Perhaps this reveals too much about my sailor-like vocabulary, but you have to like a religion story that begins with the F-word. The Tennessean religion reporter Bob Smietana began his story on the National Religious Broadcasters Convention this week as follows:
The three F’s were hot topics at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention on Tuesday.
That’s the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine and “the F-word.”
First up — the Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission policy that required broadcasters to air controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was judged to be honest, equitable, and balanced. It is frequently confused with the Equal Time rule, which requires stations that give free air time to one candidate to provide the same service to their opponent.
Back to the story:
Religious broadcasters fear the Obama administration plans to meddle with their programs by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, a now-defunct Federal Communications Commission policy that required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing points of view.
Equal time is a problem for religious broadcasters, Christian talk show host Janet Parshall said.
“If I happen to say declaratively that the Bible tells me that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and nobody comes to the Father but by Him, I am not interested in giving equal time to Buddha, Hinduism, or L. Ron Hubbard,” she said.
The Fairness Doctrine was mothballed in the mid-1980s. But some Democrats have called for its reinstatement. Parshall, who moderated the discussion between Starr and Strossen, pointed to recent comments by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat.
Speaking on the Bill Press radio show, Stabenow said, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”
It seems like the Equal Time rule and Fairness Doctrine are conflated a bit but you get the point. Anyway, Sen. Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, the executive vice president of Air America. Air America specializes in politically liberal talk-radio programming.
The story discusses the three Fs by describing a debate at the conference between Pepperdine University law school dean Ken Starr and former American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. Starr argued that the Fairness Doctrine violates the First Amendment, saying the government has no business dictating content to broadcasters. Strossen agrees that the Fairness Doctrine is not a good idea but only because it’s outmoded in today’s media-rich environment. Previously, the ACLU defended the Fairness Doctrine. Both agreed that in the past the doctrine was used by administrations to punish critics.
The story does a great job of exploring the issue from the perspective of the religious broadcasters:
The doctrine is particularly touchy for evangelical religious broadcasters. They formed the National Religious Broadcasters association in the 1940s, when networks refused to sell them airtime, instead giving time to the mainstream Federal Council of Churches, forerunner of the National Council of Churches.
“Years ago, people did not want us to proclaim the purity of the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Parshall told the forum audience. “We were formed as an entity to give us access to the airwaves.”
The only radio station ever shut down for violating the Fairness Doctrine was a Christian station in Red Lion, Pa. In 1964, that station carried a “Christian Crusade” program, on which the Rev. Billy James Hargis criticized Fred J. Cook, author of Goldwater — Extremist on the Right. When Cook asked for airtime to respond, the station refused. He reported the station to the FCC, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor.
I used to be a radio industry reporter and I never knew that a radio station had been shut down over the Fairness Doctrine. I love learning something like this in a news report. Also, please note that the “religious left” and “religious right” division didn’t begin during the last presidential campaign. Anyway, the story goes on to note that Strossen and Starr disagree about the F-word.
I also liked how the story discussed whether laws that restrict religious speech — such as sermons on sexuality — are likely to be adopted here in the United States. They’re not, according to the panelists.
Even though I was aware of attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, I hadn’t thought of how it might affect religious broadcasters. I’m so glad The Tennessean took up the issue on a topic that has been well covered on opinion pages but undercovered in news pages.
 | Posted at 2:31 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (10) |
February 13, 2009, at 4:42 pm
Thank you, Mollie, I’ve always assumed “Fairness Doctrine” was another name for “Equal Time Doctrine.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 13, 2009, at 5:33 pm
I’m detecting a trend on the part of the conservative religious community to panic about what the Obama administration might do. It seems that everything has become a cause for alarm, without stopping to consider the likelyhood of some of this coming to pass. To me, this story ties in that way with a story I also saw that spoke to the unlikelyhood of a significant change in abortion policy. In both cases the level of alarm seems far in excess of the possibility of such action.
This is the other story I saw today:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion_wrapfeb13,0,4745501.story
This level of fear reminds me of some friends on the left last year being convinced that President Bush was going to attack Iran in order to declare a national emergency and cancel the election.
I really wish someone would write a story exploring this overall arena.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 13, 2009, at 8:09 pm
This First Amendment trashing doctrine is not just “touchy” for evangelicals. Today I got a letter from the Catholic Radio Association pointing out how the laws being talked about would kill Catholic radio——And I don’t think they are being alarmist. Each day seems to see another prominent liberal or Democrat drooling at the prospect of them controlling the airwaves. Sen. Harkin came out for this semi-fascist idea. Then Sen. John Kerry endorsed the idea. Now former president Bill Clinton is pushing the idea. I thought it was former president Bush who was supposed to be the fascist in Red, White, and Blue (at least according to the left constantly for 8 years). It seems brownshirts can ride a donkey as easily as an elephant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 13, 2009, at 11:13 pm
I must admit, I also thought that Pres. Obama was behind the re-introduction of the fairness doctrine, but apparently not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 13, 2009, at 11:24 pm
President Obama has made statements opposing reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Members of his administration, on the other hand, have testified or made statements in support of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 13, 2009, at 11:30 pm
So, in real life, how would Fairness be approached with religious programming? If a Catholic radio station has a talk show in which the sacraments are discussed, what constitutes fairness? Whose opposing views have to be presented? Protestants who don’t believe in sacraments? Schismatic former Catholic organizations? Jews? Buddhists? Wiccans? Agnostics? Atheists? Satanists? I just don’t see how it could work, practically. Please help me understand how it could function, practically.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2009, at 7:49 am
You expect practicality and pragmatism from politicians? Members of the House spend 70% of their time trying to get re-elected.
Glad to see that The Tennessean covered the issue well. I wonder how “fair and balanced” the coverage has been among the so-called mainstream publications in D.C. and NYC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2009, at 1:42 pm
Well, hey, we get to see who’s in charge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2009, at 6:32 pm
If memory serves me correctly, the fairness doctrine only applied to controversial issues. It affects Christian (Catholic and Protestant) radio when it comes to abortion. Truly, everytime abortion is spoken of, equal time would apply. But to call people to the alter with Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, is not controversial. If that were the case, the Billy Graham crusades would never have been broadcast now would they, let alone the Hour of Decision (which only lasted 30 minutes). Talk radio would be ok if they would not screen out opposing calls. Take all calls and share all views and the fairness doctrine would be cool with that. I don’t think, with all the stuff on their plate, the Obama administration will even think of opening up that can of worms. But they will threaten, ‘cause they like the effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2009, at 6:51 pm
[…] reminds us that the Fairness Doctrine is often confused with the Equal Time Rule. The latter “requires […]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0