WASHINGTON, DC -- The passing of media ownership into fewer hands, the
potential for conflicts of interests, and the virtual exclusion of
significant opposing viewpoints are good reasons to reevaluate the
broadcasting Fairness Doctrine, and it's potential for obtaining more
balanced coverage of Islam and Muslims.
The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by
the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition
of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in
their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not
require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from
day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views.
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S.
367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First
Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing
Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine
unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably
dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984,
the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was
flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate
(FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).
The Court's decision led to the FCC reevaluation and discontinuance of
the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the
Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In
making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening
and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources
of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer
a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We
believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully
served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the
intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the
enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom
of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in
operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of
public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the
editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."
In 1987 a bill to place the Fairness Doctrine into federal law passed the
House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by
President Ronald Reagan. Among those voting for the bill were Rep. Newt
Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). In 1989 the Fairness
Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as
President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again
held on the doctrine, but President Bush's ongoing veto threat stymied
passage.
Then the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was assigned the
responsibility to: "facilitate the full development of public
telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity,
excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be
made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence
to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a
controversial nature." The "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of
1993" was sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.),
and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner (D-N.C.).
Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine have included New York Governor Mario
Cuomo, and broadcaster Rush Limbaugh. Cuomo argued that, "Precisely
because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and
information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to
insure a truly free press." Limbaugh argued that there should be no
government fairness standards on broadcasters, since there are none on the
print press.
Others, such as columnist Jeff Cohen, say these arguments miss the key
difference: If you set up your competing broadcast station next to a
Limbaugh station on the radio dial, without acquiring a government license,
you will be prosecuted. Broadcast frequencies are limited, and they belong
to all Americans. Furthermore, says Enver Masud, Director of The Wisdom Fund
and a strong supporter of free speech, "Freedom of speech has its
limits. Even in a theater, one does not have the right to yell 'fire' when
there is no fire."
Since these attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, media ownership
has passed into fewer and fewer hands. Mark Crispin Miller, professor of
Film and Media Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, has written extensively
on the media and the increasing concentration of ownership of media
companies in the United States. Miller has created charts that trace the
holdings of four major conglomerates: Time Warner, Disney/Cap Cities,
General Electric, and Westinghouse. Each of these conglomerates owns a news
network, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, respectively. And not only do they own news
networks, but also radio stations, magazines, cable TV, motion pictures,
music, and newspapers. Furthermore, the (non-media) holdings of these
conglomerates create "alarming conflicts of interests" says
Miller.
Lastly, diverse opposing voices are virtually excluded from major TV
networks. Among these are prominent speakers such as former U.S. Attorney
General Ramsey Clark, the prolific writer Noam Chomsky, the militant
National Alliance, and Muslims who by the year 2000 will constitute
America's second largest religion -- Islam.
More recently the Broadcasting Act of 1996 establishes the Broadcasting
Standards Commission. In effect, this merges the Broadcasting Standards
Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, creating a single forum
for public concerns relating to the portrayal of sex and violence and
matters of taste and decency in television and radio programmes, as well as
unjust and unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy by
broadcasters.
The reasons that led to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine no longer
exist. Perhaps it's time to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
According to the "most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth
century" John Stuart Mill (1806-73):
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be
good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to
refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are,
he has no ground for preferring either opinion. . . Nor is it enough that he should hear
the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and
accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons
who actually believe them . . . he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive
form.
[The FCC replaced a 30-year-old equal employment opportunity (EEO) program
that was struck down as unconstitutional in 1998 by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. "Under the new system, the FCC will
require broadcasters to have an active outreach program for hiring women and
racial minorities. The companies will have to publicize job openings widely
to ensure that minorities and women hear about and can compete for the
positions."-- John Schwartz, "FCC Unveils New Rules on Hiring," Washington Post, January 21,
2000]
[Three anonymous political appointees to the Federal Communications
Commission have delivered a body blow to American democracy. . . . a single
company could influence the elections of 98 U.S. senators, 382 members of
the House, 49 governors, 49 state legislatures and countless local races.
Employing another strategy now allowed by the FCC, that same company
could own VHF stations in every TV market in 38 states, with the power to
influence elections in 76 U.S. Senate races, 182 House races, 38
gubernatorial races and 38 state legislative races, along with countless
local races.--Mortimer B. Zuckerman, "Media-merger ruling imperils democracy," The Daily News,
July 2, 2003]
[Rupert Murdoch predicted that, within three years, there would be just three global
media corporations--John Pilger, "Australia
's Samidzat," Green Left Weekly,
September 28, 2004]
[The U.S. House of Representatives has handed the supporters of Net neutrality a
stinging defeat by passing a bill that gives the phone companies almost everything
they lobbied for but remains almost mum on the highly charged issue of Internet
tolls.
The controversial Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE),
which preserves responsibility for decisions on Net neutrality in the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission, was passed late Thursday by a vote of 321 to 101.--"US House Passes Telecom Bill," Red Herring, June 9, 2006]
[Conservatives have expressed alarm in recent months over congressional Democratic
efforts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine which would mandate politically
balanced commentary on the airwaves.--"47% Favor Government
Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV," Rasmussen Reports, August 14, 2008]
NOTE: "GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn't
own AOL".
"The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is
the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational;
to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth."
— United States
v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012)
