On the heels of the Tennessean’s full page spread (link is to Ginny Welsch’s take, links to other opinions are found to the right of her article) on the validity of the Fairness Doctrine, Free Press – one of the largest nonpartisan media reform organizations in the United States – releases a policy brief, The Fairness Doctrine Distraction [pdf].
Highlights include:
- We encourage the Congress and the administration to leave the debate over the Fairness Doctrine in the past and pursue policies that have sound legal, economic, and public interest footing.
- It is true that a small handful of Democratic legislators have publicly entertained the idea of bringing back the Doctrine. However, no legislation has been introduced to do so since the party retook the majority in congress. Furthermore, President Barack Obama has stated unequivocally — and repeatedly — that he does not support restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Acting FCC chairman Michael Copps has made clear his opposition to the Doctrine as well.
- The Fairness Doctrine, while originally well-intentioned, is not wise public policy.
- Underlying the calls to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is a false assumption that its repeal in 1987 was the main cause of the rise of right-wing talk radio.
The rise of right-wing radio was spearheaded by a then-much-more entertaining Rush Limbaugh’s capitalization of the need for nationally syndicated content, which was brought on by the “unprecedented consolidation” in the radio industry in the 1990’s, “an explosion of mergers” following the relaxation of ownership caps in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and an increase in the number of broadcast licenses issued during that time by the FCC. As I wrote a few weeks ago, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine will not fix the imbalance on the airwaves. Attention paid to whether or not the consolidated companies who are licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the needs of their communities, will.
More highlights:
- The Fairness Doctrine is not, as Mr. Limbaugh wants you to believe, responsible for regulating broadcast requirements for “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules…The categorical opposition to all FCC policies that can
imaginatively be lumped together with the Fairness Doctrine should draw deep skepticism. - The very FCC that eliminated the Fairness Doctrine maintained that serving the local public remained a key obligation: “even as the commission deregulated many behavioral rules for broadcasters in the 1980s, it did not deviate from the notion that they must serve their local communities.”
- Media ownership rules are also not censorial. There is nothing partisan about increasing the number and diversity of media owners. Indeed, both William Safire and the National Rifle Association, along with the ACLU and the National Organization for Women, have argued in favor of media ownership limits.
- Broadcast rules are almost uniformly “public interest†rules.
More info at FreePress.net.
