action is significant only through 2008. Should Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress and gain control of the White House, the prospects are good for reintroduction and passage of the Fairness Doctrine.
However, the enthusiasm expressed for reviving the discarded regulation by Democratic Party leadership, and even some Republicans in the wake of the Senate battle over immigration, almost assure the issue will be resurrected as a campaign issue next year and as a legislative certainty in 2009 should Democrats remain in control of Congress and capture the White House.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former radio talk-show host, led the charge last week to stop the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters – sometimes referred to as "the Hush Rush bill," because of its preoccupation with conservative talk radio as epitomized by nationally syndicated stars Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.
"Unless broadcasters take steps to voluntarily balance their programming, they can expect a return of fairness rules if Democrats keep control of Congress and win the White House next year." said Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly, a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC.
In recent weeks, particularly during that immigration debate, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Trent Lott, R-Miss.; John Kerry, D.-Mass.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, have all called for the Fairness Doctrine to be considered or reinstated once again.
As early as February, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., attempted to introduce the Media Ownership Reform Act. MORA's provisions included regulations that would prohibit consolidation and mass domination of broadcasting groups to serve the public interest. It also included the Fairness Doctrine.
Even though that quiet attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine failed, advocates of a more direct approach to reviving it see the potential to debate it openly and successfully in the near future.
The debate opened up wide following an interview of Feinstein on "Fox News Sunday" by Chris Wallace.
"In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole," she said. "It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."
Pressed by Wallace about whether she is for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Feinstein said, "Well, I'm looking at it."
Following that exchange, others were more direct.
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," said Durbin. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee for the Democrats, also came out swinging.
"I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back," he said on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. "These are the people that wiped out ... one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye."
Perhaps the biggest surprise in the Fairness Doctrine debate came when former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made harsh comments about talk radio during the immigration debate – a debate in which he found himself on the losing side.
"Talk radio is running America," he fumed, adding "we have to deal with that problem."
Later Lott clarified his remarks to suggest the remedy he had in mind was better communication with voters, not governmentally imposed restrictions on free speech. But Lott actually has a history of support for the Fairness Doctrine.
In 1987, he opposed efforts by President Reagan and many of his own Republican colleagues to get it scrapped.
"We have unfairness now even with the Fairness Doctrine," he said at the time. "Heaven knows what would happen without a Fairness Doctrine."
The FCC did indeed end the Fairness Doctrine requirements in 1987. First enacted in 1949, the policy mandated that when a broadcast station presented one viewpoint on a controversial public issue, it must also counter with the opposing viewpoint. Repealed by a vote of 4-0, it was concluded the Fairness Doctrine had begun to inhibit political discourse rather than enhance it.
Congress tried to reinstate the doctrine but President Reagan vetoed the attempt. Again in 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine failed when then-President George H. W. Bush threatened a veto.
Before 1967, the principles that make up the Fairness Doctrine were applied selectively. But that year the doctrine was incorporated into the rules of the FCC. The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was initially upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, but a series of later court rulings – Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tormillo and FCC v. League of Women Voters – pushed in the other direction.
Maybe the most surprising development in the most recent kerfuffle over the Fairness Doctrine were those in the public eye – including some elected officials – who clearly had no idea what the debate was all about.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, was asked by Hannity during the immigration fireworks how he viewed efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
"Fairness Doctrine – I'm all for it, whatever it is," he said. "I think everyone should be open to show the other side. That's what you do every night on Fox. That's great!"
When Hannity reminded Voinovich the Fairness Doctrine would establish government regulatory bureaucracies to enforce this balance, Voinovich quickly retreated.
Similarly, PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley seemed to be caught totally off-guard when asked by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb for an opinion on the Fairness Doctrine.
"The Fairness Doctrine," he fidgeted. "Hmmm. Let me think about that one. I haven't thought too much about that. Come back to that question later."
WASHINGTON – While Democrats in Congress claim they are only seeking balance, accuracy and truth with renewed calls for the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, history shows government enforcement of the broadcast rule was selective, heavy-handed and used purposely to squelch political opposition – by both Democrats and Republicans.
According to a Heritage Foundation report, President Richard Nixon, facing a hostile press, began a systematic campaign of harassment of radio and TV stations considered unfriendly to his administration.
But Nixon hardly invented the idea of using the Fairness Doctrine to stifle debate and criticism of government policies.
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce in President John F. Kennedy's administration, candidly recalled the way the doctrine was used in the early 1960s.
(Story continues below)
"We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue," he explained in Fred Friendly's 1976 book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment."
That strategy was developed in 1962 when Kennedy's plans for approval of a nuclear test ban treaty by the U.S. Senate were facing sustained attack from opposition broadcasters.
The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, established and funded by the Democrats, began demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine any time a broadcaster denounced the treaty. The campaign was successful. The Senate overwhelmingly ratified the treaty.
In the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson and his Democratic machine prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine." The campaign produced 1,035 letters to stations and 1,678 hours of free air time for the Democrats, playing, in the eyes of the practitioners, no small part in Johnson's landside defeat of Sen. Barry Goldwater.
In a confidential report to the Democratic National Committee, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former Federal Communication Commission staffer, explained: "The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
While the House of Representatives voted last month 309-115 to deny federal funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine, the action is significant only through 2008. Should Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress and gain control of the White House, the prospects are good for reintroduction and passage of the Fairness Doctrine.
However, the enthusiasm expressed for reviving the discarded regulation by Democratic Party leadership, and even some Republicans in the wake of the Senate battle over immigration, almost assure the issue will be resurrected as a campaign issue next year and as a legislative certainty in 2009 should Democrats remain in control of Congress and capture the White House.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former radio talk-show host, led the charge last week to stop the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters – sometimes referred to as "the Hush Rush bill," because of its preoccupation with conservative talk radio as epitomized by nationally syndicated stars Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.
"Unless broadcasters take steps to voluntarily balance their programming, they can expect a return of fairness rules if Democrats keep control of Congress and win the White House next year." said Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly, a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC.
In recent weeks, particularly during that immigration debate, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Trent Lott, R-Miss.; John Kerry, D.-Mass.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, have all called for the Fairness Doctrine to be considered or reinstated once again.
As early as February, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., attempted to introduce the Media Ownership Reform Act. MORA's provisions included regulations that would prohibit consolidation and mass domination of broadcasting groups to serve the public interest. It also included the Fairness Doctrine.
Even though that quiet attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine failed, advocates of a more direct approach to reviving it see the potential to debate it openly and successfully in the near future.
The debate opened up wide following an interview of Feinstein on "Fox News Sunday" by Chris Wallace.
"In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole," she said. "It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."
Pressed by Wallace about whether she is for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Feinstein said, "Well, I'm looking at it."
Following that exchange, others were more direct.
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," said Durbin. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee for the Democrats, also came out swinging.
"I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back," he said on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. "These are the people that wiped out ... one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye."
Perhaps the biggest surprise in the Fairness Doctrine debate came when former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made harsh comments about talk radio during the immigration debate – a debate in which he found himself on the losing side.
"Talk radio is running America," he fumed, adding "we have to deal with that problem."
Later Lott clarified his remarks to suggest the remedy he had in mind was better communication with voters, not governmentally imposed restrictions on free speech. But Lott actually has a history of support for the Fairness Doctrine.
In 1987, he opposed efforts by President Reagan and many of his own Republican colleagues to get it scrapped.
"We have unfairness now even with the Fairness Doctrine," he said at the time. "Heaven knows what would happen without a Fairness Doctrine."
The FCC did indeed end the Fairness Doctrine requirements in 1987. First enacted in 1949, the policy mandated that when a broadcast station presented one viewpoint on a controversial public issue, it must also counter with the opposing viewpoint. Repealed by a vote of 4-0, it was concluded the Fairness Doctrine had begun to inhibit political discourse rather than enhance it.
Congress tried to reinstate the doctrine but President Reagan vetoed the attempt. Again in 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine failed when then-President George H. W. Bush threatened a veto.
Before 1967, the principles that make up the Fairness Doctrine were applied selectively. But that year the doctrine was incorporated into the rules of the FCC. The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was initially upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, but a series of later court rulings – Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tormillo and FCC v. League of Women Voters – pushed in the other direction.
Maybe the most surprising development in the most recent kerfuffle over the Fairness Doctrine were those in the public eye – including some elected officials – who clearly had no idea what the debate was all about.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, was asked by Hannity during the immigration fireworks how he viewed efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
"Fairness Doctrine – I'm all for it, whatever it is," he said. "I think everyone should be open to show the other side. That's what you do every night on Fox. That's great!"
When Hannity reminded Voinovich the Fairness Doctrine would establish government regulatory bureaucracies to enforce this balance, Voinovich quickly retreated.
Similarly, PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley seemed to be caught totally off-guard when asked by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb for an opinion on the Fairness Doctrine.
"The Fairness Doctrine," he fidgeted. "Hmmm. Let me think about that one. I haven't thought too much about that. Come back to that question later."
No comments:
Post a Comment