Democrats block amendment to prevent Fairness Doctrine

[Soldier4Christ]

Democrats block amendment to prevent Fairness Doctrine 
Republicans make effort to preempt return of regulated content for talk radio

Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues.

Although no legislation has been offered to bring back the regulation, which was scrapped in 1987, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and other Republicans have been mounting a pre-emptive attack in recent weeks. They argue that a return to the old rule would give the government too much power in regulating content. The House recently passed an amendment banning the rule's return.

When Coleman, R-Minn., tried to bring up his amendment Friday to a defense authorization bill, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, objected. Levin's office said he objected because the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, and because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq.

The subtext of the debate over the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio's perceived dominance by conservative voices.

In a telephone interview, Coleman said his motivation was to preserve the First Amendment. But he added: "I do have a strong objection to folks wanting to cut off talk radio because it's conservative. Let the people be able to make the choice."

Thune agreed.

"Having the bureaucrats dictate the content of the airwaves isn't much different from what we are seeing in places like Iran and Russia where they are rolling back freedom of the press," he said.

Republicans have seized on a comment made last month by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said "it's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine." Durbin's spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, said that Durbin was expressing support for the concept but has no plans to introduce legislation.

"There is no big conspiracy here, there's no secret plan, there's no nothing," he said.

Durbin and Coleman briefly debated the idea on the Senate floor Friday, with Durbin asking Coleman if he believed it serves the interests of an educated electorate if people could hear both sides of the story.

"Absolutely," Coleman responded. "But I believe - strongly believe - that the government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating, 'now here is the other side.'" He said with the proliferation of communication options such as the Internet, Americans have plenty of opportunity to get the other side.

"The airwaves belong to the American people," Durbin said. "Those who profit from them do by permission of the people through their government." He said that broadcasters should provide both points of view on an issue.

Ed Schultz, a North Dakota-based liberal-leaning talk show host who has more than 3 million listeners on more than 100 stations, also said the airwaves belong to the public.

He said the Republicans' efforts are overreactions, and said he is traveling to Washington next week to talk to talk to Democrats about the issue.

"The issue is liberal talkers haven't even been given a market opportunity in many markets across the country," he said.

He is frustrated because his show is not airing in such major markets as Boston and Philadelphia, where he says certain companies are keeping progressive shows out.

"I'm just open to hearing these conservative companies explain their thought process," he said.

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday referred to comments made by its chairman, Kevin Martin, in an interview this year with Broadcasting & Cable. Asked if he'd support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Martin responded, "No. The commission eliminated the doctrine in 1987. Doing so has made for a lot of opportunities in things like talk radio."

Coleman said in the telephone interview that he also has concerns when the FCC tries to regulate content for sex and violence.

"There are limitations on what the FCC should do," he said. "We need to tread very carefully when regulating content ... The best tool is a good family."

[Soldier4Christ]

July 4th -- 'Radio Independence Day'?

A conservative organization is urging members of Congress to pass a bill that would permanently ban the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

Supporters of the Broadcaster Freedom Act want to get the necessary 218 signatures on the discharge petition by July 4; currently the petition has 194 signatories. H.R. 2905, sponsored by Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) and a host of other House members, would remove from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) any authority to enact regulations or policies that would reinstate "the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance" -- otherwise known as the Fairness Doctrine.
 
Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center says the Fairness Doctrine was never fair. "It was used by liberals to intimidate conservative talk radio," he points out.
 
The doctrine made it easy to sue in order to make sure the other side was given access, Noyes continues. "It really had a chilling effect in that there was very little editorial discussion, independent discussion like you have today on talk radio," he notes. "And liberals have for 20 years ... wanted to get this regulation put back in."
 
Noyes says the Democrats have reason to be more confident right now because they have the opportunity to elect a Democratic majority in Congress, and a Democratic administration in the Capitol – which would allow them to decide FCC appointees.
 
"o the idea is to get members of Congress to vote now on whether they want this to happen," he expresses. Noyes is hopeful July 4 will be Radio Independence Day in 2008.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pelosi supports 'Fairness Doctrine'
House speaker admits she personally backs revival of 'Hush Rush' policy

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.  In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation.  She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall.  There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

 “So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation

Pelosi to Senate:  Filibuster FISA

Although Speaker Pelosi would not specifically call for Sen. Barack Obama to lead a filibuster against Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation in the Senate, she did send a strong signal that she was positive about the talk of filibuster against the surveillance measure by Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd (CT.) and Russ Feingold (Wisc.)

Recalling that there were many issues before the Senate that she felt deserved but did not get a filibuster -- on the war in Iraq and expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that the Administration vetoed, for example -- Pelosi voiced her opinion that “a filibuster focuses on a very important issue” and that the importance of FISA “justifies that.”

The Speaker pointed out that “if the Senate has the ability to filibuster, and “I think there is a great appetite in the public for such a debate on [FISA] to take place.  And I think it would be healthy and wholesome.”

Of her own unusual vote for the surveillance bill coupled with an admonition to colleagues that they were not obliged to do the same, Pelosi was pressed by nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

“It’s better than the underlying FISA law,” Pelosi told Novak, “It’s better than what the Senate had sent us.  It’s not good enough, as far as I’m concerned.  But I did for it because, again, we have our choices to make and I viewed my role as saving the world, the House, the Congress, from the Senate bill, and  the Protect America Act, the Administration’s bill.  But it isn’;t the bill I would have written.”