The Broadcaster Freedom Act: The truth about what’s really behind the resistance to the Fairness Doctrine.

In 2007, Indiana congressman Mike Pence introduced a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives titled, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007," which said in pertinent part that the FCC "shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’."

For those of you not up to speed on this important issue, conservatives have long been opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, because, in their words, it would limit their right to free speech. The most vocal contingent out there has been the Christian Right, which has the most to lose over the doctrine’s reinstatement since it would require Christian-based broadcasts to allow for opposing viewpoints, something they are decidedly against. Another contingent, almost as vocal, are the typical conservative neo-cons, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the equally obtuse, but always entertaining, Ann Coulter. Basically, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, every one of these gas bags would have to do one of two things: either stop spewing their hate-filled, erroneous diatribes, or give equal time to those who actually can offer up sobering and ACCURATE rebuttals.

But, of course, the Conservative Right isn’t interested in doing either of those two things, so instead what they have set out to do is re-write what the original doctrine actually said. The following is a synopsis of what the FCC was trying to do.

"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."

When misrepresentation didn’t work, The Conservative Right opted instead to miss-interpret the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, which said the following:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA, sued arguing that the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks. The decision, contrary to what most Republicans keep telling their constituents, had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. In fact, the decision had no bearing whatsoever on the programming format of WGCB, or any other station, radio or television; it merely said that such stations that present heavily opinionated, and yes sometimes controversial, content must allow for or present a fair and balanced counter argument. It also pointed out, correctly I might add, that the airwaves are not the personal property of the broadcasters; instead the FCC leases those airwaves to the broadcasters with the explicit understanding that the public interest will be served in a fair and honorable way. Conversely, these licenses can be revoked if the FCC finds that broadcasters have violated that understanding.

In another landmark decision, nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling that fined WBAI for its airing of a George Carlin comedy routine "Filthy Words" during the afternoon hours, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726. WBAI contended that its First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Court’s decision said that the FCC had the right to fine the station. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. Again the "rights" argument failed, because the Court agreed that the airwaves were not the property of the broadcaster, in this case WBAI, but rather belonged to the people, and that the FCC had the authority to determine what could or could not be said on the station. Had WBAI published a book highlighting the entire Carlin routine, it would’ve been well within its constitutional rights.

Not until the Reagan Administration did the Fairness Doctrine finally get rescinded, and since then attempts to reinstated it have been blocked. Over the last twenty years, conservative talk shows on both radio and TV (Did you think I would forget about you, Fox?) have taken off. Not bound by any fact checking or responsible contrary opinion, these ideologues have waged war on reason and hid behind their perceived constitutional rights, using the Constitution as both a shield and toilet paper to justify their hate-filled agendas.

And, worst of all, the Religious Right has joined in. People like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances to basically run riot with their own opinions, which contrary to what their followers might say, are neither historically or politically accurate, nor biblically in keeping with their alleged ministries. Dobson, in particular, hides behind his Doctorate in Psychology to get away with his myopic stances and his intimidation of political candidates who don’t subscribe to his theology. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not, again contrary to what Dobson and his favorite conservative pet these days, Laura Ingraham, would say, prevent anybody’s opinion from being stated; all it would do is allow for the opportunity for a dissenting opinion to be aired. As so many conservatives are fond of saying whenever the ACLU gets involved in legal battles or tries to protect the rights of a unpopular group, "If you’ve got nothing to hide then why do you need your rights protected?"

The problem is they do have something to hide, and they know it. Aside from the minions of mindless and rudderless souls who tune in to these gutter-filled, intellectually devoid programs, the vast majority of Americans would not be caught dead either listening to or watching such rubbish. Imagine if the next time James Dobson went on his broadcast and ripped a political candidate for being pro-choice, he had to respond to someone who asked him why he has never questioned the Iraq war, or why he has never taken a "political" stand on world hunger. I would actually listen to that show; hell I might even buy it on i-Tunes. In deed I found it interesting that on one of his podcasts, he praised Tim Russert as someone who was tough, but fair-minded, and presented all opinions. He was quoted as saying, "I’ve been interviewed by many people over the past three decades, and few have demonstrated the mix of tenacity and warmth that was Tim’s calling card. He asked tough questions – but he asked them of everyone, on both sides of the political and ideological aisle – and he did so with a respectful demeanor." No doubt the irony was lost on Dobson.

Equally puzzling is this constant insistence among the Right that they need protection from the Fairness Doctrine, because they are the only "legitimate" outlets for conservative thought – now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one! According to Dr. Jim and the gang, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks, besides Fox of course, are all liberal-based and decidedly anti-conservative. In other words, they’re all against them. Now while I realize that even a paranoid person has some enemies, this has to be the most convoluted claim anyone has ever made to justify what can only be described as a self-fulfilling, self-aggrandizing, hypocritically arrogant stance. The very idea that the reason you can’t be fair is because you perceive everybody else as being unfair is the very essence of self-delusion, and only the truly gullible would buy into it.

This November, the nation will get a chance to chart the course for the next four, possibly, eight years. The Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the accumulation of wealth among the rich, soaring oil prices, global warming, and control of our airwaves. The choice is pretty self-evident. We need a leader who doesn’t back down to scandalous lies and intimidation from right-wing preachers and other conservative bullies. The Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys, and the Limbaughs of the world will say it comes down to freedom; theirs of course. Bull. It comes down to responsibility and accountability; two words rarely associated with such types.