By Dick Lucinski/lucinskid@gnnewspaper.com
We’re on what I consider to be a disturbing trend in the legislative process. We are naming our laws.
There’s Megan’s Law (sex offender notification), Lottie’s Law (murder of the elderly), the Brooke Blanchard Law (death caused when struck by a teenage drunk driver) and most of us know about the Amber Alert (public notification in the case of a kidnapped child). According to MADD, the anti-drunk driving organization, more than 50 laws have been named for victims over the past few years. "The headstone of the 1990s (became) not a concrete marker, but a law," said psychologist Robert D. Butterworth.
Giving a law a name is also a way to give it a push through the legislative process. A lawmaker might not agree with the substance of a bill, but how could he or she be against honoring the victim of a (fill-in-the-blank with the crime of your choice)?
That’s one reason why the red light went on when it was announced that Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport (representing a portion of Niagara County), is supporting a drive to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine when it comes to radio and television broadcasting.
While it’s not named after a human being, it is named after a concept that Americans readily accept: It’s the notion of being tolerant and respectful of our fellow citizens. But putting that label on the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is something else as well. It’s a lie.
A little history: The original Fairness Doctrine was a policy enforced by the Federal Communications Commission beginning in 1949. It required broadcasters to present balanced views when taking on controversial subjects. It made heavy use of the “equal opportunity” or equal time provision of the Communication Act of 1937.
But while fairness was the policy’s intent, its real-world impact was something quite different. In a study in the mid-1980s, the FCC found that the doctrine had a chilling effect on discussion and debate. Broadcasters were fearful that their licenses could be put in jeopardy if they ran afoul of the policy, so they avoided controversy at all. In the deregulatory spirit of the times and the effort to spur debate, President Ronald Reagan ordered the Fairness Doctrine off the FCC’s books in 1987.
Now some members of Congress, including Rep. Slaughter, want to go back to the bad old days of broadcasting, giving the Fairness Doctrine the force of law. It might better be called the “Let’s Lose Limbaugh Law.”
Ever since the conservative radio talk-show host and others like him have been skewering Democratic politicians and liberal-leaning thinkers, the left wing has been looking for a way to get rid of them. They couldn’t do it the good old American way, out-compete them. The liberals have tried but have failed miserably.
The latest push, the liberal-leaning Air America radio network, is barely alive, struggling its way out of bankruptcy protection. Whether its a case of having popular ideas or simply being better broadcasters than the liberals, Limbaugh and friends have thrived where the rest have not survived.
So, in the typical left wing way of doing things, if you can’t compete, try to destroy your opponents by legislating them out of existence. This would probably do it. Few radio or television station owners would dare carry controversial programming if it meant the government thought police threatening the core of their businesses: Their licenses to transmit over the airwaves.
The argument that the Fairness Doctrine gives everyone a say on the scarce broadcast spectrum no longer holds water. An expanded AM band, the explosive growth of FM and now satellite radio gives room for almost all viewpoints on the radio; the same goes for cable and satellite on television. We all have the freedom to choose what we want to listen to and watch and tune out what we’d rather ignore.
Take it from someone who has worked in broadcasting longer than Rep. Slaughter has been in Congress: Turning the Fairness Doctrine into law would be a mistake. There’s nothing fair about it.
Dick Lucinski is the managing editor of the Niagara Gazette. His columns appear on Wednesdays and Sundays.
