Email this page
Print this page
del.icio.us
digg
Q: Is Maine better or worse off without the Fairness Doctrine?
Scott K Fish
In 1991, Maine First District Congressman Tom Andrews broke with Maine’s other congressional delegation (Snowe, Cohen, Mitchell) on the closing of Loring Air Force Base in Limestone. Congressman Andrews favored the closing and said so in a newspaper column published in several Maine newspapers.
I was, at the time, press guy for the Maine House Republicans, including State Rep. Susan J. Pines, who represented Limestone in the Maine Legislature. Representative Pines was fit to be tied with Congressman Andrews’ readiness to sell out the townspeople of Limestone. Pines wrote an op-ed response to Andrews and asked me to submit it for publication to the newspapers that published Andrews’ column.
One month after sending Pines’ column to the Portland Press Herald—long after the impact of Andrews’ column faded—I had a phone call from a woman at the Portland Press Herald asking about the Pines column.
“Did Representative Pines write the column?” the woman asked.
“Yes,” I answered.
“Was it sent to other newspapers?”
“It was sent to other newspapers,” I said.
“Well,” said the woman, “then we can’t publish it. We only accept columns exclusive to our newspaper.”
“Why did you publish Tom Andrews’ column? That was published in other newspapers,” I said. “You’ll publish a nonexclusive Andrews column favoring the closing of Loring AFB, but not a response from Limestone’s state representative?”
“Oh, well,” said the woman, “we make exceptions for members of Congress.”
That story is part and parcel of how “fair” distribution of political news opinion worked under the lingering Fairness Doctrine mentality.
The Fairness Doctrine was 38 years old when, in 1987, President Reagan repealed it. By then the doctrine was alleged to require broadcasters to devote airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views.
The doctrine had been written for a time when news was controlled by what is known today as the mainstream media, i.e., the big three TV networks—ABC, NBC, CBS—and major daily newspapers, i.e., The New York Times and The Washington Post. It was news produced and controlled by people with a left-leaning view of the world.
But today, the new media—talk radio and the Internet—has filled the mainstream media’s huge ideological void, made by decades of ignoring those of us who also want right-leaning perspectives, and who want to study all sides of issues and then make up our minds.
Never before in history have so many Americans had access to so many news points of view from all over America and around the world. Congressional Democrats would bring back the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative voices popular with millions of Americans. This would be foolish and anti-American. Then again, foolish and anti-American often describes today’s congressional Democrats.
If congressional Democrats want to know why their left-wing message isn’t taking root in the new media, here’s a hint: It’s the message, not the medium.
Please call Maine’s members of Congress. Tell them, “Don’t pull the wooden stake from the Fairness Doctrine’s heart.”
Sean Faircloth
When I was little, when the Vietnam War was most unpopular, my father pulled our car over to offer a ride to a hitchhiking Marine. My dad, who served in the Army during the Berlin Airlift, felt we must respect men and women in uniform.
For those of us who love flag and country, the following story boils one’s blood: There was a veteran who, despite injury to himself, had saved the lives of his comrades, then chased down and killed an attacking Vietcong. Later, that vet once again risked his own life to save a comrade who had been ejected from their boat while under attack. This American hero received a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.
Years later, a man named Carleton Sherwood (who’d already smeared the Vietnam War Memorial Fund) smeared this veteran in a “documentary” aired by Sinclair Broadcasting. They attacked a decorated soldier because he was John Kerry, presidential candidate. Here’s what America’s Supreme Court said in 1969 about opportunities to respond:
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right . . . 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.
That’s the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 Reagan appointees to the Federal Communication Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine.
I’m wary of broad use of the Fairness Doctrine today, because of increased media channels—at least on cable. But there’s a very important corollary to the Fairness Doctrine called the “personal attack rule,” which doesn’t, but should, still exist. The personal attack rule holds that a response to such an attack is permitted, indeed required, by fairness.
Since the Fairness Doctrine died, attack radio has risen. In 2008 Rush Limbaugh, broadcasting nationwide including in Maine, falsely implied that Senator Obama associated with Colombian rebels. Limbaugh said, “Hamas has endorsed Obama.” Another lie. Limbaugh called Obama “Afro-Leninist.”
Limbaugh, this year, stated that Senator Clinton epitomizes “the worst characteristics of women.” It’s both a personal attack on Hillary Clinton, a woman of major accomplishments, and his assertion that women have bad “characteristics” distinct from men.
Limbaugh, who used his maid to buy illegal Oxycontin, said in 2008 that what he learned from his addiction crime was to love himself more. This year Limbaugh used a crude sexual analogy referring to Democrats, claiming Democrats would say, “Have your way with me” for 10% and 2% of the population. Apparently “Limbaugh love”—or even basic politeness—doesn’t apply to blacks and gay people.
Basic justice holds that smear victims be permitted an opportunity to speak truth to lies. I say, revive the personal attack rule (not necessarily the entire Fairness Doctrine). Whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or an American war hero, justice requires an opportunity to respond to smears.
Scott K Fish
In 1991, Maine First District Congressman Tom Andrews broke with Maine’s other congressional delegation (Snowe, Cohen, Mitchell) on the closing of Loring Air Force Base in Limestone. Congressman Andrews favored the closing and said so in a newspaper column published in several Maine newspapers.
I was, at the time, press guy for the Maine House Republicans, including State Rep. Susan J. Pines, who represented Limestone in the Maine Legislature. Representative Pines was fit to be tied with Congressman Andrews’ readiness to sell out the townspeople of Limestone. Pines wrote an op-ed response to Andrews and asked me to submit it for publication to the newspapers that published Andrews’ column.
One month after sending Pines’ column to the Portland Press Herald—long after the impact of Andrews’ column faded—I had a phone call from a woman at the Portland Press Herald asking about the Pines column.
Advertisement
“Did Representative Pines write the column?” the woman asked.
“Yes,” I answered.
“Was it sent to other newspapers?”
“It was sent to other newspapers,” I said.
“Well,” said the woman, “then we can’t publish it. We only accept columns exclusive to our newspaper.”
“Why did you publish Tom Andrews’ column? That was published in other newspapers,” I said. “You’ll publish a nonexclusive Andrews column favoring the closing of Loring AFB, but not a response from Limestone’s state representative?”
“Oh, well,” said the woman, “we make exceptions for members of Congress.”
That story is part and parcel of how “fair” distribution of political news opinion worked under the lingering Fairness Doctrine mentality.
The Fairness Doctrine was 38 years old when, in 1987, President Reagan repealed it. By then the doctrine was alleged to require broadcasters to devote airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views.
The doctrine had been written for a time when news was controlled by what is known today as the mainstream media, i.e., the big three TV networks—ABC, NBC, CBS—and major daily newspapers, i.e., The New York Times and The Washington Post. It was news produced and controlled by people with a left-leaning view of the world.
But today, the new media—talk radio and the Internet—has filled the mainstream media’s huge ideological void, made by decades of ignoring those of us who also want right-leaning perspectives, and who want to study all sides of issues and then make up our minds.
Never before in history have so many Americans had access to so many news points of view from all over America and around the world. Congressional Democrats would bring back the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative voices popular with millions of Americans. This would be foolish and anti-American. Then again, foolish and anti-American often describes today’s congressional Democrats.
If congressional Democrats want to know why their left-wing message isn’t taking root in the new media, here’s a hint: It’s the message, not the medium.
Please call Maine’s members of Congress. Tell them, “Don’t pull the wooden stake from the Fairness Doctrine’s heart.”
Sean Faircloth
When I was little, when the Vietnam War was most unpopular, my father pulled our car over to offer a ride to a hitchhiking Marine. My dad, who served in the Army during the Berlin Airlift, felt we must respect men and women in uniform.
For those of us who love flag and country, the following story boils one’s blood: There was a veteran who, despite injury to himself, had saved the lives of his comrades, then chased down and killed an attacking Vietcong. Later, that vet once again risked his own life to save a comrade who had been ejected from their boat while under attack. This American hero received a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.
Years later, a man named Carleton Sherwood (who’d already smeared the Vietnam War Memorial Fund) smeared this veteran in a “documentary” aired by Sinclair Broadcasting. They attacked a decorated soldier because he was John Kerry, presidential candidate. Here’s what America’s Supreme Court said in 1969 about opportunities to respond:
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right . . . 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.
That’s the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 Reagan appointees to the Federal Communication Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine.
I’m wary of broad use of the Fairness Doctrine today, because of increased media channels—at least on cable. But there’s a very important corollary to the Fairness Doctrine called the “personal attack rule,” which doesn’t, but should, still exist. The personal attack rule holds that a response to such an attack is permitted, indeed required, by fairness.
Since the Fairness Doctrine died, attack radio has risen. In 2008 Rush Limbaugh, broadcasting nationwide including in Maine, falsely implied that Senator Obama associated with Colombian rebels. Limbaugh said, “Hamas has endorsed Obama.” Another lie. Limbaugh called Obama “Afro-Leninist.”
Limbaugh, this year, stated that Senator Clinton epitomizes “the worst characteristics of women.” It’s both a personal attack on Hillary Clinton, a woman of major accomplishments, and his assertion that women have bad “characteristics” distinct from men.
Limbaugh, who used his maid to buy illegal Oxycontin, said in 2008 that what he learned from his addiction crime was to love himself more. This year Limbaugh used a crude sexual analogy referring to Democrats, claiming Democrats would say, “Have your way with me” for 10% and 2% of the population. Apparently “Limbaugh love”—or even basic politeness—doesn’t apply to blacks and gay people.
Basic justice holds that smear victims be permitted an opportunity to speak truth to lies. I say, revive the personal attack rule (not necessarily the entire Fairness Doctrine). Whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or an American war hero, justice requires an opportunity to respond to smears.
