Jackson Free Press

Sen. Roger Wicker's office just released a statement trumpeting Wicker's defense of free speech against the dreaded Fairness Doctrine. The bogus threat of the Fairness Doctrine--an old FCC rule requiring broadcasters to give equal airtime to opposing political views--was a favorite Republican scare tactic during the campaign, and Wicker seems intent on continuing the fight against a rule nobody cares to reinstate.

[Verbatim from Wicker]:
Wicker Joins Effort to Prevent Reinstatement of So-Called "Fairness Doctrine"
Senator Cosponsors Legislation to Prohibit Government Control Over Radio

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

In an effort to prevent the Democratic majority in Congress from silencing talk radio by resurrecting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., has cosponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. This legislation would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and would keep our airwaves free from government censorship and suppression.

"Leading members of the Democratic majority in Congress have talked recently about their desire to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine," Sen. Wicker said. "The reinstatement of this rule would be decidedly unfair and would smother healthy debate in our country at a time when we are dealing with difficult issues that demand vigorous public discussion.

"Freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, is part of the foundation our country was built upon. The so-called Fairness Doctrine would severely infringe on that right. Our government does not, nor should it ever, have the right to modify that freedom and thus regulate content of speech," Wicker said.

The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC rule that was first put into effect in 1949. Its intent was to mandate "fairness" over the airways by requiring broadcasters to provide equal airtime for opposing points of view on controversial topics. In short, the federal government mandated that a conservative viewpoint be countered by a liberal viewpoint (and vice versa) in an attempt to be "fair."

The justification for the rule was the "scarcity" of broadcast channels in the 1940s and the perceived need for the government to ensure broadcast fairness. At the time the Fairness Doctrine was put in place, television was in its infancy and there were only a limited number of AM radio stations. As time went on, the advent of FM radio and cable television drastically increased the number of channels available to consumers, making the scarcity argument less and less defensible. The rule, which was in place for nearly four decades, was finally repealed by the Reagan Administration in 1987. Since then, Congress has twice passed legislation restoring the Fairness Doctrine, but Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush vetoed the bills.

The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009, S. 34, introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D, has 23 original cosponsors. The bill is the companion to House legislation introduced by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.

Previous Comments

ID

142856

Comment

Ridiculous. Anything to change the subject and make it more partisan and paranoid. Sigh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-01-13T15:21:23-06:00

ID

142865

Comment

I would like to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine of some degree, though I would rather for the broadcasters themselves to take the initiative and broadcast other viewpoints. The airwaves belong to the people; why should only one side's voice be heard the most? This nation is split somewhat evenly between liberal, conservative and somewhere in the middle, but a large majority of political talk shows are conservative-leaning. Of course, this is not to say that no conservative viewpoints should be aired. Why not mix in a liberal and an independent?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-01-13T21:59:17-06:00

ID

142869

Comment

A few whacked out Liberals may indeed want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, I don't doubt that for a second but, it ain't gonna happen. As ladd stated, this is a diversion, a way to keep the mind-numbed Conservative faithful assured that the movement isn't dead by creating a boogeyman for them to fear and loathe.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-01-14T07:07:53-06:00

ID

142874

Comment

Well even with the fairness doctrine put back in place, it won't matter since the web has given everybody a platform to promote their views and opinions. Having said that I would hate to see the government regulating more of what broadcasters are allowed to present. To golden eagle, the broadcasters right now are going to present whatever slant will make them the most money and I'm sure that will vary from market to market but with the web as a safety net I don't see too much danger in any particular ideology cornering the market on "news".

Author

GLewis

Date

2009-01-14T09:39:40-06:00