Articles by James Gattuso

It’s no secret that the Fairness Doctrine isn’t popular in the talk radio world. The effort to revive the rule is largely aimed at curbing that media, and most major talk shows hosts have (rightfully) turned the idea into a policy pinata. Less well known, however, is the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is also taking a major caning online. Usually, the blogoshere is friendly territory for the left. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, its been anything but.

A quick google blog search earlier today on the term “fairness doctrine” shows the extent of the problem for supporters: of the top ten posts on the subject which take a position, nine were against reimposing the Doctrine. And it doesn’t seem to get much better in the next 10, or the 10 after that. Sure, there’s been some spirited defenses of regulation coming from the Huffington Post and elsewhere, but they’ve been vasted outnumbered by critics.

And it’s mostly not from professional policy wonks, judging by the names of the blogs, which often are as colorful as their arguments. Here’s a sampling:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 12 comments

Only a couple of days ago, it seems like the debate over the Fairness Doctrine was fading. Opponents were reduced to citing overheard elevator conversations for Pete’s sake.

Then the dam burst. So far this week three Democratic senators have come out in support of reimposing the restriction. (One — John Kerry — was probably as surprised as anyone, since his comments had been recorded months ago, but only released Tuesday by New York public radio host Brian Lehrer).

In the House, all the action has been by Fairness Doctrine opponents, led by Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana — who have crafted a bill to take away the FCC’s authority to impose such regulation.

Now comes the real shocker — the idea will be voted on today by the full house, as an amendment to the FCC appropriations bill. Now that’s what I call fast action.

Odds are that the amendment won’t pass. But the up or down vote will tell us a lot, as members will, on the record, have to declare whether they believe in government control of the media or not.

The results should be interesting. Stay tuned.

SHARE: 4 comments

Dick Durbin — the Senate’s Majority whip — came out four-square in favor of the Fairness Doctrine today, declaring in The Hill — a newspaper for Capitol Hill: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine” It’s the clearest statement yet from a member of the congressional leadership that there will be a real fight over the issue.

Oddly, Durbin explained his position with an appeal to old-time values: “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Unfortunately, that “old-fashioned attitude” comes with other old-fashioned ideas — such as government restrictions on what the media can and can not say. Memories of Torquemada no doubt bring tears to his eyes as well.

Of course, if he really wants to be old-fashioned, he could dig up a copy of the First Amendment, adopted way back in 1791, which says “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.”

How quaint is that?

SHARE: 6 comments

The debate over the Fairness Doctrine has up until now had a bit of a shadow-boxing quality to it. While opposition to the FCC rule has been abundant — it’s hard to turn on the radio without hearing some discussion of the issue — actual legislative proposals to reinstate the rule have been scarce.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, however. So, rather than wait for advocates of the doctrine to make their move, Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana, has decided to take the offensive by introducing his own legislation to ban the FCC from reinstating the rule. Specifically, Pence’s bill, to be introduced later this week, provides that the Federal Communications Commission “shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating” the Fairness Doctrine.

While the bill’s chances for passage in the Democratic-controlled Congress are unclear, Pence’s bill is significant. First, it gives opponents of the Fairness Doctrine a clear goal around which to rally — endng the “will they or will they not” guessing game. Perhaps more importantly, the legislation potentially redefines the question at hand from “should regulation be imposed?” to “should regulation be allowed?”

It’s a good question, and a debate well worth having. Stay tuned.

SHARE: 4 comments

Why do conservatives do better on the radio than liberals, and what can be done about it? That’s the question addressed in a study released today on talk radio by two left-leaning policy groups, the Center for American Progress and Free Press. The conclusion: conservative success in radio is due to the ownership structure of radio, and Washington can fix the problem through greater controls on radio ownership.

The conclusion is no doubt a comforting one to left-of-center radio programmers. No one, after all, likes to be told they are unpopular. Yet, it is as wrong as it is dangerous. None of the number-crunching in the CAP/Free Press study contradicts the essential fact that conservative talk radio is more successful because it is more popular. More people listen to it, so radio stations provide more of it. And that’s not a problem that Washington can – or should – “fix.”

The CAP/Free Press study is based first on one unsurprising finding: there’s a lot more conservative radio on the air than liberal radio. Of the political talk radio programming in the top ten markets, for instance, the study found 76 percent is conservative, and 24 percent is liberal. That percentage varies quite a bit by market – some markets were overwhelmingly conservative, while others – such as Chicago and New York – were split almost evenly between left and right.

The $64,000 question is why conservatives are doing better. To their credit, the authors dismiss the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine as the root cause, saying correctly that the “Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues.” (What they don’t mention, however, is that the doctrine was very successful at discouraging such discussion.)

Instead, CAP and Free Press point to the ownership structure of radio. Radio stations owned by women or minorities, and those owned locally, they conclude, have less conservative programming than those that are not. Twenty-eight percent of minority-owned stations, for instance, air conservative talk shows, compared to just over 50 percent of non-minority owned stations. Their conclusion: Washington should strictly enforce broadcast ownership rules, combined with strict “public interest” requirements, to solve the “problem” of conservative radio predominance.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

Broadcasters have long had one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington. But it now seems that the National Association of Broadcasters has met its match — an equally powerful outfit known as the National Association of Broadcasters. Yes, that’s right — NAB, under new president David Rehr, has been shooting quite effective bullets recently at itself.

The battle was triggered by the proposed merger between XM and Sirius Satellite Radio. NAB has gone on the warpath against the merger, arguing that it would create a monopoly. Of course, to argue that, it has to argue that broadcast radio doesn’t compete with satellite radio. That argument, however, was rebutted by NAB’s David Rehr (yes, the same one), who just last year gave a stirring speech about broadcast radio’s satellite competitors, declaring:

In 2006 we have satellite and Internet radio. And barely a day passes without the introduction of a new competing device or service. And we have news for our competitors: “We will beat you — as we have beaten those change agents in the past.”

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments