The Censorship Doctrine: Silencing in the Name of ‘Fairness’

By Sean Higgins Summary: Free speech is fi ne, except when it needs to be rationed. That’s the view of liberal advocates of the “Fairness Doc- trine” who believe radio stations give too much airtime to and oth- er conservative hosts. The Left wants to reinstate a discarded FCC regula- tion once used to balance viewpoints back when there only a few stations on the radio dial.

ne of Johnny Carson’s regular skits on “The Tonight Show” in the O1970s and 80s was “Floyd R. Turbo, American.” The premise of the skit was that Turbo, a member of the “silent majority,” had taken offense at the way his local TV station had covered some controversial topic. Turbo demanded – and received – time to appear on the evening news to offer a rebuttal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-) wants to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine that would destroy talk radio. Here he speaks at a Hillary Clinton for president event Carson would appear on the screen in a red in 2007. fl annel jacket and Elmer Fudd-style hunting Comedian Gilda Radner played a similar From 1949 through 1987, broadcasters were cap and launch into an angry diatribe that character called Emily Litella during her subject to a federal rule called the Fairness revealed how hopelessly ill-informed Turbo time on the TV comedy program “Saturday Doctrine. The rule obliged broadcasters was on the subject at hand. One skit had Night Live” in the 1970s. Litella, elderly and to offer rebuttal time to just about anyone Turbo taking issue with the station’s edito- partially deaf, would appear as a citizen com- who took issue with a political position or rial support for seatbelts by explaining: “The mentator offering her hilariously confused other controversial viewpoint broadcast on last place I want to be during an accident is take on the burning news issue of the moment. the station. strapped into the seat of my car. I’d rather be Why, she asked in one skit, was everybody home in my easy chair drinking a beer.” so concerned about the plight of “Soviet jewelry”? At some point the news anchor- January 2009 man would point out her misunderstanding: Another skit had Turbo explaining his stance CONTENTS on nuclear power thusly: “And what’s all this People are concerned about Soviet Jewry. fuss about plutonium? How can something Litella would cringe, look into the camera The Censorship Doctrine named after a Disney character be danger- and say, “Never mind.” Page 1 ous? … They say atomic radiation can hurt your reproductive organs. My answer is, so Though exaggerated for comic effect, these Philanthropy Notes characters were based on actual people that can a hockey stick, but we don’t stop build- Page 8 ing them.” TV and radio broadcasters knew all too well. FoundationWatch

In theory, the Doctrine furthered the cause of and sent. After a number of these indictments The movement to reinstate the Fairness free speech by giving everyone a chance to from Washington arrived at WMEX, the boss Doctrine is currently somewhat inchoate, have access to the airwaves. No viewpoint summoned all of us and commanded that involving a loose coalition of groups and would be stifl ed and debate would fl ourish, from now on, we ourselves would engage individuals who have yet to launch a public at least in theory. in no controversy at the station.” campaign for it. Instead supporters seem to be biding their time, as if they are waiting for In practice, the opposite happened. The Rather than deal with these money-draining just the right controversy that will help them sketches by Carson and Radner give a sense legal headaches, most station managers frame a policy debate more in their direction. of why: the law didn’t differentiate between simply avoided controversy altogether. Schumer’s comments refl ect this strategy, as thoughtful, sober-minded critics and kooks, Expressly opinionated programming and he claims it is about restoring balance to the cranks, and the perpetually aggrieved. Airing anything else that might spark a challenge air waves, not muzzling anybody. anything remotely controversial meant that was nudged off the air. Public affairs shows stations could fi nd themselves bullied into were assiduously balanced – and boring, and Advocates are also exploring alternate paths giving airtime to people no matter how daft audiences disappeared. Many media bigwigs that avoid specifi cally reviving the Fairness their opinions or obnoxious their agendas came to the conclusion that there wasn’t an Doctrine but accomplish the same goal. might be. Once they knew they could get audience for public affairs programming. One such proposal would be to allow local on the air, they came back to object to other community activists to have a say in the things. (The joke of the Turbo and Litella skits Just how much the Fairness Doctrine had renewal of licenses. Imagine if every time was that they were constant complainers, no quashed free expression became apparent you wanted to renew your station’s license matter what the issue.) Stations that refused a few years after its repeal in 1987. Once you have to get the okay of the local branch to host them could fi nd themselves in court stations were free to experiment with of ACORN or the NAACP. Current FCC and their federal licenses in jeopardy. politically controversial material without chairman Kevin Martin has already made fearing to be held hostage to any crank moves in that direction. “When offi cial Fairness Doctrine letters who complained, there was a renaissance came to the station’s owner from the FCC, in public affairs programming, particularly “They will try to sneak in the Fairness the front offi ce panicked,” wrote civil lib- on once moribund AM radio. Led by Rush Doctrine through the Trojan Horse of local- erties columnist and former radio reporter Limbaugh, talk radio came roaring back to ism,” John Berlau, director of the Center Nat Hentoff in a 2008 column. “Lawyers dominate the airwaves. for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive had to be summoned; tapes of the accused Enterprise Institute, told Foundation Watch broadcasts had to be examined with extreme, Fans of the Fairness Doctrine in an interview. apprehensive care; voluminous responses to Not everyone is pleased by this turn of events, the bureaucrats at the FCC had to be prepared and the reason is simple: The broadcast re- In addition to Schumer, the Fairness Doc- naissance in political commentary has tilted trine’s return has been explicitly endorsed Editor: Matthew Vadum heavily towards advocacy of conservative by such congressional leadership fi gures as ideas. That’s caused liberal groups and top House Speaker (D-), Publisher: Terrence Scanlon Democratic lawmakers to push back. They Senate Majority Whip (D- are toying with ways to reinstate the Fairness Foundation Watch ), and Sen. (D-Massa- Doctrine, and they see that a new Congress chusetts), the 2004 presidential candidate. is published by Capital Research and administration is opening up opportuni- Center, a non-partisan education and Rep. (D-Ohio), chairman research organization, classifi ed by ties for them to get their way. of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity. House Oversight and Government Reform For left-wing ideologues, the repeal of a Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on Address: government regulation promoting fairness it. Before the Democrats regained control of 1513 16th Street, N.W. has been a disaster that allowed the right Washington, DC 20036-1480 Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chair- wing to gain control of public airwaves and man John Conyers (D-Michigan) actually Phone: (202) 483-6900 poison public discourse. It’s bad enough held a shadow committee hearing calling Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950 that the federal government gives broadcast for its return. Its most ardent supporter may licenses to corporations that sell commercial be Rep. (D-New York), E-mail Address: airtime for profi t. The least lawmakers can do [email protected] who has sponsored several bills to bring is bring back the days of federal regulation it back. Web Site: and bring the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean http://www.capitalresearch.org Hannitys, and the rest to heel. “Rush Limbaugh has every right to be (on the air) but that radio station has to give equal Organization Trends welcomes let- “I think we should all be fair and balanced, ters to the editor. time to another point of view,” Slaughter told don’t you?” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D- Bill Moyers on his PBS program, “Now,” in Reprints are available for $2.50 pre- New York), slyly affi rming his support for the paid to Capital Research Center. December 2004. Doctrine during a Nov. 4, 2008 appearance on Fox News. 2 January 2009 FoundationWatch

That argument is a favorite of left-wing The Fairness Doctrine was formally adopted Political advertising on radio was expensive. bloggers like the folks at Daily Kos and as policy by the FCC in 1949. (Report on Edi- Just like today, candidates for offi ce were liberal pundits like Air America host Randi torializing by Broadcast Licenses, 13 FCC, obliged to fundraise aggressively to afford Rhodes as well. 1246 [1949]). The law seemed innocuous radio spots for their campaigns. enough. It said that broadcasters were obliged “I found the Fairness Doctrine in the Museum to give opportunities to discuss contrasting It’s hardly surprising then that Washington of TV archives. Dust it off and put it back viewpoints on important public issues. policymakers would embrace regulating on the public shelf,” Rhodes told Conyers’s shadow committee in May 2005.

The Washington, D.C.-based Media Access Project is the main advocacy group provid- ing the legal and intellectual fi repower for the return of the Doctrine. The liberal non- profi t (2006 revenue: $548,000) “promotes universal and equitable access” in electronic mass media. Other supportive groups are the radical left-wing Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and, to a lesser extent, the George Soros-funded Media Matters For America.

They appear to be making progress. An Aug. 14, 2008 Rasmussen poll found that 47% of Americans believe the government should require all radio and TV stations to offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary. Only 39% rejected this idea. Conservative supporters of talk radio are not the only opponents of the Fairness Doctrine. Promoters of innovation in communications technology consider the Doctrine a dead let- Comedy writers in the 1970s and 80s used the clueless Floyd R. Turbo, played by ter. They say the Internet, fi ber-optic cable, Johnny Carson (left) on “The Tonight Show” and Emily Litella (right), played by satellite broadcasting and broadband has Gilda Radner on “Saturday Night Live” to make fun of the Fairness Doctrine. so multiplied the available ways to com- municate that the original rationale for the While Washington swathed the decision in political opinion on stations that relied on Doctrine – the scarcity of the spectrum – has the language of fairness, it nevertheless as- them to receive their broadcast licenses. In been rendered moot. serted control over access to the airwaves— 1959, Congress amended the Communica- and to the content broadcast over them. It had tions Act of 1934 to include Fairness Doctrine But that’s not stopping left-wing “fairness” reasons other than civic-mindedness. language. It read: “A broadcast licensee shall advocates in Washington. afford reasonable opportunity for discussion “In 1948, radio was the most important me- of confl icting views on matters of public How “Fairness” Became a Broadcasting Norm dium in America. Tens of millions listened importance.” From its start in 1927, the Federal Com- each night to the variety of shows offered munications Commission (then called the by the networks,” wrote historian Zachary It also should not be surprising to any student Federal Radio Commission) chose to grant Karabell. (The Last Campaign: How Harry of politics that the Fairness Doctrine was licenses to stations that offered public service Truman Won the 1948 Election, Alfred A. abused. As Jesse Walker, author of Rebels programming without a discernable point Knopf, 2000, page 72) on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio of view over stations whose programming in America, has noted: refl ected a distinct viewpoint. In those days, reporters and news outlets were often openly partisan. Some of the “In December 1961, Walter and Victor most noted journalists of the day saw no Offi cials reasoned that radio frequencies Reuther of the United Auto Workers, reason not to share their opinions with their were a scarce commodity. Because there together with the liberal lawyer Joseph audience. Karabell recounts how during the was only so much space on the dial it was Rauh, wrote a 24-page memorandum to 1948 election “(Walter) Winchell questioned up to the government to decide who could Atty. Gen. Bobby Kennedy. The memo Truman’s ability to govern. Walter Lippmann broadcast on the spectrum. Stations that urged the administration to deploy the repeatedly advised Truman to withdraw his served the broadest sections of the public FBI, the IRS, and, yes, the FCC to win name from consideration. Others (in journal- would get preference. ‘the struggle against the radical right,’ ism) expressed similar opinions.” January 2009 3 FoundationWatch

which to the Reuthers included not just The decision, written by Justice Byron judges in the case, Telecommunications Re- the John Birch Society and the Christian White, found that the Fairness Doctrine did search and Action Center v. FCC, included Crusade but Sen. Barry Goldwater and not contradict the First Amendment. White and future Supreme Court the libertarian Volker Fund. The FCC, declared that a radio license holder had no Justice .) The following year the authors wrote, ‘might consider ex- right to “monopolize a radio frequency to the same appeals court (Judges Bork and amining into the extent of the practice the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There Scalia were not involved this time) found of giving free time to the radical right is nothing in the First Amendment which in Meredith Corp. v. FCC that the FCC did and could take measures to encourage prevents the Government from requiring not have to enforce the Doctrine because it stations to assign comparable time for a license to share his frequency.” White’s was only FCC policy and not law. an opposing point of view on a free basis.”

The memo was leaked to the press and the administration backed away from it – at least publicly. In 1976, though, Bill Ruder, a for- mer public relations consultant to President Lyndon Johnson, conceded that their strategy was, “to use the Fairness Doctrine to chal- lenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decided it was too expensive to continue.”

Republican administrations were not above using the Doctrine to their advantage either. When began to investi- gate Watergate, President Nixon threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of radio and TV stations the Post’s parent company owned. Ostensibly the government would challenge whether the stations met local community standards for fairness. Graham Fairness Doctrine advocate Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York) refused and the administration, now teetering from scandal, backed down. (See “Katherine decision was built, like the Fairness Doctrine Fearful about the direction things were head- Graham, USA,” Global Journalist, posted itself, around the notion that radio frequencies ing, Congress passed a law in June 1987 that April 1, 2000, http://www.globaljournalist. were scarce public property and therefore would have codifi ed the Doctrine. President org/stories/2000/04/01/katharine-graham- access had to be shared. Reagan vetoed it. The next month, the FCC usa/.) voted 4-0 to abolish the Doctrine. That decision still stands, but it was weakened The constitutionality of the Doctrine was by a 1974 case, Publishing Co. It is worth noting that Reagan’s veto came fi rst tested in 1969 when the Supreme Court v. Tornillo. In that unanimous decision, Chief over the objections of not just liberals but heard Red Lion v. FCC. The case involved Justice Warren Burger wrote: “Government- many of his fellow conservatives. Condi- radio preacher Billy James Hargis who de- enforced right of access inescapably dampens tioned to accept the Doctrine as the norm, voted a show to attacking Nation magazine the vigor and variety of public debate.” many feared they would not have access to writer Fred Cook, author of a book entitled the airwaves without it. Such notables as Goldwater: Extremist on the Right. During the Reagan administration the FCC Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), Cook heard the broadcast from a radio station under chairman Mark Fowler began to recon- a former TV commentator, and Rep. Newt in Red Lion, Pennsylvania, and demanded sider the Doctrine. The Commission’s fi rst Gingrich (R-Georgia), voted to codify the air time to reply. The station offered to sell exception to the Doctrine—for the then-new Doctrine. At the time groups such as the Cook air time for a nominal $7.50 fee – the technology of teletext—was challenged by National Rifl e Association and the Eagle same price that Hargis had paid – but that the Media Access Project. Forum urged Reagan not to veto the bill. wasn’t good enough for the aggrieved Cook. Then-Mississippi Congressman Trent Lott Invoking the Fairness Doctrine, he claimed he In a 1986 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals summed up their fears as well as their was entitled to free time and took his case all for the District of Columbia found that the tangled logic: “We have unfairness now of the way to the nation’s highest court. Doctrine did apply to teletext but the FCC even with the Fairness Doctrine. Heaven had discretion in whether to apply it. (The knows what would happen without a Fair- ness Doctrine.” 4 January 2009 FoundationWatch

Reagan wasn’t buying any of it. “[H]istory creasing incentive to reinstate the Fairness Finally, in 2004 a controversy involving has shown that the dangers of an overly timid Doctrine. Some never gave up in the fi rst Sinclair Broadcasting, a major broadcasting or biased press cannot be averted through place. company that currently owns 58 TV stations bureaucratic regulation, but only through in 35 markets, seemed to spark the progres- the freedom and competition that the First “I remember my party was in charge at the sive movement’s interest in reviving the Amendment sought to guarantee,” he said in time (of Reagan’s 1987 veto),” Congress- Fairness Doctrine. In October 2004, Sinclair his veto statement. (See “Veto Time – Again” woman Slaughter told Moyers. “I went to announced that it would require all 62 of its by John Berlau, Wall Street Journal, Aug. the leadership and I said, ‘This is outrageous. affi liates to broadcast a critical documentary 26, 2003.) We’ve got to try to override that veto.’” about then-Democratic presidential candi-

In 1989 some in Congress tried again to enact a law but failed after President George H. W. Bush threatened to veto it.

Conservatives Win, Liberals Lose Conservatives who thought they needed a Fairness Doctrine eventually changed their minds when they recovered their confi dence in the 1980s. Exactly why talk radio is so attractive to conservative talkers remains a topic of much debate. Rush Limbaugh says conservative under-representation in other media explains the phenomenon. Radio sta- tions say they are only responding to what the ratings say they public wants to hear. Many on the Left maintain that refl ects the desires of corporate owners, not ratings. My own view is that National Public Radio (NPR) already fi lls the void on the Left even if its genteel liberalism isn’t very satisfying to hard-core progressives.

Whatever the reason, talk radio is a vexing problem for the Left. For two decades it has tried and mostly failed to create a counter- Air America radio host Randi Rhodes (center) wants the Fairness Doctrine put programming model. In the 1990s liberals in “back on the public shelf.” She is shown here with with former Vice President Al the media tried to make ex-New York Gov. Gore (left) and Tipper Gore (right) in 2007. Mario Cuomo a radio star. Then they tried to make Texas populist Jim Hightower the The Democratic-led Congress tried fi tfully date John Kerry. It was called Stolen Honor: great anti-Rush. Both efforts fi zzled out. So but unsuccessfully to restore the Doctrine. Wounds That Never Heal. Democrats cried did much-ballyhooed Air America, which A third try fi zzled in 1993. The GOP took foul and Media Matters helped organize a could not make radio stars out of comedians control of Congress the following year. boycott of Sinclair, whose stock price fell as Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken. Franken a result of the controversy. Sinclair backed grew so disenchanted that he gave up and “One of the reasons we couldn’t was that down. The Media Access Project also claimed ran for the U.S. Senate in . Rush Limbaugh had organized this massive to have provided “legal strategy and guid- uprising, calling it the ‘Hush Rush Law’,” ance to the coalition that stopped Sinclair Commenting on Air America’s failure to she said. “He aroused his listeners so that Broadcasting Group,” according to its 2004 catch on, Steve Rendall wrote in the January/ they contacted their members of Congress annual report. February 2007 edition of FAIR’s magazine and killed the bill, and that’s not the fi rst Extra!: “[I]t’s fair to say that it hasn’t given time we’ve seen that.” That month, Rep. Slaughter, Media Matters liberal talk radio advocates a clear rebuttal CEO David Brock and Andrew Jay Schwartz- to the conservative argument that says lib- Granted, Ms. Slaughter may not fi nd Lim- man, president and CEO of the Media Access erals just can’t compete in talk radio.” (See baugh terribly arousing, but one wonders Project, unveiled a website called www. “Rough Road to Liberal Talk Success” by if it ever occurs to Slaughter that this is an fairnessdoctrine.com. It petitioned for the Steve Rendall, Extra! Jan./Feb. 2007, http:// example of real democracy: A public fi gure Doctrine’s return. (See “Media Groups Un- www.fair.org/index.php?page=3144). gets citizens to become passionate about veil Web Site To Support Slaughter’s Fairness the impact of an obscure, wonky piece of Doctrine Bill,” Alt Press Online, posted Oct. As those efforts stall, the Left has an in- public policy. 21, 2004 at http://www.altpressonline.com/ January 2009 5 FoundationWatch content/view/272/2/). The website was later itself as the “only Washington-based organi- interest group in Washington.” pulled down for reasons never explained. zation devoted to representing listeners’ and speakers’ interests in electronic media and Like many now-entrenched Washington In February 2005, Slaughter and 23 co- telecommunication issues before the Federal advocacy groups, MAP traces its origins to sponsors introduced HR 501, the proposed Communications Commission, other policy- the civil rights movement. It grew out of a “Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting making bodies and the courts.” 1966 effort by the United Church of Christ Act.” It would have reduced a station’s license to prevent the license renewal of a Jackson, term from eight to four years and formally MAP’s staff attorneys are the Left’s resi- Mississippi TV station that had given airtime enshrined the Fairness Doctrine. dent experts in this fi eld, advising other to supporters of racial segregation. Lawyers liberal groups, nationally and locally. To use in that case founded MAP in 1972 to represent Slaughter’s bill never made it out of com- a baseball analogy, MAP is the Left’s utility citizens in other license renewal hearings. mittee, and no other comparable bills have infi elder on telecom litigation. Its staffers been introduced since then. However, what appear at academic forums, federal and The nonprofi t now organizes groups opposed happens next? The Democrats enter the local legislative hearings and professional to telecommunication company mergers. It 111th Congress with expanded majorities, telecommunications events “to ensure that has represented community groups challeng- including a nearly fi libuster-proof one in the needs of the public are not forgotten as ing the relicensing of TV stations in Chicago the Senate. Should they introduce Fairness policies are established for the next genera- and Milwaukee, and advocated that the FCC Doctrine legislation, they may get some tion.” include provisions in cable Republican support—and they will not face mergers. It persuaded the FCC to decline a president . In its 2005 annual report, MAP lists as one to appeal a court ruling that prevented the of its top goals: “Working for full imple- agency from relaxing broadband ownership Liberals have found a successful format for mentation of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine rules. MAP president and CEO Andrew Jay their views on cable TV. Comedy Central’s and related policies ensuring access for di- Schwartzman is a long time legal advocate “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and vergent points of view and alternate artistic on telecommunications issues. He was on the MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann have a loyal perspectives.” losing side during the two key 1980s cases following of regular viewers. But this has before the D.C. appeals court that overturned done little to dissuade the Doctrine’s stron- MAP is funded by left-leaning foundations the Fairness Doctrine. (Meredith Corp. v. gest advocates. “It’s time to reinstate the including Arca Foundation, Soros’s Open FCC and Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC) Fairness Doctrine,” Sen. Dick Durbin told Society Institute, the Joyce Foundation, and So he has something to prove. newspaper last year. the Ford Foundation. According to its IRS tax fi ling for 2006, it’s a fairly lean organization, Other Pro-Fairness Doctrine Groups The Media Access Project getting by on a budget of about a half million The 501(c)(3) group Fairness & Accuracy In If policymakers successfully craft a new dollars that year. Lawyers working pro bono Reporting (FAIR) handles the public relations version of the Fairness Doctrine, their work appear to handle much of its work. The Na- aspect of the Left’s media agenda. It func- will owe much to the Media Access Project tional Journal has said it was “considered by tions as watchdog group, highlighting alleged (MAP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofi t that describes some … dollar-for-dollar the best run public cases of media bias. FAIR’s co-founder and president Norman Solomon writes a syn- Understanding the dicated column on the media. Co-founder Capital Research Center’s Jeff Cohen is a commentator on Fox News Nonprofi t World and MSNBC. The organization publishes a bimonthly magazine called Extra! devoted to Capital Research Center’s new Guide to exposing what it considers to be the media’s 5C723B= Nonprofi t Advocacy surveys more than <=<>@=47B/2D=1/1G 100 key nonprofi t public interest and right-wing and pro-corporate bias. advocacy organizations shaping U.S. politics and society today. Although The group was founded in 1986. Accord- the law prohibits 501(c)(3) nonprofi ts ing to its IRS tax fi ling for 2006, it gets by from lobbying and political spending, this year nonprofi ts are working ag- on a budget of about $830,000 annually. gressively through 501(c)(4) and 527 Its funders include the Rockefeller Family affi liates and umbrella groups to pass Fund, the Tides Foundation, the John D. and laws and elect candidates. Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, $15.00 To order, call 202-483-6900 and the Ford Foundation. or visit http://www.amazon.com/shops/ capital_research Extra!’s current and former board of advisors 8/;3A23::7<53@ or mail your check and book order to: is a veritable who’s who of hard core leftists, 7\b`]RcQbW]\PgBS``S\QSAQO\Z]\ Capital Research Center >`SaWRS\b1O^WbOZ@SaSO`QV1S\bS` 1513 16th Street, NW including Noam Chomsky (a contributor as Washington, DC 20036 well), the late poet Allen Ginsberg, author

6 January 2009 FoundationWatch

Barbara Ehrenreich, feminist Eleanor Smeal, Alternatives to “Fairness” time you have to ask the FCC for permission Ralph Nader’s 2004 running mate Winona Some frustrated fans of the two-decade to keep broadcasting. Even if you get to keep LaDuke, radio DJ Casey Kasem, and Hol- effort to revive the Fairness Doctrine have your license, it’ll mean spending more time lywood lefties Ed Asner, Tim Robbins, and decided that their energies are better spent and money dealing with the hassle. The John Cusack. elsewhere. natural impulse will be to throw some bones to your critics, especially the one who have Given those advisors, it’s not surprising that “Forget the Fairness Doctrine,” declared a managed to land spots on your community FAIR’s idea of fi ghting media bias includes July 2007 essay by Mark Lloyd published advisory board,” wrote Jesse Walker in a criticizing negative media coverage of Ven- by the liberal Center for American Progress. November 2008 Reason magazine essay. ezuela’s president Hugo Chavez and hitting Lloyd argued that the Doctrine targeted a Dan Rather as not liberal enough.(The poor demographic that could not be counted on And where will the incoming administra- guy just cannot get any love.) to push things far enough to the Left. “[T]he tion stand on this? In June 2008, Barack mainstream broadcast media in the late 1960s Obama’s press secretary Michael Ortiz told FAIR has called for the return of the Fairness was middle-class, anti-communist, Protes- Broadcasting & Cable magazine that Obama Doctrine since at least 1994, when Cohen tant, male and white,” he wrote. (See “Forget “does not support reimposing the Fairness denounced conservative charges that it would the Fairness Doctrine” by Mark Lloyd, The Doctrine on broadcasters.” “Hush Rush.” More recently, it published an Center for American Progress, posted July essay, “The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost 24, 2007 at http://www.americanprogress. The spokesman added that Obama “consid- It, Why We Need It Back,” by Extra! senior org/issues/2007/07/lloyd_fairness.html). ers this debate to be a distraction from the editor Steve Rendall. conversation we should be having about Instead of letting middle-aged liberals who opening up the airwaves and modern com- Media Matters for America, which special- read the New York Times answer Rush munications to as many diverse viewpoints izes in rapid response to “conservative Limbaugh on the air, Lloyd said the Left as possible.” misinformation” in the media, is a sometime- should push to require broadcasters to adopt supporter of the Fairness Doctrine. No state- rules deferring to local community interests. Fairness Doctrine fans can only hope that ment that favors the Fairness Doctrine is on That’s what will get grassroots activists on change is coming. its website, but founder David Brock did join the air. in unveiling the pro-Doctrine website and Sean Higgins is a Washington, D.C.-based petition with MAP and Slaughter in 2004. Interestingly, among the supporters of this reporter. It has criticized and direction is the current FCC, a majority of radio host Michael Savage for their critical whose members as of December 2008 had comments. (For more on Media Matters, see been appointed by President Bush. In Janu- FW Foundation Watch, July 2007.) ary 2008 it released a report on broadcast localism that required that stations to cre- Unlike MAP and FAIR, Media Matters enjoys ate “advisory boards” that included com- lavish funding. It has an annual operating munity leaders. This approach would help budget of $8.7 million according to its IRS “individuals [to] directly participate in the fi ling for 2007. Brock as president and CEO license renewal process.” (See “FCC Adopts got a salary of $259,336 in 2007. A one-time Localism Proposals to Ensure Programming Please remember writer for the conservative magazine Ameri- is Responsive to Needs of Local Communi- can Spectator who soured on the Right after ties” FCC press release, Dec. 18, 2007.) Capital Research his book on Hillary Clinton fl opped, Brock later famously switched sides. “[A]s temporary trustees of the public’s Center airwaves, broadcasters are obligated to Media Matters funders include the liberal operate their stations to serve the public in your will and philanthropists Leo Hindery Jr. and James interest, including their airing of program- Hormel, shopping mall magnate Bren Si- ming responsive to the needs and issues of estate planning. mon, and Susie Tompkins Buell, who with their station communities of license,” read her husband Douglas co-founded the Esprit an offi cial FCC press release. clothing chain. Buell, who met Brock at a Thank you for your get-together of Hillary Clinton supporters, The “temporary” line must send chills down held a fundraiser for him at her San Francisco the spines of license holders. Groups on the support. home. George Soros’s Democracy Alliance Left are already schooling members on how has also brokered grants to the group. (For to leverage this opening. Terrence Scanlon more on the Democracy Alliance, see Foun- President dation Watch, December 2008.) “Imagine having to contend with such peti- tions, both from the Left and the Right, every January 2009 7 FoundationWatch PhilanthropyNotes A settlement has been announced in the Robertson family’s donor intent lawsuit against Princeton University. Under it, Princeton will give Robertson Family Charities $100 million rather than face trial over the family’s charges that it ignored the wishes of their parents, the late Charles and Marie Robertson, whose gift of $35 million in 1961 was intended to prepare students for careers in government service. The case is the largest donor intent settlement ever. Capital Re- search Center senior fellow Martin Morse Wooster says the case shows that donors must be very careful in making gifts that will continue over decades. He warns that “universities can and will exploit every available loophole to divert a gift to causes they prefer.” However, philanthropy watcher Neal Freeman stresses that Princeton’s six-year war of attrition against the Robertson family failed. “The next time a nonprofi t executive is seized by larcenous impulse it may be nec- essary only to whisper in his ear the magic word, ‘Princeton.’” Wooster wrote about the case in Foundation Watch, May 2006.

A Wall Street Journal editorial called upon the fabulously wealthy and liberal Ford Foundation to bail out the now-strug- gling Ford Motor Co. that made its $13 billion endowment possible. “We’ve glanced at the foundation’s ‘mission state- ment,’ and it appears to us that Ford Motor would qualify for the ultimate grant to a nonprofi t,” the newspaper editorialized. “Since severing from the Fords’ initial vision, the foundation has gotten fat and famous. The moment has arrived for the Ford Foundation to “give back.’”

Republican senators were considering asking to testify at his wife’s upcoming confi rmation hearing regard- ing potential confl icts of interest involving his international charitable efforts, the reports. “Seeking donations from foreign governments is defi nitely concerning. ... It has been discussed, and it will be discussed,” a GOP aide told the newspaper. Critics are concerned that with a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton abroad spreading world peace, donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation might expect favors from a Clinton State Department or from others in the Obama administration. Bill Clinton has responded to those concerns by vowing to disclose the identities of donors to his founda- tion but as of press time it hadn’t happened.

The $50 billion fraud perpetrated by hedge fund manager Bernard Madoff has hurt a number of charitable foundations in- cluding the liberal JEHT Foundation, Reuters reports. JEHT suffered such heavy losses to its portfolio that it is expected to close its doors. The foundation has given $72,159,020 in grants since 2000, including $4,256,600 to the Tides Founda- tion and its affi liates, $839,500 to the Center for Constitutional Rights, and $250,000 to the ACORN affi liate, American Institute for Social Justice.

Yale University reports its nearly $23 billion endowment has dropped 25% to $17 billion, forcing the school to put off construction projects and cut costs. The drop in value has impacted operations dramatically because endowment income covers 44% of the university’s annual $2.7 billion in expenditures, said Yale president Richard Levin. Harvard University said its endowment, valued at $36.9 billion at the end of June, fell $8 billion in recent months. That school is freezing pay raises for non-union staff and suspending searches for many tenure and tenure-track positions.

In November, former Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler was appointed to lead the Obama transition team search- ing for a new Securities and Exchange Commission chairman to replace Chris Cox, a former GOP lawmaker who an- nounced he would retire Jan. 20.

The Newark Star-Ledger reports one unit of Goldman Sachs marketed New Jersey state bonds to investors while anoth- er unit advised investors how they could profi t by betting that the bonds would decline in value. Of course, the governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, is the former chairman of Goldman Sachs. According to the the company similarly encouraged investors to “short” the sale of California bonds at the same time that it was earning millions of dol- lars in fees selling them.

Goldman Sachs lost $2.12 billion in the fourth quarter, its fi rst loss since going public in 1999. Moody’s Investors Service lowered its long-term credit rating on the bank one notch to A1 from Aa3 after earnings were released, citing the “ongoing credit-market crisis” and “persistent diffi cult operating environment.”

8 January 2009