Guest post by Ed Stephan
How about bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine“? Except for Air America virtually all radio and much of TV — though federally licensed to broadcast over public airwaves — seems to be little more than a propaganda arm for the GOP.
For many years, television and radio stations were required to give equal time to opposing sides of public or political issues to ensure the American public heard all sides of a debate. It was a requirement made by the Federal Communications Commission that came to be known as The Fairness Doctrine.
In 1986, a federal court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not have the force of law and could be overturned without congressional approval. Congress passed a bill to make the doctrine law but the bill was vetoed by President Reagan in 1987 and the Fairness Doctrine was abolished.
Since then, the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage. Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs, and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making.
And American listeners and viewers agree. A recent poll of likely voters shows overwhelming support across the political and demographic spectrum for restoring rules requiring fairness and balance on the public airwaves.
Last week a Washington State judge added a whole new dimension to this movement. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham ruled that the on-air commentary and activism of two local hate-radio hosts constitute in-kind contributions which must be reported to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission.
According to the article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
The ruling has attracted attention beyond Washington’s borders. “It is absolutely stunning in terms of the philosophical and theoretical questions it raises,” says Michael Harrison, publisher of the talk-radio trade magazine Talkers; Harrison adds that he’s not aware of a similar case elsewhere in the country.
In Harrison’s view, if no money changed hands then there’s no contribution. “Otherwise you can subject it to taxes, limits on contributions, all kinds of things that get in the way of free speech. To put a value on it is a very dangerous precedent.” (In response to the ruling and to meet a deadline, the initiative campaign estimated the value of the hosts’ work at $20,000).
The judge claimed this his ruling does not place limits on anyone’s First Amendment rights.
Wrote Wickham, “In the area of speech, requiring disclosure of in-kind contributions for media time allocated to campaigning for a political campaign will not restrict that campaigning, but merely require it to be disclosed to the general public, much the same as any other valuable contribution.”
But the decision raises many more issues. What about counter-commentary (rare as it usually is). If another radio host attacks the point of view of the original ones, doesn’t that also have to be reported as an in-kind contribution by someone? And what about newspaper editorials and websites and blogs — like this one?
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the greed of broadcasters — not wanting to have to report inordinate amounts of cost-evaluated in-kind contributions to one side or the other — forced them to provide “fair and balanced” coverage in order to come out even?