National Association of Broadcasters Thanks Obama for his Stand on Fairness Doctrine

David Rehr, President of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), wrote President Barack Obama Tuesday thanking him for reiterating his opposition to the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, according to John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable magazine.

"On behalf of [NAB], I am writing to express our gratitude to you for the Feb. 18 statement," Rehr wrote.

"At a time when the challenges that face our country require vigorous debate and discussion, our nation's TV and radio broadcasters provide a rich diversity of viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum," said Rehr.

He added: "Any attempts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine would harm, not help, this diversity by discouraging the robust exchange of ideas and opinions."

Rehr's letter came after a statement from the White House last week that the president did not support the return of the doctrine, which was first imposed in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration.

Eggerton reported that during the 2008 Presidential campaign, candidate Obama twice indicated to B&C through an aide that he was not a fan of the doctrine and that he considered the debate "a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."

However, after several high-profile Democrats indicated their support for its return in some form, and a top Obama aide declined comment saying that issue would be left to the President and presumptive FCC chairman nominee Julius Genachowski to discuss, the White House decided to weigh in on the issue.

In a related issue, Rehr says he is cautiously optimistic the Obama administration will ease some of the pressure and uncertainty that have hovered over TV and radio in recent years concerning appropriate content, according to the New York Daily News.

"With the new FCC, I think there will be less focus on cultural issues," said Rehr, in an article by New York Daily News staff writer David Hinckley.

According to Hinckley, television and radio have been nervous about running afoul of the FCC since the Janet Jackson moment at the 2004 Super Bowl triggered a wave of high-profile outrage over broadcast content.

Hinckley writes that Congress increased indecency fines tenfold, to $325,000, and the FCC handed down several fines, including one for the Jackson incident and one to ABC for a joke with nudity on "NYPD Blue," that did little to clarify "indecency" but made all broadcasters fearful they could be next.

"TV and radio broadcasters felt as if they were getting pulled over for speeding when there were no speed limits posted," says Tom Taylor, editor of the radio trade sheet T-R-I. "Janet Jackson changed the whole climate."

Now, with President Obama poised to name a new head of the FCC, speculation has intensified about whether the administration wants to maintain that pressure, Hinckley reports.

Rehr says he sees indications that the FCC will shift its focus, letting broadcasters spend less time looking over their shoulders.

The candidate widely expected to be nominated for the FCC chair, Obama's longtime friend Julius Genachowski, is believed to be more concerned with issues like emerging technology and "Net neutrality," assuring equal access to the Internet for all users, Hinckley says in his newspaper article.

Hinckley says that Rehr stresses he isn't advocating an 'anything-goes' policy. He just thinks the marketplace and broadcasters usually can sort out appropriate content themselves.

"We shouldn't be in a business that's vulgar," he says. "And almost all broadcasters do the right thing. There are always a few who push the line, but the broadcast community as a whole does a spectacular job," said Rehr.

Hinckley says Rehr noted that television viewers sometimes blame broadcasters for material they have seen on cable channels, which as subscription services are not subject to the same FCC oversight.

But the big benefit to lifting some of the shadow over broadcasters, Rehr says, is that it serves the First Amendment.

"The greater and wider our range of broadcast speech," he says, "the better."

Hinckley says that trade sheet editor Taylor notes no FCC Chairman will announce he's not going to pay attention to broadcast content.

"But the commission sends signals," he says. "And the Obama administration so far seems to have a lot less interest in playing traffic cop."