The Unfairness Doctrine
Broadcasters should act before they're forced to react if Congress brings the so-called Fairness Doctrine back from the dead.
The Fairness Doctrine, which should be called The Gag Rule, will effectively silence talk shows on broadcast stations and the millions of Americans who tune in and talk about what was talked about. (Full disclosure: I host a Saturday evening talk show on NewsRadio 1020 KDKA.)
"There is a huge misconception, I think, in the public about what a Fairness Doctrine could possibly do," says Jeffrey McCall, communications professor at DePauw University in Indiana.
"I don't think people understand the repercussions that it would have on talk radio, on religious radio stations or the fact that even though it has been called the Fairness Doctrine, in many ways, it is not really a fair doctrine.
"It's called the Fairness Doctrine and it might sound good, and a lot of folks would say, 'Who can be against fairness?' But this really isn't an issue of discussing fairness. This is an issue of discussing whether the government should be forcing communicators to talk about things that they don't want to (talk about) or to advocate positions that they don't believe."
And that includes broadcast TV stations that have talk shows hosted by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres and Barbara Walters and her co-hosts on "The View," he says. If controversial issues are aired, the respective stations will be mandated to air other programs that counterbalance whatever opinions were aired on the aforementioned shows.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and many other powerful members of Congress have stated clearly and emphatically that they support some form of The Gag Rule. With a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they should be taken at their word. It's a "Hush Rush" Limbaugh scheme, say some listeners of the syndicated radio talk show host.
The broadcast industry can sit back and hope that it's an empty threat or it can be proactive to ensure that the public will not stand for the effective silencing of free speech. Tens of thousands of calls by outraged listeners and viewers to congressional offices can cause any potential censor in Congress to keep censorship on hold.
Broadcast stations, hosts and consultants could join and start a campaign now -- with its own Web site, slogan, jargon ("The Gag Rule"), recorded spots, news releases and a will to win -- demanding that talk shows and, of course, the First Amendment not be silenced.
As a bonus, the industry could give show hosts a great deal of free publicity whenever the news media need supporters to interview or to engage in debates with apologists for state-sponsored censorship.
"If there is a move afoot to act proactively, I think it needs to go beyond just the talk radio hosts and the people who would take that particular side of the issue," says McCall.
"I think they need to find a broader cross section of supporters and people who are not in the talk business or not in the radio business.
"I think if all of the voices to say 'let's keep the Fairness Doctrine from coming back' ... are people who have a stake in it directly, I think it will lose some of its clout."
Broadcasters must start to speak up while they still can.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge convicts Homewood man of deadly jitney driver shooting
- Steelers trade punter Wing to Giants for pick
- Plum teacher asks judge to dismiss intimidation charges
- Pitt forward Maia injured during workouts
- Steelers laud decision, praise Brady for taking on Goodell
- 4-year-old transplant recipient Angelo Giorno dies, hospital says
- Vick supporters, opponents demonstrate before Steelers’ game, but coexist
- Residents want crossing guard at spot where McKeesport student was struck, killed
- Judge will not recuse himself from Scaife case
- Blossom end rot can be fixed with proper watering, not more nutrients
- United board requests proposals for high school energy savings