Webster's dictionary defines fair as “being pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming or flawless qualities”.  Applying this doctrine of fairness to broadcast media, empowers a committee of XX to define moderation and balance for the American public.  Free speech and freedom of the press flourish in free markets, because everyday people regulate broadcast content by choosing one venue over another.  The words of one person must be heard by other people, if the original person wishes to convey a message or speak.  Speech that goes unheard is nothing more than a thought.  Americans have been granted the freedom of speech, but an audience is not guaranteed.  The freedom not to listen enables the general public to select the content and format of their entertainment and news sources. The Federal Communications Act section 315 (1934) was amended in 1934, when the United States House of Representatives inserted the Fairness Doctrine. The fairness doctrine was enacted to protect the public interest and prevent a single ideology from controlling three media networks.  Broadcasters were obligated to present information in a balanced manner as a condition of obtaining an FCC license to broadcast.  The definition of fair and balanced is often open to much interpretation and eventually would be decided upon by the Supreme Court.  In 1969, Red Lion Broadcasting claimed the FCC violated the company’s first amendment rights by limiting the networks speech.  The Supreme Court decided in favor of the FCC and issued the following opinion. 

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.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

The statute was questioned again in 1964, when the Maimai Herald Publishing Co. did not publish Tornillo’s response to an editorial.  Tornillo claimed the Miami Herald was failing to meet the public interest burden on the Federal Trade Communications Act.  The Supreme Court determined the government had no right to determine the content of publication.  Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo began a slow reprisal of the Fairness Doctrine.  The motion was repelled in the 1984 case of FCC v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA.  The court ruled that government agencies did not have the right to determine the content of editorials, because the limitations would violate the First Amendment.  Congress desired government to continue to regulate editorials and other news broadcasts to ensure the people received fair interpretation of controversial issues.  The Hollins-Hefner legislation or the “Hush Rush Bill” attempted to implement the repelled FCC statute as Federal Law.  The Bill passed but was vetoed by President Roland Regan.  The FCC has not reviewed the issue since.  The recently elected Democratic Congress is going to review the matter in the current legislative session.

Modern Americans are bombarded with news and entertainment options.  The internet allows user to listen to radio stations broadcasting across the country.  Cable television provides multiple twenty-four hour new channels.  Talk radio broadcasts spread across the airwaves and beam down from satellites expresses the views from both sides of the aisle.  Citizens are given to choices.  People use their time and spend their money in support of the broadcast agency of their choosing.  The free market eliminates networks which people find offensive, boring or even untrustworthy and promotes networks who broadcast entertaining and informative content.  Everyday the average person regulates the airwaves with the ratings system.  Congress is attempting to balance the broadcast spectrum with the fairness doctrine.  The notion of balanced and unbiased media presentation is a lofty ideal and valid aspiration.  Humans are always biased by prior life experience, religious background, educational level and other societal forces beyond a person’s control.  Despite the engrained bias of one’s personality, an individual should still be able to select a media organization that express similar philosophical beliefs to one’s own.  The reinstitution of the fairness doctrine would disallow the free market regulation of media sources as mandated by the listeners and viewers and grant that regulatory power to the FCC.  The FCC consists of Five Presidential appointees severing five year terms.  The members of the FCC are approved by Congress, but the general public never votes on the members.  The five members of the FCC would be granted the authority to determine what is fair and balanced for the entire nation.  Five people would be able to control the nation’s media content.  This legislation limits the freedom of the press by placing control over editorial content in few hands.  If the FCC were ever to be controlled by a single political faction, the minority party may never be able to be heard.

But no one listens to me

-Patriotic Progeny

Posted: 08/13/07