Jonathan Prince on 13 Oct 2000 13:13:43 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Free Speech Died Yesterday in the USA |
Some how I missed this story on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and so on. Maybe they forgot to report it? jonathan --- Court Order Ends 'Fairness Doctrine' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55953-2000Oct11.html By Christopher Stern Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday , October 12, 2000 ; Page E03 A federal appeals court yesterday threw out two controversial rules that required broadcasters to give politicians and individuals free airtime to respond to political endorsements and personal attacks. The U.S. Court of Appeals order came one week after the Federal Communications Commission suspended the "personal attack" and "political editorial" rules for 60 days so that it could update its record on the regulations. But in a strongly worded opinion, the court said it was taking the "extraordinary" action of ordering the FCC to permanently eliminate the rules because the agency had failed to justify a need for them. Last year, the court ordered the FCC to show a need for the ruling, saying the regulations "interfere with editorial judgment of professional journalists and entangle the government in day-to-day operations of the media." Broadcasters applauded yesterday's decision, one they had been seeking since 1980, when they first asked the FCC to eliminate the rules. "This is a tremendous and historic victory for the First Amendment rights of broadcast journalists, said Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, which brought the lawsuit against the FCC. Cochran said the rules have discouraged broadcasters from participating in local affairs through the endorsement of candidates and the airing of editorials. The political-editorial rule required TV and radio stations to give free airtime to opponents of candidates endorsed by broadcasters. The personal-attack rule required stations to give free airtime to individuals who have been personally criticized by a news program. The rules are the last remnants of the long-abandoned "Fairness Doctrine," a federal policy, vacated by the FCC in 1987, that required broadcasters to cover controversial issues, provide balanced coverage, and give free response time to individuals or groups covered by a station's news report. "Today is a great day for the First Amendment," Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, said in a prepared statement. "This decision represents an historic victory in the 20-year fight to grant broadcasters the same free speech rights as print journalists." The NAB joined the news directors in the lawsuit. But FCC Chairman William E. Kennard said yesterday that he was "disappointed" by the court's decision, adding that the FCC will monitor TV and radio stations to determine whether elimination of the rules will benefit broadcasters. "We will use this opportunity to test broadcasters' claims that the rules chill speech and to determine how best to ensure that the public receives balanced coverage of controversial issues." In July, the appeals court ordered the FCC to issue an "expeditious" justification for the rules or repeal them by Sept. 29. The agency missed the court's deadline but announced Oct. 4 that it was suspending the rules for 60 days. The agency said it was suspending the rules so that it could study how elimination of the rules might affect the marketplace. The court found the FCC's suspension was too little, too late. "[I]t is folly to suppose that the 60-day suspension and call to update the record cures anything," the court said in its opinion. But the court did say that the agency could start from scratch and launch a new proceeding to determine whether the personal-attack and political-editorial rules serve the public interest. In his statement yesterday, Kennard said he would consider such a rule-making. "We intend to move forward promptly to study the public interest obligations of broadcasters in the digital age, including whether these rules should be reinstated," he said. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, who heads the Media Access Project, a Washington-based advocacy group that supports the two controversial rules, took some comfort in the court's emphasis on the FCC's failure to meet deadlines. Schwartzman said the court ruling "is entirely directed at the agency's mismanagement and says nothing new about the merit of the rules." Dan Troy, a lawyer who represented both the broadcasters and the news directors in the lawsuit, agrees that that the three-member appeals court was clearly upset by the FCC's slow response. "The court's decision makes clear that the FCC should have handled this in a very different way," he said. But Troy added that the ruling is also an important precedent. "The last vestiges of the Fairness Doctrine are now dead and buried," he said. © 2000 The Washington Post -- .. Jonathan Prince : No New jonathan@killyourtv.com : Oilgarchies http://KillYourTV.com : http://www.GWBushSucks.com ........................................................ 'Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.' - George Orwell _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold