Conservatives Criticize Oprah Refusal To Interview Palin
Why interesting? Because President Reagan and President GWH Bush (41) both vetoed Congressional attempts to codify the Fairness Doctrine. But what was the Fairness Doctrine?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) once believed that broadcast licenses (required for both radio and terrestrial TV stations) were a form of public trust and, as such, licensees should provide balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues. This belief was expressed through the Fairness Doctrine.
Many folks get the Fairness Doctrine confused with the Equal Time Rule. The Equal Time Rule is a provision of the 1934 Communications Act (section 315) which "requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time."
In 1959, Congress enumerated four exemptions to the Equal Time Rule:
- Regularly scheduled newscasts
- News interviews shows
- Documentaries (unless the documentary is about a candidate)
- On-the-spot news events
The FCC's interpretation of these exemptions ensures that televised presidential debates can exclude third party candidates because they're considered "on-the-spot news." (Don't ask - I don't get this. Pre-planned, programmed and advertised events hardly seem "on-the-spot news" to me.) Likewise, Presidential press conferences are also considered "on-the-spot news." In both cases, other candidates are not entitled to "equal time."
The FCC has expanded the definition of a "news interview program" to include non-news (otherwise known as "entertainment") programs like The Phil Donahue Show, Good Morning America and, believe it or not, Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, and Politically Incorrect. IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but it looks to me like Oprah's TV show would safely fit into this category.
The LA TImes notes that Oprah did not have Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on her show during the campaign. Although Obama has appeared on her program twice, both were before he announced he would run for President: January 2005 and fall 2006. (Obama announced his exploratory committee 16 January 2007.)
She has, however, committed her celebrity and money to his campaign, endorsing him for president and emceeing events in key states. She hosted a fundraiser at one of her California homes.
In 2007, the FCC generated a firestorm when it suggested the some forms of blogging might be considered campaign contributions. I wonder why celebrity appearances like Oprah's -- or musical contributions like those of Crosby, Still and Nash (DNC) and the Beach Boys (RNC) -- aren't considered campaign contributions.
For example, last month University of Maryland economists Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore asserted that Oprah's endorsement yielded 1 million votes for Obama.
And I know convention concerts are considered "parties" for the delegates (a new ethics law prohibits "lobbyists from paying for ... music for members of Congress and their staffs"). Nothing that corporations spend at the conventions seems to be considered a campaign contribution, even though, these days, the convention is almost exclusively an event for the anointed nominee (ie, there's no "there" there ... the convention is a rubber stamp).
Celebrity and presidential elections aren't new, except in the context of modern campaigns. The first performers to campaign for a presidential candidate were Quincy Jones, Carole King, Barbra Streisand and James Taylor: 15 April 1972 for George McGovern
What do you think? Should Oprah carry Palin -- or Palin and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)? Should personal appearances by celebrities (individual or musical group) be considered "in kind" campaign donations? Is there too much "celebrity" in presidential elections?