[IP] more on Just When It Seemed the Fairness Doctrine Was Dead. ]
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 19, 2004 9:54:45 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Fwd: Just When It Seemed the Fairness Doctrine Was Dead. ]
Reply-To: rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization:
Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises
To:
<rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with “remove from list” in the subject
heading.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/