First, it was “Path to 9/11”, now it’s the Fairness Doctrine

Remember last year when conservatives (including me) were complaining about how certain liberals in Congress were threatening ABC’s broadcast license over the ‘docudrama’ Path To 9/11, which portrayed Bubba and Co’s approach to terrorism in an unflattering light? Many of us complained that it was chilling to see how far lefties in the government would go in an attempt to stifle the free speech of others. Liberals fought back that that wasn’t what they were doing, but even if it were, they argued that Democrats ‘weren’t in power’ so they were in no position to follow through on any threat.

Well, they are in power now, and this time they’re trying to resurrect the unfair, unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine”:

Sunday mornings are a time for sleeping in, religious reflection or, perhaps, savoring a leisurely brunch. Or if you’re Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), stewing that too few liberal guests appear on the Sunday television talk shows.

Hinchey and a band of progressive members of Congress are putting aside their scramble eggs and taking the networks to task, complaining that the four Sunday Shows – ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday – feature more conservative and Republican guests than liberals and Democrats.

“The American people are the owners of the public airwaves, and the networks have an obligation and responsibility to use those airwaves to offer a balanced presentation of ideas and perspectives from Democrats and Republicans alike,” Hinchey said Monday.

He and other liberal representatives are drawing on a new study from the left-leaning media watchdog, Media Matters for America, showing that all but one Sunday show favor conservative guests – even after Democrats seized control of both the House and the Senate last fall.

The study concluded that only This Week had a balance of viewpoints. The other three shows, the study found, booked at least 10 percent more conservative guests than those with more liberal viewpoints.

“A failure to provide balance is a disservice to the public and renders voters less able to evaluate the performance of our government,” said Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y).

Who is Rep. Maurice Hinchey? McQ explains:

He’s the new chair of a House subcomittee charged with oversight of the FCC? He’s also the chair of the “Future of American Media Caucus” in the House and chief sponsor of the “Media Ownership Reform Act” which would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the FCC to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Here’s more on the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA).

Raw Story reported this about Hinchey and MORA back in late January:

“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic – fundamental to a democracy.”

[…]

If reinstated by Hinchey’s bill, the Fairness Doctrine would govern all news programs on public airways, including networks as well as cable stations such as Fox or MSNBC, but would not apply to entertainment shows. Thus a broadcaster such as Comedy Central could argue that the Daily Show or Colbert Report is exempt. Requiring multiple viewpoints via a Fairness Doctrine is particularly important in rural areas, where residents may have access to only a single TV station and can’t afford cable, the staffer added.

Similarly, regulation of talk radio programming would be dependent on whether those shows are defined by broadcasters as news or entertainment. But a Hinchey staffer noted, “We would argue that they are providing commentary on news much like what you see at the end of a news broadcast and as such, they should provide time to people providing other views. We are not saying that they should be taken off the air.”

Just how far would the Fairness Doctrine go? RAW STORY asked Hinchey’s staff whether a station might be compelled to give equal time to a holocaust denier or KKK spokesman if pro-Jewish or civil rights viewpoints were aired. According to a staffer, a station might air controversial opposing views with a disclaimer that those views do not necessarily reflect the station’s viewpoint. A broadcaster might also provide a factual report to dispel lies told by a guest.

A Hinchey spokesperson stressed that the Fairness Doctrine does have limits. “If you’re reporting on al Qaeda, you’re not going to have to have a sympathizer talk about the merits of Al Qaeda activities.”

Whew. That’s a relief.
Unfreakin’real. Make sure to read that Raw Story report in full just to see how far over the cliff Hinchey has gone over this issue. He really does see himself as some sort of strong defender of ‘democracy.’

McQ goes on to write:

Hinchley and his henchmen prefer their arbitrary definition of “balanced” to your ability to choose what you prefer and punish shows which don’t meet those preferences by not watching them. Instead, they prefer to decide what does or doesn’t constitute balanced coverage and force it on you.

The first amendment is a prohibition against government making laws which abridge freedom of speech or the press concerning political speech.

It is very unambiguous in its language:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Disgusted with these types of anti-First Amendment attacks from the newly crowned Democratic Congress? Oppose MORA? Let your Representative and Senators know.

Update/Flashback: Rep. Maurice Hinchey Unhinged – 2/21/05 (Hat tip: ST reader Jammie Wearing Fool)