Free speech advocates have raised alarms over the possibility of a new so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that would regulate speech over the radio airwaves, and now one media leader has suggested a litmus test is needed to protect First Amendment rights from President Obama and his appointees.
Obama’s nominees for Federal Communications Commission and other key posts should pledge to preserve the First Amendment freedoms of conservative and Christian talk radio, contends L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center.
Without that pledge, they simply shouldn’t be confirmed for their posts, he said.
“The time has come for all of President Obama’s nominees, and Obama himself, to publicly vow to protect conservative and Christian talk radio from ALL forms of government censorship. So far their silence has been deafening. Should Mr. Genachowski and Company not vow to protect the First Amendment freedoms of talk radio, the Senate should refuse to confirm them,” Bozell said.
Bozell was referring to Julius Genachowski, Obama’s nominee for FCC chairman. He also noted Genachowski has been a “long-time proponent” of media-ownership rules that encourage more “diversity.”
Opponents of speech regulations long have been concerned that the “Fairness Doctrine” will be reinstituted, perhaps under another name, and specifically have expressed concern over the idea of “diversity.”
Sign WND’s petition to oppose the “Fairness Doctrine” now!
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., just days ago proposed a “diversity” plan in the U.S. Senate, earning approval from members.
Bozell said the “nebulous Durbin Amendment potentially allows for the FCC to prematurely rescind talk radio station licenses and creates many new regulatory avenues by which the FCC can silence talk radio. All under the guise of the vague requirements of ‘encourage(ing) and promot(ing) diversity’ in media ownership and ‘ensur(ing) that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”
The “Fairness Doctrine” policy, originally introduced in 1949, required that radio and television stations with a broadcast license air contrasting views on matters of public importance. The policy made it practically impossible for talk radio to make a profit, because the market would not bear a lineup with an equal number of programs from the left and right. Since the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned in 1987 as unneeded and probably unconstitutional, more than 2,000 radio stations have adopted a talk radio format.
“These are frightening new governmental censorship powers,” Bozell said, “and Obama’s FCC nominees should pledge not to use them to shut down talk radio. The ‘Fairness’ Doctrine is dead, long live the new ‘Fairness’ Doctrine – the Durbin Doctrine.”
He warned, “All the pieces for the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio are being put into place. Aspects of the Durbin amendment create the impression of a new FCC censor power to pull station licenses mid-term – and many new ways to regulate talk radio out of existence.”
WND reported this week on a video of Obama showing his stated goal of “diversification.”
The video is posted on YouTube and embedded here.
Obama says, “I’m committed to having the FCC review what our current policies are in terms of media diversification. And part of what I want to do is to expand the diversity of voices in media, or have policies that encourage that. …”
On Obama’s campaign website, he’s said he “believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity.”
In the statement, Obama declared his intention to “clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”
Other Democrats also have jumped on the bandwagon.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi for a “fairness” policy, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told radio host Jim Villanucci, “I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”
Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review’s “The Corner” blog, noted that Attorney General Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing the idea.
If the policy is resurrected, at least two organizations already have pledged to challenge it in court.
 Michael Savage (San Francisco Chronicle) |
Talk radio icon Michael Savage has reported joining forces with a Michigan-based civil rights advocacy organization to establish a battle plan to oppose the doctrine.
“A regulation of speech motivated by nothing more than a desire to silence political opposition on controversial issues of public interest is the purest example of a law abridging the freedom of speech,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.
“Such action is the hallmark of totalitarian governments, not a free society,” he said.
“Michael Savage is the personification of what the liberals hate about conservative talk radio,” said Thompson, “and we’re proud to represent him in this crucial battle to preserve the grand purpose of political speech protected by the First Amendment.
Just days earlier, the American Center for Law and Justice said its “litigation strategy” is prepared should the doctrine – or a similar regulatory measure – “be brought back to muzzle Christian broadcasting.”
The organization said more than 230,000 people have signed its petition urging members of Congress to support the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
