[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19278-19279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         BROADCAST FREEDOM ACT

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Broadcast Freedom Act, which I offered along with my friends from 
Minnesota and South Dakota, Senators Coleman and Thune. Some would say 
that the fairness doctrine is the perfect example of a regulation whose 
time has past. Others would say it is a regulation that was

[[Page 19279]]

never necessary to begin with. In any event, it is certainly not a 
regulation that we need today. I think it is worth a brief recap of 
history of American mass media to show how utterly silly this doctrine 
would be if reinstated in today's environment.
  In 1949, the year the fairness doctrine was created, there were 51 
television stations in the United States. In 1985, when the doctrine 
was repealed by the FCC, there were 1,200. Today, there are nearly 
1,800 television stations. The radio industry tells a similar story. In 
1949, there were about 2,500 radio stations in the United States. In 
1985, the number had grown to 9,800. Today, there are almost 14,000. 
There was significant growth of these numbers between 1985 and today. 
We need to understand why it is happening.
  You see, it was in 1985 that the FCC said the following when it 
repealed the fairness doctrine:

       We believe that the interest of the public and viewpoint 
     diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in 
     the marketplace today.

  That was when we had far fewer radio and television stations. That 
statement was made over 20 years ago. The number of voices in the 
market was plentiful then. In the last two decades, those numbers have 
grown even larger--by 50 percent in television and over 40 percent in 
radio.
  Keep in mind, too, that there was no Internet in 1985, and there was 
no satellite radio offering hundreds of channels nationwide. There was 
no digital television or radio allowing for multicasting. There were 
not even wireless phones, much less ones that could go on line and even 
carry video. Of course, nobody had yet heard of the podcast, blogging, 
or YouTube. All of this has now changed. It is easy to see that if the 
fairness doctrine was unnecessary in 1985 because of the multiplicity 
of voices, it is downright laughable today.
  I also wish to speak to the fact that this doctrine, if reinstated, 
would have the opposite effect that its opponents tell us they seek. 
They say they want both sides of important issues presented with equal 
time. Well, what happens if nobody is available or willing to offer an 
opposing viewpoint? The answer, clearly, is that the discussion will 
not take place at all. And all the bureaucracy that is required to keep 
track of what someone said and what has to be responded to would cause 
most of these stations not to deal with important issues at all.
  Commercial radio and television are businesses. They are on the air 
only as long as someone is willing to pay for advertising. Advertising 
is only attractive when someone is watching or listening. People watch 
or listen to things they find worth their time. If a radio or 
television station is prevented from airing programming on public 
issues or is forced to carry programming that may not suit their 
audience, they will have a very difficult time retaining listeners, 
advertisers, and ultimately their businesses. It is not in the public 
interest for the Government to force content on or prevent content from 
reaching the American people. The FCC recognized that in 1985, and we 
should all recognize it today.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the Broadcast Freedom 
Act, which prevents the FCC, now or in the future, from reinstating the 
arcane and damaging so-called fairness doctrine.

                          ____________________