Thread: Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservatives

Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act."

"The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard," Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.

The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey's bill, which also sets tighter limits on media ownership. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed a companion bill in the Senate.

"This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard."

But muzzling is exactly what such a law would do, charged Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog group.

Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say -- 01/17/2007

Nothing Fair About Bringing The Fairness Doctrine Back

from the misguided dept

One of the earliest lessons a lot of kids learn (though don't necessarily accept) is that life isn't fair, if for no other reason than what they think is fair is often wildly different than what their parents do. Now, once-failed and now long-shot presidential candidiate Dennis Kucinich says he'll be heading up a new House subcommittee on issues around the FCC, that he might try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC rule, in force until 1987, that said broadcasters had a responsibility to discuss controversial issues of public importance, and to do so in a balanced manner that addressed differing points of view. While the goal of the doctrine might sound nice, the rule itself is a little troublesome, not least of which because it could be interpreted as violating the First Amendment (though the current FCC isn't likely to care about that), but also because it holds broadcasters to a wholly subjective ideal. Who decides what's fair? After all, one popular news network famously uses the tagline "fair and balanced", when plenty of people feel it's neither. The Fairness Doctrine also makes less and less sense in an age where the number of media outlets is proliferating. There's no limit to the number of places that can provide news or opinion, and professionals and the public have more tools than ever at their disposal to tell their own stories and express their own viewpoints. To require certain media to provide an arbitrary level of "balance" makes less sense than encouraging people with disagreeing viewpoints to develop their own media outlets, whether it's a blog, newsletter or even a cable TV channel. Kucinich says that "the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" -- but reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine would simply replace that corporate agenda with that of a political appointee, and that's really not very fair.

Techdirt: Nothing Fair About Bringing The Fairness Doctrine Back

Lol ! it's affirmative Action for liberal talk radio..what a joke. So because liberal talk radio host can't compete in an open market program directors all over America are going to be forced to make time slots available shows that no one's going to listen to ? LMAO!

It sounds like a backdoor assualt on freedom of speech.
I agree that there are plenty of outlets to get differing beliefs out there for people to make a decision. Not everyone cares to hear the other side rant.

Assault on the First Amendment aside, this would be a net positive. The more the "progressive" message gets out, the more people who will reject it.

Six nailed it! LOL at affirmative action for liberal talk radio, but that's exactly what this is. Seems al franken needs some help?
Under this rule would al gore's movie "An incovienent truth" have to have a second part? Maybe titled "The myth of global warming?" I mean if you had to present two sides to every issue where would this thing end? Would you even be allowed to state an opinion or state a belief without contradicting yourself afterwards?

Originally Posted by northhunter

Six nailed it! LOL at affirmative action for liberal talk radio, but that's exactly what this is. Seems al franken needs some help?

How is it similar to affirmative action? Affirmative action gives preference to a certain race...this says that both views must be expressed (unless affirmative action says that both candidates must be hired, I don't see the connection)

The reason I see this as affirmative action for liberal talk radio is they haven't done very well while conservative talk radio has. So the obvios solution must be to level the playing field by putting a burden on the conservative talk radio. This is after all the real target of this thing.
Perhaps, now that I think about it affirmative action might not be the best analogy, but the real attempt here is to try and handicap the sucess of conservative talk radio. If air america had a message worth listening to would they need the help?

Radio? As in ... the bunch of numbers on the black shiney thing in the car? Good lord what's next? taking away my 8-track and lava lamp?

All sarcasm aside... what the hell? What infant thinks there are only two sides to a story? What a pile of pablum. All 7 people who listen to the radio are gonna be rightfully pissed about this.

Seven people? Try millions upon millions...

Love the BS the righties bost on this issue....go back and read up kids the fairness doctrine worked quite well for years at forcing the extremist portions of both sides to actually tell the truth or be outed for it on national TV. Christ the only reason the right was and is agains this is that the right knows that the truth not only sets us free but it also sets us free from the nonsense and tinfoil jat conspiracies that are the lifeblood of the minority vote the right needs to win. THis is all about the right not wanting reality to infringe upon the fiction of their whiny assed populist message.