Is there growing opposition to re-imposition of the so-called Fairness
Doctrine or is there a clever effort - maybe a plot? - to convince
opponents of the Doctrine that they need not worry?
In this column upon six occasions in the past three years I have
discussed the Fairness Doctrine, the leftist effort to re-impose its
censorship and the varying prospects for re-imposition. The most recent
such column raises a ground for hope should the next President and the
111th Congress re-impose the Doctrine - namely, litigation. That
column, posted July 30, 2008, follows. The other columns were posted
December 5, 2006; February 5, April 15 and June 26, 2007; June 27, 2008.
All are available through our Free Congress Foundation Website,
www.freecongress.org.
The Fairness Doctrine is nothing but censorship. In substance, a
talk-show host either must advocate both sides of an issue or accord
those who disagree with his or her view the opportunity to present their
opposition on the talk show.
There now are reports that many prominent news figures and high-profile
Democratic leaders oppose re-imposition of the Doctrine. Former CBS
anchor Dan Rather is reported to be opposed. Because most liberal
candidates for Federal office favor the Doctrine it truly would be news
- and most welcome news! - were a significant number of them opposed to
the Doctrine. This especially would be meaningful if, as appears likely,
the next Administration and Congress are under strongly liberal
leadership.
However, are these reports anywhere near accurate? Is there really a
significant movement among leaders of the left and others, if any
"others" there be, to oppose re-imposition? Or is some or all of the
noise created to lull opponents of the Fairness Doctrine into forgetting
about it so the proponents can combine their forces and ram it through?
Whichever applies, all of us who believe in free speech must continue
to be vigilant. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty . . ." and
also the price of freedom of the airwaves. More than once in all my
years in Washington I have seen a movement organize itself quietly and
effectively and successfully. Well and good when it's a movement for
freedom or another good cause. Wrecking talk shows by curbing their free
speech is censorship and danger. Let us continue our vigilance.