Will Fairness Doctrine Be An Issue In 2008 Election?

The Fairness Doctrine recently was overwhelmingly defeated in a vote in the House 309-115. And yet with 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry having called for its return, along with Dennis Kucinich (not to mention unsubstantiated rumors that Hillary Clinton wants to do something), there are those saying the issue will be a topic in the 2008 election.

Some conservatives seem to be trying to rally the base over the issue:

The House voted 309 to 115 to approve the Pence amendment, but Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative group Accuracy in Media, said even if the Senate passes the measure, “it would do absolutely nothing to stop a Democratic president and Congress from reinstating” the regulation.

Beyond that, he said in a release, the amendment has caused confusion and provided the opportunity for “several dozen liberals [in Congress] to claim they are not interested in re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine.”

Kincaid argued that if Democrats gain control of both the White House and Congress, those same liberals would simply let the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. “This may be what is planned.”

James Gattuso of The Heritage Foundation and the National Review says the House vote should take care of the Fairness Doctrine, but that there is another piece of legislation looming that would have th esame effect:

The odd Dennis Kucinich aside, few on the Left ever seriously thought the Fairness Doctrine could be reinstituted. Last week’s win was mostly over undefended ground. But the Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle “reforms” meant to alter what broadcasters do and say.

These approaches were detailed in report jointly released last month by the liberal advocacy groups Free Press and the Center for American Progress. Entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio,” many conservative commentators mistakenly assumed the report endorsed the Fairness Doctrine. Far from it: The authors dismiss the doctrine as “ineffective.”

Instead, they propose an alternative agenda, including:

Strengthened limits on how many radio stations on firm can own, locally and nationally;

Shortening broadcast license terms;

Requiring radio broadcasters to regularly show they are operating in the “public interest;”

Imposing a fee on broadcasters who fail to meet these “public interest obligations” with the funding to go to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The goal of the reforms is the same as the Fairness Doctrine: to reduce the influence of conservative talk radio. Limiting ownership, the authors believe, will eliminate many of the owners who favor conservative causes. Public interest requirements can be defined almost any way a regulator wants — up to and perhaps even beyond that required by the old Fairness Doctrine. And the proposed fee provides regulators with a quite effective stick to compel compliance — as well as to direct funds to more ideologically compatible public broadcasters.

Free speech and free markets enjoyed a great victory last week in the defeat of the Fairness Doctrine. But the real fight to protect the media from government interference is just beginning.

The Fairness Doctrine is now being mentioned even in seemingly benign and unrelated areas, take this example from John Gibson:

NBC is reportedly airing hours of the concerts — hours upon hours — on and through various NBC platforms. Al Gore is the chairman of the Live Earth project. NBC is a company which is owned by a corporation which must declare its political contributions.

Does anybody think the Live Earth concerts are not a political statement by Gore’s supporters that will end up benefiting Al Gore? Does anybody think Al Gore isn’t running for president? I know he’s said he’s not, and every time I get a Democrat analyst sitting next to me, he or she says he’s not. But it sure looks like he’s running to me.

BTW, John, we at 2008 Central do not think that Gore will run barring some massive unforeseen event that would tank the campaigns of Clinton and Obama. But back to the point: Again, the Fairness Doctrine is a rallying point for conservatives. And there’s virtually been no payoff for anyone that has brought this issue up on the left at all.

Which makes me wonder why is was brought up in the first place. Kucinich probably brought it up to get attention. But aside from that, I doubt any Democrat would risk endorsing this in the general election. There’s no wide base of support for this kind of change, and the internet is quickly becoming a great equalizer.

In fact, searches for recent news and commentary articles are overwhelmingly against the fairness doctrine. It’s relatively hard to find supporters of it online. Even on liberal sites like Kos, people are talking more about Republicans fighting against it rather than actually supporting it. No doubt there are some liberals supporting it, but I question how many there actually are.