more on Just When It Seemed the Fairness Doctrine Was Dead. ]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53 () columbia edu>
Date: October 19, 2004 9:54:45 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: [Fwd: Just When It Seemed the Fairness Doctrine Was Dead. ]
Reply-To: rca53 () columbia edu

 Do you normally receive the former Commissioner's columns?  This one 
is likely to raise some hackles.

 Bob

 -------- Original Message --------

 Subject:
 Just When It Seemed the Fairness Doctrine Was Dead.

 Date:
 Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:28:03 -0400

From:
 Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth <harold.furchtgott-roth () furchtgott-roth com>

Organization:
 Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises

To:
 <rca53 () columbia edu>




Suite 800

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20036

Telephone: 202.776.2032   

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/3428

 

Just When It Seemed the Fairness Doctrine Was Dead…

 By Harold Furchtgott-Roth

 

The New York Sun

October 19, 2004

This week, many broadcast stations owned by Sinclair plan to air a 
movie, "Stolen Honor," that may annoy Senator Kerry. His campaign 
demands "equal time" claiming that it is required by law. Mr. Kerry's 
campaign is mistaken.

Twenty years ago, under federal regulations entitled the "Fairness 
Doctrine," a broadcaster was required to provide equal time for 
differing views on political and other issues. But during the Reagan 
Administration, the Fairness Doctrine rules were relaxed. Consequently, 
a new form of broadcasting emerged: talk radio.

The Fairness Doctrine and its associated political editorial and 
personal attack rules effectively silenced broadcasters as voices in 
political discourse. Station owners would have been rightfully afraid 
that they would have been forced to provide equal time every time a 
radio host offended a political figure, an hourly occurrence.

The Fairness Doctrine did not die quietly. During the 1990s, public 
interest groups and others litigated the fate of the Fairness Doctrine 
before the D.C. Circuit Court. With each passing year of the growing 
popularity of the conservative talk radio, the urgency of some liberal 
groups to revive the Fairness Doctrine became more acute.

The Fairness Doctrine was clearly at odds with the First Amendment. The 
D.C. Circuit finally put the worst forms of the Doctrine out of its 
misery almost exactly four years ago when the FCC failed to write new 
rules in a timely manner.

No doubt, the judges on the D.C. Circuit Court were surprised to read 
in the past week that the Kerry campaign believes that it has a legal 
right to equal time on Sinclair stations. If the Kerry campaign is 
correct, the old Fairness Doctrine never died.

Senator Kerry would then have a right to even more equal time on the 
hundreds of radio stations that daily distribute Rush Limbaugh and 
other talk show hosts who make unflattering comments about Senator 
Kerry. President Bush would have a right to equal time on "60 Minutes" 
and on several late night and comedy shows where Senator Kerry has 
appeared.

The Kerry campaign may also suggest a Sinclair violation of political 
advertising rules. These rules require equal access for political 
candidates to broadcast advertising. Thus, Sinclair would be in a 
difficult position if it accepted political advertising from President 
Bush but not Senator Kerry. That is not the case here.

President Bush's campaign is not paying for "Stolen Honor." Nor is the 
campaign using the movie as an advertisement in any venue. The movie 
and the Bush campaign appear to be unrelated.

Yet it is the Kerry campaign that demands free time from Sinclair 
broadcasters. Ironically, it would be an unlawful uncompensated 
contribution by Sinclair to give free air time to the Kerry campaign 
just as it would be an unlawful contribution if Sinclair had given free 
air time directly to Bush campaign.

Sinclair is simply preempting national network programming and 
inserting local programming of its choice. Sinclair presumably will 
profit from its broadcast operations.

For decades, public interest groups have bemoaned the reluctance of 
station owners to preempt the national network programming. But when 
Sinclair preempts the network programming, suddenly many of the same 
public interest groups denounce the preemption.

Nothing stops a broadcast owner from showing the latest Michael Moore 
film or telecasting Democratic Party speeches. Perhaps broadcasters do 
not do this more because the station owners do not view such 
programming as profitable. Or they may fear political retribution from 
broadcasting such programming.

The termination of the Fairness Doctrine has not meant the end of 
possible political retribution. The Sinclair CEO, David Smith, can 
expect a frosty reception from the FCC should Senator Kerry be elected 
president.

Despite the First Amendment, the federal government can intimidate 
speech in indirect ways. FCC regulators, for example, must periodically 
renew Sinclair's and other broadcasters' licenses. License renewal for 
Sinclair could be particularly painful under a Kerry administration. 
Hence, Sinclair's exercise of free speech may yet prove extraordinarily 
expensive.

During confirmation hearings for the next chair of the FCC, at least 
one senator should ask the nominee to recite the First Amendment and 
explain why review of programming decisions are entirely inappropriate 
during a license renewal proceeding. No one else can hope to hold a 
future FCC accountable.

 

If you prefer not to receive these emails, please send a message to 
unsubscribe () furchtgott-roth com with “remove from list” in the subject 
heading.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/