Talk Radio: Ten Questions for the "Hush Rush" Crowd

On Friday I suggested that in their quest to consolidate power the liberals who control Congress would press for hearings on updating and reviving the now-defunct "fairness" doctrine in order to restrict objectionable (to them) political speech. I referenced comments made just last week by Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Tom Harkin, former President Bill Clinton and other Democrat party officials and elected representatives endorsing government-coerced "balance" and "accountability" for talk radio. Yesterday President Obama's chief aide David Axelrod refused to rule out an effort by the administration to reimpose restrictions on station ownership and content that would amount to a muzzling of conservatives on radio.

It is no coincidence that all these comments found their way into the media within the space of a week. The proponents of regulation of talk radio are serious and they are all on the same page, a page written primarily by the left-wing George Soros-funded think-tank Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP's recommendations are contained in a report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio authored in 2007 by senior fellows at CAP. They are summarized as follows:

• Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
• Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
• Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

Seems benign enough, until one reads the full report. CAP's proposal for reigning in talk radio goes far beyond simply enforcing the moribund Fairness Doctrine, which was shelved in 1987. CAP calls for nothing less than a government mandated restructuring of the news and talk radio marketplace, all in the name of fairness, balance and accountability to "local and community needs." In order to more fully understand the implications of these proposals I emailed ten questions to the authors.

Here are my questions. I will post their answers if and when I receive them:

1. You propose to increase "localism" and "diversification" in talk radio station ownership in order to satisfy "local and community needs." What is the basis for the regulation you propose?Is it the fact that station access to the airwaves is licensed by the FCC? If radio were an entirely "private" medium, would the government have the authority to restructure the industry as you recommend?

If government licensing is the basis for regulation, than would the goals of increasing localism and diversity apply to music radio station owners? Would stations that carry local TV news similarly be bound, since they are subject to renewable licenses? If not, what is the basis for distinction between talk, news and music? How would regulation of talk radio pass muster under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution?

2. You suggest that the goal of legislation or rule-making in this area is to "encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming." The recommendations would have talk radio station owners meet "enforceable public interest obligations." What are the meanings of terms like "balanced," "responsive" and "public interest?"

Would the FCC itself determine whether programming complies or violates these standards? How would your proposal ensure that these standards are not determined on subjective ideological grounds?

3. Another stated goal is for radio to "better meet local and community needs." How are these needs determined? By a local station owner or by a government agency in Washington? What role does commercial success or viability play in this determination?

Many if not most markets have a "public" radio station serving the market. Do these stations meet local and community needs? If so, how many stations are needed in a market to fully satisfy this need?

4. You call for caps on station ownership, either nationally or locally. How would this achieve your desired results? Presumably caps would require owners like Clear Channel or Salem to sell off stations. Who decides which stations in which markets can be kept and which need to be sold? Would prospective buyers need to meet certain women- and minority-owned business enterprise requirements? What programming obligations would the new owners have to satisfy?

5. The report notes the overwhelming commercial success of talk radio, which translates into profits for the stations and owners. This means that the stations that carry these programs are valuable assets of the companies and individuals that own them. How will a forced sale of stations affect the market value of the assets sold? What rights would shareholders of these companies have under your plan?

6. Your critics argue that your proposal represents an unwarranted government intervention in private markets and an unconstitutional attempt to curtail free speech. Do these arguments have merit, and if so, how would your recommendations address this? Are you concerned that a future administration could use this framework to shut out opinions or points of view dear to you?

7. Do you contend that the FCC can act under its rulemaking authority without further congressional action? If congressional action is required, would you recommend full public hearings before Congress before your policies are implemented? Do you believe that station owners, talk show personalities, advertisers and listeners should be entitled to testify at any hearings and present their views?

8. It can be assumed that if your proposals are enacted popular radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Gallagher and the like will not quietly disappear from the scene. Rather they will avail themselves of internet, cable, print, podcasts and all other methods to continue their programming. Do you propose that the government also regulate in these areas as well to ensure that the "public interest" is served?

9. By your own account there are many millions of radio listeners who enjoy talk radio, presumably many who are not necessarily conservative. Are their rights not violated when their access to opinions and views that they find informative or worthwhile is curtailed? Do you anticipate a backlash by these many millions of listeners against government attempts to restrict their access to talk radio?

10. Finally, if your analysis and recommendations were promulgated by the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation and targeted against broadcast news or print media, would you consider it an outrageous attempt to undermine the constitutional protection of free speech? Absent a showing of dangerous incitement to violence, in what way is any curtailment of political speech defensible in a free society? In what way would such a curtailment be deemed progressive?