Should Conservatives Support Decency Standards?
By Stuart Epperson

My partner Ed Atsinger and I founded Salem Communications Corporation, which owns and operates commercial radio stations in virtually all the major markets in this country. We are in this business primarily because we have a point of view. Moreover, we think our views are well received in the marketplace of ideas. Our editorials emphasize limited government, free enterprise, a strong national defense and traditional moral values. These principles are also, in general, the views of our talk show hosts. We have both local hosts and nationally syndicated hosts. Indeed we syndicate far beyond the reach of the stations we own.

Not only are we conservative in our politics but we also operate within the Judeo-Christian moral framework, as did our founding fathers. Given that background, you might be tempted to think that we favor legislation now pending in Congress to regulate content of over-the-air radio and television stations. Not on your life!

Today, we enjoy almost unprecedented freedom in religious broadcasting and public policy discussions that the First Amendment was designed to promote. This is largely because of one historic act in 1987: The FCC repealed the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which had imposed government control of content. (The Fairness Doctrine was quickly dubbed the Blandness Doctrine because it resulted in timid, don't-rock-the-boat broadcasting.) Thankfully, repeated attempts by Congress to disinter the Fairness Doctrine have failed.

Now conservative Christians and other conservatives too are being fooled into applauding measures that would have government again controlling content and shutting down stations that violate standards, just as many well-meaning conservatives supported the Fairness Doctrine. It's important to remember that in spite of the overwhelming liberal bias of the large media only one broadcaster ever lost their license because of the Fairness Doctrine - a small Christian radio station in Media, PA.

Don't get me wrong. I deplore the current state of this immoral and debased culture. I am working in every way I know how to change it. I think what is being passed off as entertainment these days is an outrage, but I am serious when I say we support limited government.

We may all cheer the demise of Howard Stern, who has lost many of his major markets because of impending government action. I wouldn't listen to his programs if he were the last broadcaster on the face of the earth. I'd rather be without radio, and that is a drastic statement given radio is my business.

Mark my words however, if impending government action can cause Howard Stern to be taken off the air, imagine what would happen if the FCC could regulate content that after three fines for violating standards set by then, a station could lose its license. Let us suppose that Congress, reacting to the justified outrage over the Super Bowl halftime charade, passes such a bill. And let us suppose President Bush, in a tight re-election campaign and watching the polls that say the public wants action against the filth masquerading as entertainment, signs the bill. After all, President Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign law even though he thought it was unconstitutional.

Sure right now an FCC dominated by reasonable people wouldn't do anything drastic. But let us suppose that with this bill on the books the nation has elected Hillary Rodham Clinton as President. And let us suppose - and it is no stretch of the imagination to believe this - that President Hillary appoints radical liberals to the FCC. With the precedent established that the FCC can revoke licenses over obscene content, these Commissioners determine that conservative views constitute hate speech - and hate speech is obscene. For example, we are strongly supporting a Constitutional amendment and would declare that marriage is between one man and one woman. Let us suppose that these Commissioners declare that such a position is against national policy and constitutes discriminatory hate speech.

Of course the homosexual lobby would organize itself to insure that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of complaints against the stations that took this point of view. Armed with that sort of ammunition, the FCC would have no problem finding the excuse for shutting down those voices that broadcast what they would call homophobic views.

But the examples need not be confined to moral and religious questions.

We are also opponents of the Kyoto treaty, which if ratified by the Senate, would drastically affect our standard of living in this country. It is a terrible treaty. But the radical environmentalists militantly support it. So let us suppose they organized to protest the views of our stations and talk show hosts. If the FCC reacted to these complaints, it might also shut down stations that went against the Administration as a public service. After all, having set the precedent on the moral issues, it would be easy to move against economic issues.

Liberals could organize to shut down stations opposing affirmative action, or could organize to close stations supporting immigration reform.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. We are conservative but we're not stupid. We can clearly see the possibilities here. Congress never writes clear laws. It always leaves it up to the agencies and departments to interpret the law, often leading to unintended consequences. In the case of the FCC the interpretation will depend on what Commissioners are appointed. In a Hillary Clinton administration I can guarantee the appointees will be people hostile to what we stand for.

And if in reading this you are thinking "Oh, that won't happen. The Supreme Court won't let it." Think again. Everyone - even the sponsors of the bill, the President who signed it and the media which commented on it - was morally certain that major portions of McCain-Feingold would be declared unconstitutional for violations of the Free-Speech clause of the First Amendment. Today, as horrified as our founding fathers would be if they could come alive and learn of it, it is the law of the land.

It is my fervent hope that Conservatives, especially religious conservatives won't get driven into believing that more government is the answer to this cultural problem. It will only lead to disasters such as I describe and no bill, once passed by Congress and signed into law, is ever repealed.

Today it is Stern, Bubba (the Love Sponge) and Janet Jackson in the spotlight. Tomorrow it could be Limbaugh, Dobson and Janet Parshall.

There are a number of simple solutions to getting rid of the garbage on the air. The FCC should use the authority it already has. Listeners should stop listening. Without ratings there are no sponsors and without sponsors there will be no programs. Express your displeasure to sponsors, radio station owners and the public. That may be harder to accomplish than just enacting a law but in the long run it will avoid the unintended consequences of taking away our precious freedom.

Stuart Epperson, Chairman of Salem Communications Corporation.