GOP preps for talk radio confrontation
By Alexander Bolton
June 27, 2007
House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).



They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Feinstein said she is not yet ready to submit a formal proposal.

Democrats on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee have also begun to focus on what they regard as a lack of diversity in talk radio, and may hold hearings later this year.

To halt the growing momentum in Congress to balance conservative radio programming, House lawmakers are preparing to introduce legislation this week that would codify the FCC’s 1985 decision to abandon the Fairness Doctrine.

Rep. Mike Pence (R), who worked as a syndicated talk radio host in Indiana before winning election to the House, is the main sponsor of the legislation. He is working with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on the bill.

“A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called a massive imbalance on the airwaves,” said Pence. “I think a case is being made for government control of the use of the airwaves. The legislation we’re preparing is aimed at preventing that
from happening.”

The House Republican leadership and officials at the White House have reviewed the draft legislation.

If passed, the bill would require Congress to change the law before the FCC could mandate that television and radio hosts present conservative and liberal programming side by side. But the chances of passage are slim, given Democratic control of the Senate and House.

Still, Pence said the legislation could draw enough public attention to the issue to make it difficult for a future Democratic president or the Democratic-controlled Congress to pressure the FCC to increase regulation of radio content.

Conservatives have grown more apprehensive about a change to FCC policy under a Democratic administration in the wake of recent reports that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the Democratic presidential primary front-runner, would support rules requiring more political balance on talk radio.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a Los Angeles radio host last week that he had once overheard Clinton and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on a Capitol elevator complain about the prevalence of “right-wing extremists” on talk radio. He said that Clinton and Boxer discussed their desire for a “legislative fix.”


Clinton and Boxer have denied the conversation ever took place.

But Inhofe believes that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their allies are setting the stage for greater government regulation of conservative talk radio.

“This is the Clinton White House,” said Inhofe. “They are trying to regulate the content of talk radio from the ownership perspective, hoping to circumvent freedom of speech arguments.”

Inhofe cited a recent report by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank headed by John Podesta, who served as Clinton’s White House chief of staff. A June 20 report by the think tank described a “massive imbalance” on the radio airwaves.

The report suggested several steps to “encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming” and “diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs.”

It recommended restoring ownership caps on radio stations; “greater accountability” over radio licensing; and that commercial owners who fail to abide by “public interest obligations” pay to support public broadcasting.

Pence hopes to rally colleagues around the issue with a speech that he plans to deliver on the House floor today.

“Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation,” Pence wrote in his prepared remarks. “Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves,” he wrote.

I've always seen the Fairness Doctrine as a slap right in the face of the First Amendment.

This sounds like a terrible idea.

I copy my post from the healthcare thread into this as it applies here as well:

"Fair. Lefties like things "fair", not "free". Free would imply that no goverment authority is manipulating things. Fair implies some benevolent figure, free from the bonds of human nature, has decided who gets what. Either everyone in class gets a piece of gum or no one does."

No big shocker here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6pwU0FygLlY

But how else will we make people listen to our liberal points of view?

Haha, that's brilliant.

The Free Market should decide.

Talk Radio is not as damaging as many liberals really fear it to be.

Liberals simply don't listen to talk radio while many conservatives do.

There is no need for a fairness doctrine. Liberal POV's are well if not better articulated in media than most conservative ideas. Most of talk radio dosen't deal with ideas anyway, it's argumentative hogwash about abortion, morality and other nonsensical worthless banter.

There are a few good shows which talk about policy and economics and I do listen to them from time to time. I don't see myself ever tuning in to Liberal talk radio because, I have the internet and most journalists tend to be of a liberal POV anyhow. So if I want to hear about Ideas I'll probably read about them rather than hear about how much Republicans or Democrats suck.

I mean really, honestly, what's my incentive to hear the next Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton interview?


That being said if someone wants their own ideas and thoughts regurgitated too them and that makes Rush Limbaugh or whoever a hell of a lot of money.... more power too them.

This being said, bring on the ownership Cap. That needs to be reinstated. no more than one or two stations in a market.

Get Fucking Clear Channel the hell out of it. I love working for an independant, except for the money of course.

Douchebag Trent Lott is a supporter of the "fariness doctrine as well."

As previously stated, let the market decide. Air America provided an alternative to conservative talk radio, and it flopped. So the idea that
liberal talk is being hindered in any way is a bogus argument that the likes of Feinstein and Boxer are making.

[quote="Electromatic"]The Free Market should decide.
quote]

Thanks. I should have replaced 'FCC' with this. Not sure what I was thinking. My apologies.

Rush Limbaugh is an easy target, who cares if there's balance on the fucking radio. Liberals have better print media - because they actually read books and are interested in the arts.

Are my eyes decieving me? Are there NO supporters for this in the forum?

*swoons*

I think most people are more libertarian than they're willing to admit.

I was just thinking that liberals probably read the news more as opposed to watching it on TV or getting it from the radio. Also, half the people that listen to Rush hate him.

Oh MAN, RM3 ROCKS!!!

Hilarious. Yeah, no conservative-minded people read books or are interested in the arts... Oh and the comments about liberals reading their news instead of listening to it only highlights the point (similarity) that the medium with which they choose to get their info is the one that is 'unbalanced' just like with talk radio and righties.

Both sides are unhappy and both sides are full of shit. Everyone should just go to timeout and shut the hell up.

If you want to hear non biased talk radio listen to WBZ AM 1030 in Boston. It's a 50,000 watt station so after dark you can hear it in 32 states. Basically if you live east of the mississippi you can hear the talk shows at night.