Here's the latest news item from Tim Walberg's House website:

Washington, Jun 28 - U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) today will speak at a press conference to discuss an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the Federal Communications Commission to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.

Congressman Walberg is also an original co-sponsor of the Broadcasters Freedom Act, legislation introduced by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), which would prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Walberg doesn't like the Fairness Doctrine. Interesting. Let's take a closer look...

The Fairness Doctrine called for broadcast media to air both (or all) sides of controversial issues when discussing them, in an effort to better inform the public. In addition, subjects of personal attacks were to be notified within a week of that attack taking place and be given equal time to respond on air. A similar rule existed for political editorials and endorsements.

After a series of court cases and some criticism, the Federal Communications Commission began to phase out the doctrine in the mid-1980s. By 2000, the corollary rules about personal attacks and editorials were the last pieces that remained, and the FCC unceremoniously decided to stop enforcing those rules.

So did the Fairness Doctrine dampen free speech, as critics claimed? Well, yes, a little. Does that mean it was unconstitutional? No.

From Oyez.org (a great resource for Supreme Court rulings), here's the result of the 1969 case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC.

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice White argued that spectrum scarcity made it "idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish." The Court held that the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment. With respect to the regulation of personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates, the FCC's requirement that the subject of the attack be provided with a tape, transcript, or broadcast summary, as well as an opportunity to respond without having to prove an inability to pay for the "air-time," insured a balanced and open discussion of contested issues. The requirement that political editorializing be presented for and against both sides of the debated issues also contributed to the balanced discussion of public concerns.

In other words, since no one "owns" the electromagnetic spectrum (or the radio-wave portion of it), it is a public commodity that the federal government can regulate. Since it can regulate it, equal time for opposing opinions on controversial issues is in the public interest, and the doctrine was upheld. Later rulings included reservations about the Fairness Doctrine and its application, but the concept as a whole still stands. It's just no longer enforced by the FCC.

That's the history. So does Tim Walberg, constitutional scholar, oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine on First Amendment grounds? No.

Here's what Congressman Walberg said:

“We are discussing whether or not we should reinstate a piece of legislation entitled the Fairness Doctrine. Ironically enough, the year the Fairness Doctrine was originally introduced, 1949, President Truman also introduced legislation you may be familiar with: the Fair Deal.

“Today, I am asking for a fair deal for American talk radio programs and their millions of bi-partisan listeners. The broadcast world has changed tremendously since 1949.

“In today’s world where consumers watch HDTV, listen to HD Radio and talk on iPhones, the number of broadcast outlets available to the general public is much, much greater than back in 1949.

“With the market of political ideas flourishing not only on the radio, but also on the Internet, on TV and in print, there is no need for government control of public airwaves.

“Do we really want the FCC to conduct investigations and issue warnings to radio talk show hosts nationwide who simply discuss the important issues of our time?

“The Constitution says “freedom of speech,” not “freedom of government approved fair speech in rationed amounts.”

“Talk radio is an asset to our nation because it encourages strong and healthy debate about public policy.

“The Broadcasters Freedom Act would ensure these debates continue, and I am proud to support this legislation so that millions of American radio listeners are given a fair deal.”

The short version? It might hurt talk radio, so he doesn't like it. Now why would Walberg be interested in protecting talk radio? Could it have something to do with Chris Simmons-- Walberg employee and radio host on WBCK? Or, perhaps, it would hurt this fellow:



If the Fairness Doctrine were being enforced, the Rush Limbaughs of the world, who propagate so much hatred on behalf of the conservative movement, might feel pressure to be a little more "fair and balanced."

In fact, let's focus on talk radio. Here's Tim Walberg's primary argument:

With the market of political ideas flourishing not only on the radio, but also on the Internet, on TV and in print, there is no need for government control of public airwaves.

There is a hint of truth to this. The Internet, as this blog shows, offers a phenomenal opportunity for political discussion and partisanship. But broadcast media-- especially talk radio-- still has a much wider audience. After all, it's easier to tune in to WJR on your way to work than it is to take time out of your evening to read Michigan Liberal.

So let's look at talk radio, because that's what Tim Walberg focused on. It's a product of the free market, flourishing in the decades since the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Walberg said:

Talk radio is an asset to our nation because it encourages strong and healthy debate about public policy.

So it must be balanced because market forces, right? Healthy debate of public policy, indeed, would require both sides to be presented, right?

Not quite. The Center for American Progress recently released a report (previously mentioned at the blog Conservative Media) looking at the five major companies that broadcast the vast majority of commercial talk radio.

But wait! Congressman Walberg said:

In today’s world where consumers watch HDTV, listen to HD Radio and talk on iPhones, the number of broadcast outlets available to the general public is much, much greater than back in 1949.

(Emphasis added.)

Well, Congressman, not in radio. Five companies-- Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel, Cumulus, and Salem-- own most of the radio stations you might be listening to. Consolidation following the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has allowed an individual broadcasting corporation like Clear Channel to own as many as seven stations in a single market. So much for competition.

So what did the Center for American Progress find? You should read the whole report yourself, but these bar graphs pretty much sum up the current state of American talk radio.


So. The impression I'm getting is that, without a shadow of a doubt, talk radio is incredibly conservative. Now, as that Center for American Progress report explains, this isn't entirely because of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, but there's no doubt that if the Fairness Doctrine were in place, there would have to be some major changes made.

Not that any of this ought to surprise anyone. I just thought I'd clearly outline the reasons Tim Walberg has for stepping up and fighting the Fairness Doctrine on behalf of talk radio. His employee/right-wing radio host Chris Simmons must appreciate it (and his station, by the way, is owned by Clear Channel Communications).

Oh, and that $1,000 that Clear Channel contributed to Walberg last fall must have been helpful, too. But it's not like campaign bribes-- er, contributions-- would ever affect the legislation he supports.

Labels: 110th Congress, Chris Simmons, Fairness Doctrine, Issues, Talk Radio, Tim Walberg