Click HERE for a link to the discharge petition. Current count: 202 signatures (218 needed).
*Note* actual count may differ from number of signatures due to the
removal of resigned or deceased Members from the official count
Click HERE for a copy of the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
Click HERE for a copy of "Myth Vs. Fact" about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"
Talking Points on the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Quotes from Democrats about the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
In the news:
Indianapolis Star – “Fairness Doctrine offers nothing fair to talk radio” (LTE)
Nashua Telegraph (NH) – “Make no mistake: ‘Combat Politics’ are alive and well and also sad”
Houston Chronicle – “Conservatives fret over Fairness Doctrine”
Human Events – “The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Comes to eHarmony”
Forbes – “Obama and the Fairness Doctrine”
The Hill: "House GOP renews press for measure on Fairness Doctrine"
Townhall: "Conservatives Rally to Defeat the Fairness Doctrine"
Human Events: "Ingraham, Pence Join to Demand Broadcaster Freedom"
Talk Radio News: "Declare your support for freedom"
Newsbusters: "MRC's Bozell to Congress: Radio Independence Day"
CNS News: "Conservatives Say 'Fairness Doctrine' Is Unfair"
Focus on the Family: "Take Action: Ask Congress to Protect Talk Radio"
: "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
Updated - March 11, 2008 (1 Item)
President George W. Bush spoke at the 2008 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, TN.
View Congressman Pence's statement HERE.
View the full text of the President's remarks HERE.
Update for November 7, 2007 (3 Items)
1. Updated Discharge Petition Status, now at 194 Members.
2. Accuracy in Media story on Fairness Doctrines status in the Senate.
3. American Legion Magazine highlights Reps. Pence and Kucinich on the Fairness Doctrine in its “Big Issue” section.
1. Discharge Petition Status now at 194 members. The status can be followed here.
2. The Accuracy in Media story: “AIM Warns that Senate Hearing Signals Push for Fairness Doctrine.”
Excerpt:
Accuracy in Media warned today that a scheduled Thursday hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is the opening salvo in a liberal push to silence conservative voices in the media. AIM editor Cliff Kincaid noted that Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, two prominent members of the committee, have been quoted as saying they favor governmental action through a vehicle such as the so-called Fairness Doctrine to regulate and restrict conservative talk radio.
3. American Legion Magazine highlights the opposing viewpoints of Rep. Pence and Rep. Kucinich on the Fairness Doctrine here.
Update for November 5, 2007 (4 Items)
1. Discharge Petition Status
2. Wall Street Journal Editorial: “Four Decades of Conservative Journalism”
3. Accuracy in Media: “The Way Things Used to Be”
4. Audio: Congressman Roskam on the Fairness Doctrine
1. Discharge Petition Status now at 193 members. The status can be followed here.
2. Wall Street Journal Editorial: “Four Decades of Conservative Journalism”
Excerpts:
Back in 1967, liberals did indeed monopolize journalism, which was the way they thought things were meant to be. Yet events and personalities are borne on the currents of history, and those currents were picking up velocity in the late 1960s.
Talk radio represents a revival of the traditional conservative polemicist. The master of the art is Rush Limbaugh. His daily commentary on the news has revived the conservative journalism that I knew in the late 1960s. It is polemical and satirical and vastly amusing, and boy does it stir up the liberals -- so much so that they now question the value of the First Amendment. On Capitol Hill there are intimations that the time has come to disinter the ancient and anachronistic Fairness Doctrine, thus allowing the federal government to influence the content of talk radio.
My guess is the effort will fail, in part because of the latest innovation in communications, the Internet. Web sites and the blogs allow a multiplicity of outlets for free speech, demonstrating that there is no need for the Fairness Doctrine, which if ever reintroduced would be inherently unfair and repressive.
3. Accuracy in Media story: “The Way Things Used to Be”
Excerpts:
Then, I mention the Fairness Doctrine.
The audience is stunned. They can't believe that speech was regulated by government rules and regs—and during such a recent time. "How can that be?" they want to know. "What about the First Amendment?"
I attempt to explain the old argument that the broadcast spectrum is "owned by the people," but my audience isn't buying it. They are incredulous that government once interfered with their right to tune in to open political discussions on radio or TV.
"If you don't like a radio show, change the channel," someone yells out.
"Agreed," I say. But back in the "good old days," we were all used to the regulation of free speech. We had never heard or even heard of Rush or Sean, and virtually no one had any idea what he was missing.
"Thank goodness we aren't under that kind of restriction today," someone offers.
4. Audio: Congressman Roskam speaks about the Fairness Doctrine, audio is found here.
Weekly Wrap-up for October 26, 2007 (3 Items)
1. Leading Democrat Maurice Hinchey "likely to introduce a version of the Fairness Doctrine"
2. Citizen Link urges action
3. Updated discharge petition status: 185 Members signed the petition
1. Leading Democrat Maurice Hinchey "likely to introduce a version of the Fairness Doctrine" The Bend Bulletin story:
Excerpts:
The Broadcaster Freedom Act would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has blocked the bill.
If 218 members of Congress sign the petition, the bill would move directly to the floor, bypassing Pelosi and burying the Fairness Doctrine. The petition has 185 signatures.
**
2. Citizen Link story urges action
Excerpts:
But a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., said the Congressman will likely introduce a version of the Fairness Doctrine as part of a package to limit consolidation of media ownership.
“Since it is the public’s airwaves, the public is entitled to hear a broad array of ideas that reflect the diverse opinions of Americans across the country,” said spokesman Jeff Lieberson. “The main underlying issue here is media consolidation — as a result of that, corporate interests are infiltrating what is being broadcast.”
**
3. Discharge Petition status now at 185 Members. Follow the progress here.
Update for October 19, 2007
Wrap-up for the Week (2 items):
1. Investor’s Business Daily editorial today: “The Left’s Gag Rule”
2. Pence Special Order speech on Fairness Doctrine
1. Investor’s Business Daily editorial: “The Left’s Gag Rule”
Excerpts:
Fairness Doctrine: The Democrats' assault on the First Amendment has run into a wall. Republican Rep. Mike Pence is determined to see that freedom of speech isn't repressed in the U.S. as it is in tin-pot dictatorships.
For years, the political left has been setting the country up for a rerun of the Fairness Doctrine, looking for a Reichstag fire to whip up public support for a regulation that is clearly unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court's absurd 1969 ruling.
**
So Democrats, jealous of the right's success and frustrated over their failures (they can't understand why everyone doesn't think correctly, as they do), aim to fix things with authoritarian regulation. Apparently the legacy of liberty left to us by our founders is an archaic notion. Censorship is the new freedom of speech.
Though he'll get no praise from the mainstream media for his vigorous First Amendment protection, Pence is pushing through the House a bill with more than 200 co-sponsors that prohibits the FCC "from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance."
Should Pence get 218 House members to sign the discharge petition he filed Wednesday, the Democratic majority will be forced to bring his bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Given that 113 House Democrats voted in June in favor of a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine, it's likely the Indiana congressman will draw the required support.
Getting the Senate to pass a ban will require a greater effort. Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has tried, but Democrats have blocked his bill from seeing the floor for a vote. Apparently their definition of fairness is the absence of opposition to the leftist agenda and their voices' artificial domination of the airwaves.
2. Congressman Pence gave a Special Order speech on the House floor yesterday about the Fairness Doctrine. You can view part of it on YouTube here.
Update for October 17, 2007
Here is audio from today’s press conference announcing a discharge petition for the Broadcaster Freedom Act. The speaking order is as follows:
Congressman Mike Pence
Republican Leader John Boehner
Republican Whip Roy Blunt
Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam
Republican Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor
Congressman Greg Walden
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling
Here is a link to a story in The Hill today.
Here is a GOP Leader Alert from Mr. Boehner’s office.
Other News
Congressman Pence appeared on Fox and Friends October 3, 2007 to discuss the Fairness Doctrine. Click here to read the full transcript.
Congressman Pence will be discussing the Fairness Doctrine on C-SPAN's "The Communicators" program Saturday, August 11 at 6:30pm. The show will air again on C-SPAN 2 on Monday, August 13 at 8am & 8pm.
Listen to a radio interview with Congressman Pence on the Fairness Doctrine
House Republican Conference Radio Row (feel free to excerpt for actuality purposes)
Cosponsors of the Broadcaster Freedom Act
Click here for a list of cosponsors
Read what democrats are saying about the Fairness Doctrine
Here
Latest press releases regarding the Fairness Doctrine
Pence announces "House Republicans unanimously cosponsor Broadcaster Freedom Act"
Pence takes to House Floor to Push Broadcaster Freedom Act
Pence Calls for Passage of Broadcaster Freedom Act
Pence Introduces Broadcaster Freedom Act with More than 100 Cosponsors
Pence Amendment Passes House 309-115
Pence Unveils Bill to to Prohibit Return of "Fairness Doctrine" for Talk Radio
Pence, Flake, Hensarling Introduce Amendment to Prohibit Funds for Implementing Fairness Doctrine
Copies of bills regarding the Fairness Doctrine
Broadcaster Freedom Act
Pence Amendment to Financial Services Approps
Federal Communications Commission Letters
Letter from Congressman Pence to Kevin Martin, chairman FCC
Letter from Kevin Martin
Update for October 10, 2007
(1 item)
1. LA Times talks about discharge petition strategy
The LA Times ran a story over the weekend that included this key graph:
If the FCC were to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio would no longer be a part of the GOP base. That's why Democratic senators such as California's Dianne Feinstein and Illinois' Richard J. Durbin have been talking about prodding the agency into doing that since last spring. It's also why, late Monday, 200 Republican representatives notified the House Rules Committee that they intended to seek a "petition of discharge" for the "Broadcaster Freedom Act." That bill, written by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former radio talk-show host, would prohibit the FCC from ever reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Under the House rules, if Pence can get 218 signatories to the petition, the Democratic leadership must let it come to the floor for a vote.
That's what's really at stake in all the posturing over MoveOn.org and Rush Limbaugh. In the minds of both parties, it's not so much a fight over speech as it is over the right kind of speech. The sad irony is that the only voice that isn't being heard in all this talk over talk is that of the public, which, after all, owns the airwaves over which this struggle is being waged.
Update for October 3, 2007
(3 items)
1. The Hill: Battle lines are drawn over conservative radio
2. FOX & Friends transcript: Pence Defends Limbaugh, Warns Democrats Want to Reinstate Fairness Doctrine
3. Letter to House Democratic Leadership
1. The Hill reports on its front page today about Democrat attacks on Rush Limbaugh and how it dovetails with their efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Below are a few excerpts:
House Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. On Monday evening, Republicans filed a rule with the House Rules Committee laying the groundwork for a petition that would force action on protecting radio from government regulation later this fall.
***
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and interference from the government.
Republicans’ concern has grown as Democrats have waged a battle against Limbaugh in recent days. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, Mark Mays, calling on him to denounce Limbaugh’s remarks.
“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”
***
The Broadcaster Freedom Act would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from setting rules and policies reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
The doctrine, which the FCC abandoned in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. FCC regulators called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.”
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and government interference.
In addition to Durbin, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has said in recent months that she plans to review the legal aspects of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Aides to Dingell, who chairs the House committee with primary jurisdiction over the FCC, have studied the issue as well, Democratic sources said.
Every Republican in the House has sponsored Pence and Walden’s bill. Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.), a former newspaper publisher, is the only Democrat to sign on so far.
The bill’s sponsors believe they could pressure more Democrats to sign on to a discharge petition, especially as Election Day nears.
At the end of June, 309 House lawmakers voted for an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill prohibiting the FCC from using federal funds to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.
Republicans say Congress must consider the Broadcaster Freedom Act now because the amendment the House passed several months ago has not yet become law. The Senate has yet to consider the Financial Services spending bill.
2. Congressman Pence was a guest on FOX & Friends this morning to defend Rush Limbaugh and talk about the need to abolish the Fairness Doctrine. Below is a transcript:
FOX & FRIENDS TRANSCRIPT
10-3-07
Host: Joining us right now from Washington are Congressman Joe Sestak and Mike Pence as well. Good morning to both of you. Congressman Sestak, let me ask you about this. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Democrats are taking him out of context.
Sestak: I think if you look at the transcript, you can see that in response to a caller that said, “hey look, they’re finding soldiers in the media to talk against the war,” he said, those are “phony soldiers.”
Let’s take it to a higher level. Do I agree with what Rush Limbaugh said? No. Do I respect his right to say it after serving 31 years in the military to protect his right? Absolutely. Take the other side, I don’t agree with the words that Moveon.org used. I just think that we have to take this to a higher level of debate. We’re not going to address the issue of solving this war correctly, and that’s what Mike and I should be doing, not talking about talk show hosts, but how to correctly end this war in a bipartisan way.
Host: Ok, so Congressman Sestak, what do you say to Congressman Udall from Colorado who has introduced a resolution on the floor of the US House denouncing Rush Limbaugh? He is doing exactly what you said you shouldn’t do.
Sestak: No. I haven’t read the resolution. But I voted for the one that said, “I condemn the words that Moveon.org used, not the organization’s right to say it. I condemned the words if this is how its stated, that Rush Limbaugh used, not his right to say it. Step back one more time though. You know what’s most important for these men and women to remember out there, whether its Rush Limbaugh calling Senator Hagel, who served in Vietnam, Senator Betrayus on 25 January, or Moveon.org using certain words is remember your military in America is different. Your military remembers that age-old maxim from the 1600’s, that the nation that draws a broad line of demarcation between its thinking men and its fighting men, will find its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. You need to have military people who think and critique differently.
Host: Congressman Pence, your view?
Pence: Well, I want to agree with Congressman Sestak, that I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the Democratic leaders of Congress, particularly in the Senate, but many in the House, are focusing on the American political debate and the comments of an American commentator.
Let me say with great respect, Joe, I read the transcript too and I think FOXNEWS yesterday, reported that a literal reading of the transcript shows that Rush Limbaugh did not call veterans who oppose the war “phony soldiers.”
In fact, the term comes from an ABC News report that aired the Monday night before the Wednesday that he used the term. He did a commentary on Tuesday on the subject Joe you know, and this was all about the ABC News initial report of this Jesse Macbeth, and frankly, several incidents of people who have pretended to be Iraq War veterans, in some cases a criminal behavior, who have then been used by the anti-war left to make a case against Iraq.
Rush Limbaugh has clarified his statement but, quite frankly Steve, I see this all as a precursor to an effort by the Democrats in Congress to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. What on earth business is it of the United States Senate to be policing the airwaves of America? I really do believe this whole incident, the circus on the Senate floor Monday, argues for the legislation we’ve introduced in the House that would put the Fairness Doctrine out of reach of any future President or any future Congress.
Host: Congressman Sestak, I’ll give you the final word.
Sestak: Look, you can read a transcript and decide what you want. I read it also. But let’s bring, Mike, this to a higher debate. We should not be wasting our time talking about talk show hosts; we should be talking about the fairness doctrine. And what we should be doing is saying, “Mike, this war, is it hurting or helping our security? How can we bring about a better end to this?”
And that’s what I believe needs to be done. Do I think both sides’ words are wrong? The tone is absolutely wrong. So let’s not defend either side, and say whether we think or don’t think whether these individuals (inaudible). What we need to finish doing, is just to ensure that the tone changes if we are to approach this war correctly.
Pence: I think we should raise the debate, Joe. The debate ought to be about freedom, it ought to be about freedom in Iraq, and the freedom of speech in America.
Host: Congressman Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania and Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana, gentlemen, thank you very much.
###
3. Congressman Pence, together with Congressman Walden, sent the following letter to Democrat House leadership asking them to schedule the Broadcaster Freedom Act for an immediate vote on the House floor:
October 1, 2007
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol Building H-107, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Chairman Dingell:
We write to request that you schedule H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act for immediate consideration on the House Calendar.
We have introduced H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Over 200 of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors of this important measure. Additionally, earlier this year the House spoke by a 3 to 1 margin in favor of the Pence Amendment to H.R. 2829, the Fiscal Year 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, preventing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from implementing regulations to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in FY 2008 (Roll Call 599, June 28, 2007). However, since the FY 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act has yet to be considered by the Senate, we feel it is important to advance HR 2905 in order to achieve a permanent solution to the extremely troubling Fairness Doctrine.
Due to the lack of clarity in the regulation and in the FCC’s rulings, broadcasters often opted not to offer any controversial programming whatsoever rather then risk violating the Fairness Doctrine and being subject to federal fines or risking revocation of their license. H.R. 2905 ensures that true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves.
The U.S. Supreme Court agrees that the Fairness Doctrine squelches free speech. In 1974, the Court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate in Miami Herald Publishing Company vs. Torino. Twenty-three years ago, in FCC vs. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate and as a result the FCC overturned it. However, the Fairness Doctrine could be revived at any time by any Administration. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
Considering the significance associated with protecting free speech, we respectfully request that you schedule floor action on H.R. 2905 by Friday, October 12, 2007. While we may not always agree with those who are on the air waves, as Members of Congress and freedom-loving Americans, we should never back down from an opportunity to defend their right to speak their piece. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
________________________________ ________________________________
Representative Mike Pence Representative Greg Walden
Update for July 30, 2007
(3 items)
1. The Wall Street Journal is carrying an op-ed today by former FCC chair Dennis Patrick who served from 1987-1989 and Thomas Hazlett, professor at George Mason University who was chief economist at the FCC from 1991-92. They write that repeal of the Fairness Doctrine worked because it “unleashed torrents of informational programming.”
Read the article here. (Subscription required)
Excerpt:
Government regulation of broadcast speech clashes with the First Amendment. This is why 20 years ago the Federal Communications Commission voted 4-0 to abolish the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a rule that required broadcasters to cover "controversial issues of public importance" and to afford reasonable opportunities for the presentation of "contrasting perspectives" on those issues. By abolishing this rule, the FCC unleashed a dramatic increase in media coverage of controversial public-policy matters.
Still, not everyone is happy. Some, including Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), are calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D., N.Y.) plans to introduce the "Media Ownership Reform Act," establishing a "fairness" mandate. Acknowledging that the amount of airtime devoted to discussion of politics and government has increased since 1987, champions of re-instituting the doctrine are nevertheless concerned about a perceived political bias, especially in AM talk radio. For some, it seems, less talk was better than so much of this kind of talk.
Re-imposing "fairness" regulation would be a colossal mistake. To understand why, it's important to review the lessons learned from a well-intended regulation gone wrong.
2. Weekly Standard editorial (August 6 issue): “Radio Free America”
Excerpt:
Never mind the wisdom of the marketplace, or freedom of choice for radio listeners: Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio. Why? Because efforts to invent a successful left-wing Limbaugh have consistently failed, and what Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and Al Franken's Air America cannot manage on the air might be accomplished by congressional action. This has been a forlorn cause of the left since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed 20 years ago; but now that Democrats control Congress, new life has been breathed into the effort. A Democratic president could appoint enough compliant commissioners to the FCC to accomplish the mission. Or Congress could act.
3. Las Vegas Review Journal editorial today: “All about fairness?”
Excerpt:
Perhaps the most ridiculous idea to come out of the current Congress is the push by some Democrats to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
Smarting from the fact that consumers prefer Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to Air America and CNN, many lefty lawmakers -- including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber -- want the government to step in and oversee content to ensure "balance."
Sort of like in the old Soviet Union or today's Venezuela.
***
In the meantime, however, Republicans should continue to push legislation to ensure that no future administration or FCC could reimpose the Fairness Doctrine without the consent of Congress.
That, at least, would make it somewhat more difficult for Democrats to breathe life into what should be a rotting corpse.
Update for July 25, 2007
(1 item)
1. The LA Times is running a great editorial today entitled “The unfairness doctrine.”
Read the full article here. Key excerpt below:
The demise of immigration reform legislation in the Senate has led some congressional Democrats to strike back at conservative talk-radio stations, which stoked public opposition by labeling the bill "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. Their anger at the talkers' demagoguery is justified, but their response isn't. They want to revive the Fairness Doctrine -- a Cold War-era federal rule designed to promote balanced coverage of important issues on the public airwaves. Under this rule, broadcasters who took a side on a divisive topic could be compelled to give free airtime to opposing points of view. If they refused, they risked losing their licenses.
The threat to talk radio is clear. If the rule were reinstituted, stations that carry Rush Limbaugh could be forced to broadcast commentaries favoring everything that Limbaugh derides, from greenhouse gas controls to same-sex marriage. With hundreds of provocative talk-show hosts on the air, federal regulators could soon be awash in demands for rebuttals.
But the danger posed by the Fairness Doctrine is broader and more fundamental than an attack on a radio format. No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available today to express them -- maybe not a radio or TV station but certainly a website, a video blog, a podcast or an e-mail newsletter. At the same time, the public has unprecedented access to a diverse array of opinions. Just as the government shouldn't decide what you say on the channels you create, nor should it be able to dictate the range of opinions people hear over the air.
Update for July 23, 2007
(3 items)
1. Must-read: Today the LA Times reports on more Democrat plans to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Click here to view the whole article.
Excerpts below:
But Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the rest of the media presented a balanced view of controversial issues, and the Fairness Doctrine would simply reimpose that requirement on talk radio.
Hinchey is readying legislation to reinstitute the doctrine as part of a broad package of media ownership reforms.
"It's important that the American people make decisions for themselves based upon the ability to garner all the information, not just on what somebody wants to give them," he said.
Republicans have seized on comments like that.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio talk show host, proposed an amendment last month prohibiting the FCC from spending money to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 309 to 115 after a parade of Republicans took to the House floor to blast calls to restore the policy. Democrats branded the vote a political stunt. Republicans tried to propose a similar amendment in the Senate last week, but Democrats blocked it .
Republicans vow to continue pressing the issue.
"The American people love a fair fight, and so do I," Pence said. "But there's nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine."
2. Republican Whip Roy Blunt authored a column on the Fairness Doctrine today that’s running in the Springfield News-Leader. Click here for the column.
Excerpts below:
The provision ended up cruising through with more than 300 members in support. But though the final tally was overwhelming, the fact we didn't get the entire chamber on our side reminds us that, at least among 115 members of the House and more than a few members of the Senate, the restoration of the un-fairness doctrine isn't only a serious possibility — it's a real priority.
Thankfully, the latest attempt to resurrect the doctrine didn't need a ruling from the Supreme Court or a veto from the president to be brought to heel. But that's not to say they won't be needed in the future, especially as powerful interests line up with the objective of having government regulators control the content of opinion and the terms of public debate.
3. Congressman Pence guest hosted the Laura Ingraham Show today and discussed the Fairness Doctrine. To access the show’s website and find out when and where it airs in your area and for a show archive, click here.
Update for July 20, 2007
(2 items)
1. The Washington Times reports today that Senate Democrats blocked an attempt to pass the Broadcast Freedom Act. Below are excerpts. You can access the full story here.
You can access the roll call vote here.
Senate Democrats last night beat back a Republican attempt to attach an anti-Fairness Doctrine bill as an amendment to education legislation.
The doctrine, a former requirement that broadcasters present opposing points of view on political issues, was scrapped in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission, which said the policy restricted journalistic freedom. The bill by Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine.
"We live in an age of satellite radio, of broadband, of blogs, of Internet, of cable TV, of broadcast TV. There is no limitation on the ability of anyone from any political persuasion to get their ideas set forth," Mr. Coleman argued in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. "The public in the end will choose what to listen to."
By a vote of 49-48, senators voted not to consider Mr. Coleman's amendment after Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, raised a point of order. Senate rules require 60 votes to waive a point of order.
An attempt by Mr. Coleman last week to attach his bill as an amendment to a defense authorization bill was similarly blocked by Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.
***
While the current Republican-led FCC poses no threat of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, Republicans in both the House and Senate were quick to introduce bills that would prohibit a future Democrat-led agency from doing so. In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, has 135 co-sponsors of his version of the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
Mark S. Fowler, the former FCC chairman who led the charge to shelve the doctrine prior to its later repeal, said calls for its revival are "unacceptable."
Asked whether there is any viable chance of the policy being reinstated, Mr. Fowler told editors and reporters at The Washington Times yesterday: "I don't think so; I hope not."
"The electronic press that uses electrons and airwaves should be as free as the press that uses ink and paper, period," he said.
He asserted that lawmakers who say the doctrine is in the public interest are "politicians trying to control part of the press. To say the airwaves belong to the people — all these reasons they use to regulate are excuses. They're not reasons."
2. Recent columns on the Fairness Doctrine
--The Economist’s Lexington column: "Let the Blowhards Blow"
--Byron York: Why Rush Wins
--Victor Davis Hanson: All’s Fair in Love and Talk Radio
Update for July 17, 2007
(2 items)
1. Think there isn’t any public support for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine? Think again! A Rasmussen Report released over the weekend shows 41% of the public is in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and 41% oppose.
From the report:
Americans are evenly divided as to whether or not the government should “require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% favor that proposal and 41% are opposed.
The concept, known as the “Fairness Doctrine” in legislative circles, has been gaining ground on Capitol Hill ever since public opposition forced the Senate to back down on the immigration issue.
View the full report here.
2. White House action on Fairness Doctrine
The White House took action Friday on the Fairness Doctrine. Byron York (author of National Review’s cover story on the same subject) reported Friday on The Corner blog that President Bush would veto any legislation reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. View his post here.
Update for July 13, 2007
(3 items)
1. Durbin objects to Coleman amendment that would prevent reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine
Earlier this week, Senators Coleman, DeMint and Thune introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate to the Broadcaster Freedom Act that Congressmen Pence and Walden introduced in the House. The bill would prevent the FCC from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine.
This morning Senator Coleman attempted to offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill being considered on the Senate Floor. He asked for unanimous consent to get the amendment pending and in the queue for a vote. The Democrats objected to his request. Following the objection, Senator Coleman offered some remarks highlighting his disappointment with the objection and the importance of his legislation, when Senator Durbin interrupted to ask him several questions. Their back and forth discussion went on for some time, and Durbin made it clear that he firmly supports reinstating the Fairness Doctrine despite Senator Coleman’s repeated explanations that such a measure impinges on Americans’ right to free speech. Read the transcript here.
2. National Review cover story by Byron York on Fairness Doctrine: “An Unfair Doctrine”
Below are excerpts from the cover story in the July 30 issue of National Review titled “An Unfair Doctrine.”
…Ask any radio veteran – not just the nation’s most successful talk-show host – and he’ll probably have a similar story about the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine. From the earliest years of radio until 1987, when the Doctrine was repealed, the federal government rode hard on what broadcasters could and could not say about controversial issues. If a radio host took a strong position on the air, he might find himself under investigation by officials of the Federal Communications Commission, who would carefully examine his words to determine whether they passed government standards of fairness. If they didn’t, the government might require his station to offer free air time to people with other views, or it might punish the owners in a number of ways, including the revocation of their license to be on the air. The whole process was a blatant violation of First Amendment rights – what journalist or commentator today would stand for it? – but it was the way things worked in broadcasting for more than 50 years.
And now it might be coming back. After the Doctrine was repealed, there was an explosion of talk and information on the radio, and today the business is dominated by Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, and a long list of other conservatives. Their commercial success, along with the failure of a number of liberal talk-radio ventures, has led some influential people in Washington to argue that the Fairness Doctrine should be revived.
“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,” Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin, the number-two-ranking leader in the Senate, said recently. “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.” John Kerry agreed, saying the Fairness Doctrine “ought to be there.” And Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the powerful Senate Rules Committee, said she is “looking” at reinstatement. “I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side,” she said. “Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one-way.”…
…For nearly two decades, liberal activists have tried to counter the success of Limbaugh and the conservative hosts who followed him. First they tried to restore the Doctrine, beginning in 1993 with a bill dubbed “Hush Rush.” That effort died after Republican victories in 1994, so liberals turned to the marketplace, searching for a Rush of their own. For a while, they hoped that Jim Hightower, a former Texas state official with a small on-air following, might be the answer. When Hightower failed, they hoped that Mario Cuomo, the former New York governor, might fit the bill. When Cuomo failed, they came up with the idea of a liberal network, Air America, that would succeed where single hosts had not. But Air America ended up in bankruptcy, although it has recently undergone restructuring and is still at least nominally in business.
Now they’re back to the Fairness Doctrine. In October 2004, Media Matters for America, the liberal watchdog group funded by a number of the same donors who made spectacularly large contributions to Democratic 527 groups in the last few elections, announced a campaign to support New York Democratic representative Louise Slaughter’s bill to re-impose the Doctrine. “Tired of imbalanced political discourse on our airwaves?” Media Matters asked readers in a petition appeal. “By restoring a diversity of fact and opinion to programming, Fairness Doctrine legislation restores a concept [of balance] that has been lost since the 1980s.” The crusade was picked up by a number of “netroots” activists, and now Durbin, Feinstein, and Kerry are on board.
That last development “set off alarm bells,” says Indiana Republican representative Mike Pence. Pence, a former radio-talk-show host himself, was so concerned that in late June he and a colleague, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, came up with the idea of attaching to an FCC-funding bill an amendment that barred the commission from using its funds to reinstate the Doctrine. The amendment passed the House, 309 to 115.
But it was just a one-year fix. Pence is also sponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently take way from the FCC the authority to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. If it passes, the only way the Doctrine could come back would be by an act of Congress. “The American people need to know that a future Democrat president could appoint members to the FCC and issue executive orders that in combination could bring back the Fairness Doctrine without a single act of Congress,” Pence says. “Our bill, very simply put, deprives the FCC of that authority.”…
3. Congressman Pence appeared on the 700 Club this morning regarding the Fairness Doctrine. Click here to watch.
Update for July 12, 2007
(2 items)
1. USA Today has a great piece on the Fairness Doctrine today on the opinion page. Check it out here.
2. The Anderson Herald Bulletin, a big paper in Congressman Pence's district, has a great editorial today about why the Fairness Doctrine should not be reinstituted.
