When the Federal Communications Commission debuted its plan to question journalists about editorial and other job-related decisions, it was met with vehement criticism by Republican lawmakers and members of the press. Eventually yielding to his critics, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced last Friday that the survey’s pilot program would be deferred until a revised program had been designed.
While the FCC’s decision is welcome news, it is important that any revised program henceforth ensures no intimidation of the press.
The original FCC program, titled “Multi-market Study of Critical Information Needs,” was proposed last May with intentions of gathering information from broadcast radio and television stations to identify “[the] process by which stories are selected,” “perceived station bias,” and the frequency by which stations cover “Critical Information Needs.” CINs are a group of eight categories, such as the “environment” and “economic opportunity,” that the government believes should be covered by local newscasters.
Nearly three decades ago, the Reagan Administration dissolved the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine which had, since its enactment in 1949, required broadcasters to designate airtime to coverage of controversial public issues in a “fair” manner. Unsurprisingly, the Fairness Doctrine produced results antithetical to its declared purpose. Not only did its adverse effects include a constrained platform of robust debate and self-censorship, but it enabled the government to exert more control over the media — a practice fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment’s guaranteed freedom of the press.
Bringing up the Fairness Doctrine is not a lesson in history. It’s a reminder of a failed big-government policy of the past narrowly different from the FCC’s plan in the present. In a recent op-ed to The Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai described concerns relating to his agency’s proposed study that bore close resemblance to the unintended consequences of the Fairness Doctrine.
“The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch. But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories,” Pai wrote, later adding that “[the] demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.”
Though the FCC assured the public in its statement on Friday that any revised study would omit direct questioning of “media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters,” Americans have a right to — and should — remain skeptical.
Between the Department of Justice’s monitoring of Fox News’ Chief Washington correspondent, undisclosed obtainment of Associated Press journalists’ phone records, and the Obama Administration’s repeated attempts to expand “net neutrality,” the federal government has tarnished its track record in upholding freedom of the press.
Furthermore, in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders — a France-based, international organization committed to promoting and defending freedom of the press — the United States fell to 46th place in terms of how well countries encourage freedom of information and freedom of the press. To put things into perspective, the United States was ranked 22nd in the 2009 World Press Freedom Index, the year President Obama took office.
The Obama administration’s continual, repressive treatment of the press is largely to blame for the decline. The Reporters Without Borders rankings were critical of the Bush administration’s treatment of the press, but wrote that the press environment — especially for investigative journalism — had deteriorated even further during the Obama presidency.
“Rather than pursuing journalists, the emphasis has been on going after their sources, but often using the journalist to identify them,” the report reads. “No fewer [than] eight individuals have been charged under the Espionage Act since Obama became president, compared with three during Bush’s two terms.”
Additionally, last October, the Committee to Protect Journalists published a report titled, “The Obama Administration and the Press,” in which Leonard Downie Jr., a vice president at large of The Washington Post, observed that watchdogs and the press were critical of the Obama administration’s openness.
“Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated promise that his administration would be the most open and transparent in American history, reporters and government transparency advocates said they are disappointed by its performance in improving access to the information they need.”
The report also quoted a statement by David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, saying the Obama administration “is the most closed, control freak administration” he’s “ever covered.”
Going forward, studies proposed and conducted by the FCC should respect the press’s constitutional freedom to operate and make decisions without government intimidation or intrusion. The executive branch should aim for better than a 46th place ranking in press freedom — not propose policies that propel us further down the scale.
