Editing Fairness doctrine (section)

== Reinstatement considered ==
=== Support ===
In February 2005, U.S. Representative [[Louise Slaughter]] ([[U.S. Democratic Party|D]]-[[New York (state)|NY]]) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501)<ref>[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-501 H.R. 501, Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (109th Congress, 1st Session)] (full text) from GovTrack.us. Retrieved November 13, 2008.</ref> in the 1st session of the [[109th Congress]] of 2005-2007, when [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] held a majority of both Houses. The bill would have shortened a station's license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.<ref>[[Congressional Research Service]] summary of [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-501&tab=summary H.R. 501--109th Congress (2005): Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act], GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved November 13, 2008</ref> The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.<ref>[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-501 Overview of H.R. 501 (109th Congress, 1st session)] from GovTrack.us. Retrieved November 14, 2008.</ref>

In the same Congress, Representative [[Maurice Hinchey]] (D-[[New York (state)|NY]]) introduced legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine". H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.<ref>Summary at {{cite web |url=http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml |title=Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 |access-date=September 12, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070902141115/http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml |archive-date=September 2, 2007 |url-status=dead }} - Full text at [http://www.thomas.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h3302_ih.xml H.R. 3302 Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005]{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}. Retrieved August 17, 2008.</ref>

In June 2007, Senator [[Dick Durbin|Richard Durbin]] (D-[[Illinois|Ill.]]) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine",<ref>Bolton, Alexander (June 27, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20070629120833/http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html "GOP preps for talk radio confrontation"]. ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''. Retrieved October 27, 2008.</ref> an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator [[John Kerry]] (D-[[Massachusetts|Mass.]]).<ref>{{cite magazine| author= John Eggerton| title = Kerry Wants Fairness Doctrine Reimposed| magazine = [[Broadcasting and Cable]]| date = June 27, 2007| url = http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6456031.html| access-date = October 27, 2008 }} describing an interview on ''[[The Brian Lehrer Show]]'' on [[WNYC]] radio</ref> However, according to Marin Cogan of ''[[The New Republic]]'' in late 2008: {{cquote|Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has "no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view"{{mdash}}that the American people were served well under the doctrine{{mdash}}"and it's all been blown out of proportion."<ref>Marin Cogan, [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610 Bum Rush: Obama's secret plan to muzzle talk radio. Very, very secret], ''[[The New Republic]]'', December 3, 2008. Retrieved November 20, 2008</ref>}}
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative [[Nancy Pelosi]] (D-[[California|Calif.]]), the [[Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] at the time, told reporters that her fellow [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic]] representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the fairness doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of ''[[Human Events]]'', "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?{{'"}}, the Speaker replied "Yes".<ref>{{cite news| first = John |last= Gizzi| title = Pelosi Supports Fairness Doctrine| newspaper = [[Human Events]]| date=June 25, 2008| url =http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185| access-date = October 27, 2008 }}</ref>

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative [[Anna Eshoo]] (D-[[California|Calif.]]) told ''[[Palo Alto Daily Post|The Daily Post]]'' in [[Palo Alto, California]] that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters, stating:
{{cquote|I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.<ref>{{cite web| author = San Francisco Peninsula Press Club| title = Rep. Eshoo to push for Fairness Doctrine| publisher = San Francisco Peninsula Press Club| date=December 16, 2008| url=http://sfppc.blogspot.com/2008/12/rep-eshoo-to-push-for-fairness-doctrine.html| access-date = December 15, 2008 }}</ref>}}
On February 11, 2009, Senator [[Tom Harkin]] (D-[[Iowa]]) told radio host Bill Press, "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another", Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair{{mdash}}that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."<ref>{{cite web| author = Michael Calderon| title = Sen. Harkin: 'We need the Fairness Doctrine back'| publisher = [[Politico (newspaper)|Politico]]| date=February 11, 2009| url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html?showall| access-date = February 11, 2009 }}</ref>

Former President [[Bill Clinton]] has also shown support for the fairness doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:
{{cquote|Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.}}

Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it does not reflect economic reality.<ref>{{cite magazine| author = John Eggerton| title = Bill Clinton Talks of Re-Imposing Fairness Doctrine or At Least 'More Balance' in Media| magazine = [[Broadcasting & Cable]] | date=February 13, 2009| url=http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/174123-Bill_Clinton_Talks_of_Re_Imposing_Fairness_Doctrine_or_At_Least_More_Balance_in_Media.php| access-date = February 13, 2009 }}</ref>

On September 19, 2019, Representative [[Tulsi Gabbard]] (D-HI) introduced H.R. 4401 Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019 in the House of Representatives, 116th Congress. Rep. Gabbard was the only sponsor. H.R. 4401 was immediately referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day. It was then referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on September 20, 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Willis|first=Derek|title=H.R.4401: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reinstate the obligation of broadcast licensees to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance (commonly known as the 'Fairness Doctrine'). |url=https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4401|access-date=November 19, 2020|website=ProPublica|date=August 12, 2015|language=en}}</ref>

H.R. 4401 would mandate equal media discussion of key political and social topics, requiring television and radio broadcasters to give airtime to opposing sides of issues of civic interest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Mojica|first=Adrian|date=October 24, 2019|title=Bill filed in Congress would mandate equal media attention on political or social issues|url=https://abcnews4.com/news/connect-to-congress/bill-filed-in-congress-would-mandate-equal-media-attention-on-political-or-social-issues|access-date=November 19, 2020|website=WCIV}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=GovTrack.us|date=October 22, 2019|title=Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act would require broadcasters give airtime to all sides of an issue|url=https://govtrackinsider.com/restore-the-fairness-doctrine-act-would-require-broadcasters-give-airtime-to-all-sides-of-an-issue-1f3117e20d03|access-date=November 19, 2020|website=Medium|language=en}}</ref> The summary reads: "Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019. This bill requires a broadcast radio or television licensee to provide reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Summary of H.R. 4401: Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act of 2019|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401/summary|access-date=2020-11-19|website=GovTrack.us|language=en}}</ref> The Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act would once again mandate television and radio broadcasters present both sides when discussing political or social issues, reinstituting the rule in place from 1949 to 1987&nbsp;...&nbsp;. Supporters argue that the doctrine allowed for a more robust public debate and affected positive political change as a result, rather than allowing only the loudest voices or deepest pockets to win."<ref>{{Cite journal|date=April 1, 1965|title=Summary of Bills Before 89th Congress|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptj/45.4.373|journal=Physical Therapy|volume=45|issue=4|pages=373–376|doi=10.1093/ptj/45.4.373|issn=0031-9023|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Opposition ===
The fairness doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent [[Conservatism in the United States|conservatives]] and [[Libertarianism in the United States|libertarians]] who view it as an attack on [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rights and property rights. Editorials in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the fairness doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative [[talk radio]].<ref>{{cite news| title = Rush to Victory| newspaper = [[The Wall Street Journal]]| date=April 4, 2005| url=http://tm.ermarian.net/Academic%20Junk/Politics/Media/Domestic/Fairness%20Doctrine/2005:04:25-%20WSJ%20Editorial%20Argues%20that%20Fairness%20Doctrine%20Repressed%20Conservative%20Commentators,%20and%20that%20Repeal%20of%20Repressive%20Fairness%20Doctrine%20Explains%20Popularity%20of%20Conservative%20Talk.pdf| access-date = July 1, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news| title = 'Fairness' is Censorship| newspaper = [[The Washington Times]]| date=June 17, 2008| url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/| access-date = July 1, 2008 }}</ref>

In 1987, Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, in applauding President Reagan's veto of a bill intended to turn the doctrine into law, said that the doctrine is an infringement on free speech and intrudes on broadcasters' journalistic judgment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-21-mn-8908-story.html|title=Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill|author=Pagano, Penny|date=June 21, 1987|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date =May 11, 2016}}</ref>

In 2007, Senator [[Norm Coleman]] (R-[[Minnesota|MN]]) proposed an amendment to a defense [[appropriations bill]] that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/14/2514/|title=Democrats Block Amendment to Prevent Fairness Doctrine|author=Frommer, Frederic J.|date=July 14, 2007|publisher=[[Associated Press]]|access-date =August 10, 2008}}</ref> It was blocked, in part on grounds that "the amendment belonged in the [[United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation|Commerce Committee]]'s jurisdiction."

In 2007, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and [[John Thune]] (R-SD), with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742),<ref>[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1742/show Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007], Open Congress Foundation. Retrieved November 14, 2008</ref> and in the House by Republican Representative [[Mike Pence]] (R-[[Indiana|IN]]) with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905).<ref>[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2905/show Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, introduced February 1, 2005, "To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine"], Open Congress Foundation. Retrieved November 14, 2008</ref> It provided:
{{cquote|The 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 (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the 'Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).<ref>[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2905 Text of H.R. 2905: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007], GovTrack.us. Retrieved November 14, 2008</ref>}}

Neither of these measures came to the floor of either house.

On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner [[Robert M. McDowell]] stated that the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as [[common carrier]]s required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that [[net neutrality]] and fairness doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.<ref>Jeff Poor, [http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx "FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100922095658/http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx |date=September 22, 2010 }}, August 13, 2008, Business & Media Institute</ref> It could also include "government dictating content policy".<ref>http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=34016 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080818090027/http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=34016 |date=August 18, 2008 }} See also [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288134A1.pdf Commissioner McDowell's speech to the Media Institute] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111018092111/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288134A1.pdf |date=October 18, 2011 }} in January 2009.</ref> The conservative [[Media Research Center]]'s Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the fairness doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.<ref>[http://www.cultureandmedia.com/specialreports/2008/Fairness_Doctrine/CMI_FairnessDoctrine_Single.pdf Culture & Media Institute report on The Fairness Doctrine.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110109020347/http://www.cultureandmedia.com/specialreports/2008/Fairness_Doctrine/CMI_FairnessDoctrine_Single.pdf |date=January 9, 2011 }} - accessed August 13, 2008.</ref>

In June 2008, [[Barack Obama]]'s press secretary wrote that Obama, then a Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois and candidate for president, did not support it, stating:
{{cquote|Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters&nbsp;... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, [[network neutrality]], [[public broadcasting]], as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.<ref>{{cite news |first=John |last=Eggerton |url=http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html |title=Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine |work=Broadcasting & Cable |date=June 25, 2008 |access-date=October 30, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627175405/http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html |archive-date=June 27, 2008}} citing an e-mail from Obama's press secretary, Michael Ortiz.</ref>}}

On February 16, 2009, Mark Fowler said:
{{cquote|I believe as President Reagan did, that the electronic press—and you're included in that—the press that uses air and electrons, should be and must be as free from government control as the press that uses paper and ink, ''Period''.<ref name="Fowler-Levin;"/>}}

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continued to oppose the revival of the doctrine.<ref>{{cite news |title=White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival |url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/ |work=Fox News |date=February 18, 2009}}</ref>

In the [[111th Congress]], January 2009 to January 2011, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S.34, S.62, H.R.226) was introduced to block reinstatement of the doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87–11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to the [[District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009]] (S.160),<ref>{{cite news|title=Senate Backs Amendment to Prevent Fairness Doctrine Revival |publisher=[[Fox News]] |date=February 26, 2009 |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-backs-amendment-to-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228062416/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/ |archive-date=February 28, 2009 }}</ref> a bill which later passed the Senate 61–37 but not the House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/senate-votes-give-dc-full-house-vote/|title=Senate votes to give D.C. full House vote |last=Warren|first=Timothy|date=February 26, 2009|newspaper=The Washington Times |access-date=February 26, 2009}} The Senate roll call is [https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00073 here].</ref> 

The [[Associated Press]] reported that the vote on the fairness doctrine [[Rider (legislation)|rider]] was "in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time." The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. [[Jim DeMint]], R-[[South Carolina|SC]], wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed.<ref>"Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine". Associated Press, February 26, 2009.</ref>

===Suggested alternatives===
{{Distinguish|Unfairness doctrine}}

Media reform organizations such as [[Free Press (advocacy group)|Free Press]] feel that a return to the fairness doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement, with funding from fines given to [[public broadcasting]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/legacy-policy/talk_radio.pdf |title=The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio |date=June 21, 2007 |publisher=[[Free Press (advocacy group)|Free Press]] & [[Center for American Progress]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230729131336/https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/legacy-policy/talk_radio.pdf |archive-date=July 29, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Public opinion===
In an August 2008 telephone poll, released by [[Rasmussen Reports]], 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary. 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet [[website]]s and [[blog]]gers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71–20%, the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today's media", including the Internet, newspapers, [[cable TV]] and [[satellite radio]], but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the fairness doctrine closely. The [[margin of error]] was 3%, with a 95% confidence interval.<ref>[http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_radio_tv "47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV"]. [[Rasmussen Reports]] press release, August 14, 2008 and [http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/pt_survey_toplines/august_2008/toplines_fairness_doctrine_august_13_2008 "Toplines - Fairness Doctrine". August 13, 2008]. {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120715112354/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/pt_survey_toplines/august_2008/toplines_fairness_doctrine_august_13_2008 |date=July 15, 2012 }} (Questions and answers from the survey).</ref>