Dem's Try To Sneak Unfairness Doctrine Back In

Sneaky Seeds of an Assault to Reimpose the Fairness Doctrine?
Whatever the proposed route, an attempt to impose Fairness Doctrine equivalency, or worse, may be in the offing.
Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.
One need never sagely underestimate the routes which offensive liberal Federal intrusion, upon free speech or otherwise, may take. The following scenario appears to reflect the seeds of an attempt to reimpose the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Initially, a word about the cleverly misnamed Fairness Doctrine - that very name a masterful public relations coup. Imposed in 1934, when AM radio prevailed, the Doctrine required that a radio station present arguments or positions on both sides of a political question. So much for the First Amendment to the Constitution and freedom of speech. In 1987 the Federal Communications Commission, mindful of the consequential functional censorship, rescinded imposition of the Doctrine. Of course, by 1987 radio had ceased to be somewhat of a communications monopoly.

This NOTABLE NEWS NOW commentary, under the pen of our late distinguished Paul M. Weyrich, a journalistic expert, a number of times revealed efforts, sometimes rather incipient, to reimpose the Doctrine - his last such commentary November 19, 2008. Those efforts continue, unquestionably because many leftists cannot stand the momentum, much less the possible influence, some conservative talk-radio hosts present. That many of them have large audiences inevitably aggravates the quest for censorship.

The most recent effort appears to be brewing within the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Until recently the FCC Office of the General Counsel had as its eight its top lawyers - the General Counsel; four Deputy General Counsels; an Associate General Counsel and Counsel to the General Counsel; an Associate General Counsel, Administrative Law Division; and an Associate General Counsel, Litigation Division. Behold, there now is an Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer [italics supplied].

As though the title were not sufficiently suspicious, the published view of the occupant fills the gap. Further, he comes with professional qualifications. Among his public statements: “Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs.” Revealing is an article published December 5, 2007, by the Center for American Progress, hardly a conservative organization: Mark Lloyd [his name], “Media Maneuvers: Why the Rush to Waive Cross-Ownership Ban?”

Two quotations from the article are revealing:

“There are lessons today’s progressives [sic] need to learn . . . lessons both political and legal which will surely play out across the nation as conservatives try to grab for all they can in [this] last year of the [George W.] Bush administration . . .

“Conservatives, including conservatives in media, are frantic to get a wide range of regulations that favor the interests of big business . . .

“A pro-big business Supreme Court aligned with Murdoch, Limbaugh and Zell and ready to battle a progressive in the White House begins to sound a lot like the early years of the FDR administration. Will progressives [sic] sound like FDR and commit to creating media policy that actually serves democracy and promotes diverse and antagonistic sources of news?”

The sly Mark Lloyd approach appears to be a form of detrimental taxation, disguised as fees, consisting of sums equal to total operating costs that opposing-view broadcasting outlets may grab money from a public trough. Whatever the proposed route, an attempt to impose Fairness Doctrine equivalency, or worse, may be in the offing.

Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.