“As you know, I’ve never liked big government. And that was one of the reasons I was opposed to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”… there’s no reason to substitute the judgment of Washington bureaucrats for that of professional broadcasters.”–Ronald Reagan

To the Senate of the United States:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 742, the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987”, which would codify the so-called “fairness doctrine.” This doctrine, which has evolved through the decisional process of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints on those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In any other medium besides broadcasting, such Federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable. The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the “fairness doctrine”, chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” More recently, the United States Supreme Court, in striking down a right-of-access statute that applied to newspapers, spoke of the statute’s intrusion into the function of the editorial process and concluded that “[i]t has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.” Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974).

I recognize that 18 years ago the Supreme Court indicated that the fairness doctrine as then applied to a far less technologically advanced broadcast industry did not contravene the First Amendment. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The Red Lion decision was based on the theory that usable broadcast frequencies were then so inherently scarce that government regulation of broadcasters was inevitable and the FCC’s “fairness doctrine” seemed to be a reasonable means of promoting diverse and vigorous debate of controversial issues.

The Supreme Court indicated in Red Lion a willingness to reconsider the appropriateness of the fairness doctrine if it reduced rather than enhanced broadcast coverage. In a later case, the Court acknowledged the changes in the technological and economic environment in which broadcasters operate. It may now be fairly concluded that the growth in the number of available media outlets does indeed outweigh whatever justifications may have seemed to exist at the period during which the doctrine was developed. The FCC itself has concluded that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism. After a massive study of the effects of its own rule, the FCC found in 1985 that the recent explosion in the number of new information sources such as cable television has clearly made the “fairness doctrine” unnecessary. Furthermore, the FCC found that the doctrine in fact inhibits broadcasters from presenting controversial issues of public importance, and thus defeats its own purpose.

Quite apart from these technological advances, we must not ignore the obvious intent of the First Amendment, which is to promote vigorous public debate and a diversity of viewpoints in the public forum as a whole, not in any particular medium, let alone in any particular journalistic outlet. History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.

S. 742 simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as S. 742 may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism. Accordingly, I am compelled to disapprove this measure.

Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 19, 1987.

* This was pre-Rush. But even then, Democrats realized how valuable government control of the airwaves could be in preventing a Rush Limbaugh or a FOX network.

* Here’s how a Fairness Regime works; government monitors everything that is said on the airwaves. It classifies every opinion and then demands that television, radio and cable stations give equal time to opposing points of view. Rather than turn over their microphones to anybody with a beef, most stations would choose to avoid any opinion at all. Liberals say they want both sides of the argument–but what they really want is conservatives silenced.

* California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown just said on a talk show “a little state control of speech wouldn’t hurt“. Of course, this is a guy who thinks his own constitution is unconstitutional. I guess a little state control of the voters is good, too, huh, Jerry?

Moonbeam got to say what he wanted on the radio without any state control. He just wants a “little state control” of your free speech–not his.

*Liberal Camille Paglia gives a stirring defense of free speech versus the doctrine. Yes, Little Johnny, liberals used to believe in free speech.

* Who will run these “Truth Commissions”– unionized federal employees? Please. David Axelrod and his friends? Right. Liberals: if you put politicians in charge of issuing speech permits, someday Karl Rove will get a turn, too.

*9 out of 10 journalists are liberal. But liberals want 10 out of 10. They can’t stand the fact that one or two broadcasters have escaped the plantation; they want their runaway slaves returned at once.

*As a conservative, I’ve lived with liberal media bias my whole life. In fact, in this last election, the press rented cheerleader dresses and waved pom-poms–except Matt Lauer, who already owned his. But even on my worst day, it never occurs to me to pass a law to silence opponents in the media. Yet that is the first impulse of liberals.

* The Pom-Pom Press created FOX and Rush Limbaugh by stubbornly refusing to tell it straight or respect the views of millions of Americans. They sent all those viewers and listeners elsewhere by their own condescension and arrogance.

* The whole point of a new Fairness Doctrine is to “Hush Rush”. It is a Bill of Attainder, a law pronouncing one person guilty and seizing his property, in this case, Rush’s show.

*A real Fairness Doctrine would take away airtime from liberal networks, not conservatives.

* Bill Clinton said we need this because of the “big money” behind “right-wing talk radio”. This is the guy who sold pardons, rented the Lincoln bedroom out and leased our secrets to the Chinese. He’s taking big money from the very countries his wife will deal with.

Nobody but Bill is taking money. It can’t just simply be that we beat them. No, for Liberals, it always has to be some vast right-wing conspiracy–Project much, people?

*If you could “fill the seats” with your twaddle, stations would beat a path to your door. They’re not ideologues–they’re businessmen trying to make a buck. Your talkers drive listeners away. The more people hear, the less they like it.

*If you have to pass a law to get mandatory listeners, MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE YOUR IDEAS SUCK.

“I have strongly supported the elimination of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” as an unconstitutional infringement upon the freedom of the press, and I will continue to resist any legislation that attempts to reverse this Federal Communications Commission action.”–Pres. Ronald Reagan

Reagan had his own “Fairness Doctrine”, except he called it by another name:

“the First Amendment”.