Corydon B. Dunham's Blog

Unconscionable Power Grab

Under the proposed FCC Localism Doctrine,part of the government threat is that some speakers will be kept from appearing on television stations if the FCC or members of the local control board at the station do not approve of them or their message. In the past, government administrations did in fact prevent speakers from appearing on television stations under the old Fairness Doctrine because of their opposition or dissenting views. In 1987 the FCC found this to be true and revoked the Fairness Doctrine. The reviewing Court agreed.

The Commission also found that “the fear of governmental sanction resulting from the doctrine creates a climate of timidity and fear, which deters the coverage of controversial issue programming.” And in particular, the Commission found that the old doctrine provided a “dangerous vehicle” for the “intimidation of broadcasters who criticize governmental policy.”

Despite this experience and these findings, some in government would now apparently reimpose such a doctrine on broadcast stations for their own political purposes.

The viewing public should ask the Congress to prevent this unconscionable power grab.

WILL THE TELEVISION AND INTERNET PRESS BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE POLITICAL AGENDAS OF THE GOVERNMENT?

That would be the result of a proposal now pending before the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC revoked a similar Fairness Doctrine in 1987 because despite its benign label, the result in practice was to deter news coverage, suppress news, chill speech, reduce diversity and prevent opposing views.

The government is now considering a “Localism” Doctrine, which would have similar results. Television news would have to be produced and satisfy FCC criteria for what was newsworthy and appropriate in the opinion of a majority of five commissioners appointed by the president, three of whom would be from the president’s own party. Non-compliance would warrant loss of the license to broadcast.

In addition, a local control board would be appointed for each station and its members would monitor and decide if news programming conformed to FCC policy and, if not, would have to recommend that the station’s license to broadcast be terminated. It has not been made public who would appoint members of the control boards.

The Chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, appointed by the president, has long urged that government regulate news to advance its own social and political agendas. He claims this would help the American “system of free expression.” In 2011, the chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, was urged by FCC staff to end the “Localism” proceeding as violating the public interest, but he has refused.

My book Government Control of News clearly illustrates how government interference can keep vital information from the public. Broadcast history shows political administrations will use the power to censor. The Kennedy administration used the Fairness Doctrine to drive conservative spokesmen off the air. The Nixon administration used it to threaten the television networks for their unfavorable coverage and attack station licenses. The book is a timely reminder of the need for a press free of government interference as print, cable, broadcast and satellite news move onto the information superhighway and as the President, Congress and the FCC and act to transfer the television broadcast spectrum away from its present broadcast use to mobile and other uses on the Internet.

What is ‘Localism’?

The new plan for government control of television news and perhaps Internet news is labeled “Localism.” It is now pending before the Federal Communications Commission. Like the FCC’s old Fairness Doctrine that was revoked in 1987 by the FCC itself for suppressing news and chilling speech, the new Localism, Balance and Diversity Doctrine would enable the government in practice to suppress opposing points of view, reduce diversity and chill speech.

An FCC-sponsored Future of Media Study has recommended that the Localism Doctrine proceeding be ended as ill advised. The new doctrine would impose unnecessary and heavy burdens on television station news and be enforced by threats of license termination from both the FCC and a local control board at each station. The Chairman of the FCC refused. The present Chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has long recommended that the government regulate news content broadcast by stations to advance the incumbent government’s political and social objectives.

Under the proposed plan, news broadcast by television stations would have to satisfy government criteria for ‘localism’ in production and news coverage – as well as government criteria for balance and viewpoint diversity. Five FCC commissioners of a central government agency in Washington D.C. would review local news. The majority vote of three commissioners appointed by the President from his political party would make a final determination of news acceptability, overriding the news judgments of thousands of independent, local TV reporters and editors and threatening the loss of the license to broadcast for non-compliance.

In addition, a local board would be appointed for each television station to monitor its programming, including news, and recommend against license renewal if board members concluded the station did not comply with the new FCC policy. Much of the new rule has not been made public including, for example, who would appoint the members of the local boards.

Requiring journalists to comply with a central government agency’s policy on how to report the news and what the news should be means those journalists would no longer be free and independent of government. If the broadcast press is not free and independent, it cannot act as a watchdog for the public, which is its constitutional role.

What is 'Localism'?

The new plan for government control of television news and perhaps Internet news is labeled "Localism." It is now pending before the Federal Communications Commission. Like the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine that was revoked in 1987 by the FCC itself for suppressing news and chilling speech, the new Localism, Balance and Diversity Doctrine would enable the government in practice to suppress opposing points of view, reduce diversity and chill speech.

An FCC-sponsored Future of Media Study has recommended that the Localism Doctrine proceeding be ended as ill advised. The new doctrine would impose unnecessary and heavy burdens on television station news and be enforced by threats of license termination from both the FCC and a local control board at each station. The Chairman of the FCC refused. The present Chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has long recommended that the government regulate news content broadcast by stations to advance the incumbent government's political and social objectives.

Under the proposed plan, news broadcast by television stations would have to satisfy government criteria for 'localism' in production and news coverage – as well as government criteria for balance and viewpoint diversity. Five FCC commissioners of a central government agency in Washington D.C. would review local news. The majority vote of three commissioners appointed by the President from his political party would make a final determination of news acceptability, overriding the news judgments of thousands of independent, local TV reporters and editors and threatening the loss of the license to broadcast for non-compliance.

In addition, a local board would be appointed for each television station to monitor its programming, including news, and recommend against license renewal if board members concluded the station did not comply with the new FCC policy. Much of the new rule has not been made public including, for example, who would appoint the members of the local boards.

Requiring journalists to comply with a central government agency's policy on how to report the news and what the news should be means those journalists would no longer be free and independent of government. If the broadcast press is not free and independent, it cannot act as a watchdog for the public, which is its constitutional role.

The Impulse To Censor News

Could there be government regulation of news content in this country if there is public dissatisfaction with the news media or use of a new technology? Will a federal agency again be granted oversight power to provide balance in news coverage and a limitation on partisan expression of points of view or what an agency finds is gross distortion? Will the reviewing courts uphold the constitutional protections of the First Amendment for the developing news media to protect free speech and a free press?

Public awareness of what it takes to maintain the First Amendment is sadly missing. Public opinion polls even suggest a majority of citizens might accept some government regulation of news content.  Historians and government observers say our democracy depends upon a press free of government interference. But it is not at all unusual to hear people say about the press or news coverage, "Something must be done" and "something" is often understood as a "government something."

The fact is that the First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts during the 40 years from 1950 to 1990, was no protection against government regulation of television news content both in theory and in practice for balance and fairness under the Fairness Doctrine. It's even used in terrorem threats of the loss of the license to broadcast for doctrinal disobedience. There are now those who would bring back the essentials of that Doctrine under a different name, concealing its effect in actual practice.

The values of the first Amendment and the need to support them are not usually developed to any great extent in high school, college, or public and civic discussion. It is often left to a kind of public and cultural osmosis and an expectation that the public will rally around to protect them when they are threatened. But there seems no prevailing sense that government leaders must respect and affirmatively support them against the angers and emotions of the moment. And the public may not be equipped to respond to sophisticated public relations campaigns favoring news content regulations.

It is not clear that present and future generations will defend the First Amendment or prevent its erosion and the narrowing of free press protection. The record of the Federal Communications Commission shows how relatively easy it was to bring about news content regulation for the good purposes claimed in the Fairness Doctrine. It is likely to happen again.

Letter to the Editor

It is imperative that our government assert in the upcoming UN treaty negotiations our Constitution's provision for a free press and free speech and object to the Chinese and Russian efforts to have votes of the UN control news and information on the Internet in this country. While such moves have been tried before and beaten back, this time such efforts look more likely to be successful as FCC Commissioner McDowell warns in his OpEd Feb. 20.

The Head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs appointed by President Obama has long urged that our government regulate the news to advance its political and social objectives but someone else could lead our opposition to UN control of news or news policies in this country to conduct an active and effective campaign against that control. Media owners and others as well as journalist organizations must participate in this and lend their weight as they have before. The State Department said on World Press Freedom day in 2011, quoted in my recent book, Government Control of News, A Constitutional Challenge, p.174, that not just journalists, but "each one of us who recognize the value of an informed citizenry must also stand up for this fundamental right." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the point in 2010 that "A free press is essential to an empowered citizenry, government accountability and responsible economic development. Wherever independent media are under threat, accountable governance and human freedom are undermined.

We have had some experience with government regulation of news when the FCC applied its Fairness Doctrine to television news and on its review of the facts revoked that doctrine in 1987. It found that the doctrine had suppressed news, chilled speech and had been used to drive opposing views off the air. The reviewing court agreed. But now some in government want to bring back that doctrine under a different name, Localism, Balance and Diversity. This proposed rule would also be enforced by a local board appointed for each station which would recommend a broadcast license not be renewed if the station did not comply with FCC and board views on localism. This proposal could have been dropped by the current Chair of the FCC in 2011 as staff recommended but it was not. This country does not need a repeat of the public misfortune of the Fairness Doctrine and the atmosphere of timidity and fear which the FCC found it created.

The fact is that the government should be kept at arms length from news content as it is from print news and as our constitution provides so that the public is informed and can govern.

Cory Dunham (former network executive and general counsel)

Check the real article here for more information.

Letter to the Editor – Wall St. Journal

It is imperative that our government assert in the upcoming UN treaty negotiations our Constitution's provision for a free press and free speech and object to the Chinese and Russian efforts to have votes of the UN control news and information on the Internet in this country. While such moves have been tried before and beaten back, this time such efforts look more likely to be successful as FCC Commissioner McDowell warns in his OpEd Feb. 20.

The Head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs appointed by President Obama has long urged that our government regulate the news to advance its political and social objectives but someone else could lead our opposition to UN control of news or news policies in this country to conduct an active and effective campaign against that control. Media owners and others as well as journalist organizations must participate in this and lend their weight as they have before. The State Department said on World Press Freedom day in 2011, quoted in my recent book, Government Control of News, A Constitutional Challenge, p.174, that not just journalists, but "each one of us who recognize the value of an informed citizenry must also stand up for this fundamental right." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the point in 2010 that "A free press is essential to an empowered citizenry, government accountability and responsible economic development. Wherever independent media are under threat, accountable governance and human freedom are undermined.

We have had some experience with government regulation of news when the FCC applied its Fairness Doctrine to television news and on its review of the facts revoked that doctrine in 1987. It found that the doctrine had suppressed news, chilled speech and had been used to drive opposing views off the air. The reviewing court agreed. But now some in government want to bring back that doctrine under a different name, Localism, Balance and Diversity. This proposed rule would also be enforced by a local board appointed for each station which would recommend a broadcast license not be renewed if the station did not comply with FCC and board views on localism. This proposal could have been dropped by the current Chair of the FCC in 2011 as staff recommended but it was not. This country does not need a repeat of the public misfortune of the Fairness Doctrine and the atmosphere of timidity and fear which the FCC found it created.

The fact is that the government should be kept at arms length from news content as it is from print news and as our constitution provides so that the public is informed and can govern.

Cory Dunham (former network executive and general counsel)

Check the real article here for more information.

Regulating News

A Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, Robert McConnell, warns in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed of Feb. 20 that China and Russia are moving to change the UN treaty to grant the UN greater administrative power over  Internet communications. The UN could control Internet news. He sees the negotiations only 7 votes short of success, with no veto available. He urges a leader be appointed to lead a counter-effort.

In the U.S. the FCC started regulating the Internet in December, 2011. It appears to claim that a Supreme Court decision could authorize Internet news regulation. Prof. Cass Sunstein, the White House Chief of Information and Regulation, is described by the Economist, Feb. 14–20, as having power to over-regulate. He has long urged that government regulate news to achieve its social and political goals.

In 1949, the FCC implemented, then in 1987 revoked its Fairness Doctrine which regulated television news in this country—because it found enforcement of its doctrine suppressed news, chilled speech, reduced diversity and was used to censor political views. Now some in government seek to reincarnate that doctrine as a Localism, Balance and Diversity Doctrine. This could have much the same result in suppressing and censoring news. This time an official local board would also be appointed for each station to monitor station programming and help the FCC enforce the new Doctrine more closely. Board members would be required to recommend ending the station's broadcast license for a failure to comply with the new Doctrine's control of news.

The U.S. State Department said on World Press Freedom Day in 2011 that "each one of us who recognize the value of an informed citizenry must…stand up for this fundamental right" of press freedom. Secretary of State Clinton said on that day in 2010, "A free press is essential to an empowered citizenry …Wherever independent media are under threat, accountable governance and human freedom are undermined."

Will America respond to these efforts to control the news?

————————————————————-

Corydon B. Dunham, former General Counsel and Executive Vice President of NBC and author of *Government Control of News, A Constitutional Challenge, iU Barnes & Noble, www. iUniverse.com, 152, 120, 147, 166,174 , (2011).

Government Taking Over News?

You will discover in this book something you have rarely heard in this country.

News has to be protected from interference by the government.

As a matter of world history, journalists have never taken over a government but many governments have taken over the news. Even in this country, the FCC was expected for many years to edit television news as reported by professional journalists at hundreds and hundreds of local television stations across the country to present what three of five politically appointed FCC commissioners thought was  appropriate news under the Fairness Doctrine about controversial issues.

In 1987, the FCC itself found that the Doctrine, its proceedings and decisions had suppressed news and diversity, chilled speech and had been used to drive opposition views off the air. It revoked the Doctrine as against the public interest.The reviewing court agreed and also said, as the FCC found, that the television press should have the same First Amendment standing and freedom from government interference as the print press. That never happened.

Today some in government are seeking to bring back the Fairness Doctrine under another name, Localism, Balance and Diversity. It would have the same destructive results.  It would apply a government standard for reporting news, not a standard for truth, and would be enforced by a vote of three and use much the same methods of government investigations, revisions of television stations news, threats of loss of broadcast licenses and, as the FCC found, create an atmosphere of timidity and fear as was the case under the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Letter to the Editor – Wall St Journal

It is imperative that our government assert in the upcoming UN treaty negotiations our Constitution's provision for a free press and free speech and object to the Chinese and Russian efforts to have votes of the UN control news and information on the Internet in this country. While such moves have been tried before and beaten back, this time such efforts look more likely to be successful as FCC Commissioner McDowell warns in his OpEd Feb. 20.

The Head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs appointed by President Obama has long urged that our government regulate the news to advance its political and social objectives but someone else could lead our opposition to UN control of news or news policies in this country to conduct an active and effective campaign against that control. Media owners and others as well as journalist organizations must participate in this and lend their weight as they have before. The State Department said on World Press Freedom day in 2011, quoted in my recent book, Government Control of News, A Constitutional Challenge, p.174, that not just journalists, but "each one of us who recognize the value of an informed citizenry must also stand up for this fundamental right." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the point in 2010 that "A free press is essential to an empowered citizenry, government accountability and responsible economic development. Wherever independent media are under threat, accountable governance and human freedom are undermined.

We have had some experience with government regulation of news when the FCC applied its Fairness Doctrine to television news and on its review of the facts revoked that doctrine in 1987. It found that the doctrine had suppressed news, chilled speech and had been used to drive opposing views off the air. The reviewing court agreed. But now some in government want to bring back that doctrine under a different name, Localism, Balance and Diversity. This proposed rule would also be enforced by a local board appointed for each station which would recommend a broadcast license not be renewed if the station did not comply with FCC and board views on localism. This proposal could have been dropped by the current Chair of the FCC in 2011 as staff recommended but it was not. This country does not need a repeat of the public misfortune of the Fairness Doctrine and the atmosphere of timidity and fear which the FCC found it created.

The fact is that the government should be kept at arms length from news content as it is from print news and as our constitution provides so that the public is informed and can govern.

Cory Dunham (former network executive and general counsel)

Check the real article here for more information.