FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives 2322A Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do Page 2 The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Bob Latta Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology U.S. House of Representatives 2322A Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Ranking Member Latta: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and Page 2 The Honorable Bob Latta recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Gus Bilirakis U.S. House of Representatives 2354 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Bilirakis: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Gus Bilirakis Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Brett Guthrie U.S. House of Representatives 2434 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Guthrie: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Brett Guthrie Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Bill Johnson U.S. House of Representatives 2336 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Johnson: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Bill Johnson Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Billy Long U.S. House of Representatives 2454 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Long: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Billy Long Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Markwayne Mullin U.S. House of Representatives 2421 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Mullin: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Markwayne Mullin Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Richard Hudson U.S. House of Representatives 2112 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Hudson: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Richard Hudson Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Earl L. Carter U.S. House of Representatives 2432 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Carter: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Earl L. Carter Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Tim Walberg U.S. House of Representatives 2266 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Walberg: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Tim Walberg Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Debbie Lesko U.S. House of Representatives 1214 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Lesko: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Debbie Lesko Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable Jeff Duncan U.S. House of Representatives 2229 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Duncan: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable Jeff Duncan Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE ACTING CHAIRWOMAN June 4, 2021 The Honorable John R. Curtis U.S. House of Representatives 2400 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Curtis: Thank you for your letter regarding the importance of a free and independent press. As you note, I have long advocated for and defended the First Amendment. I also agree with you that protection of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and independent journalism is vital for our democracy. As the Pew Research Center indicated last year, a large portion of Americans still get their news primarily from television or radio programming. Ensuring competition, localism, and diversity in media and the journalism it fosters is important. These principles are the basic foundation of all Federal Communications Commission media policies. I wholeheartedly support them. Moreover, studies demonstrate that when local media institutions are strong, our democratic processes thrive. Your letter also notes my position, as stated in 2011 and 2017, against resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. As with so many things, I think historical context here matters. The doctrine got its start in the late 1940s and as legal matter only applied to radio and television broadcasters that relied on scarce public spectrum. It was a time when there were just a few channels on the dial and entire communities gathered to hear the day s news. That is not the case today. We can generally see and hear news and information where we want it, when we want it, and from whom we want it. In short, the doctrine was from a different era and never contemplated the vast amount of material available today on cable channels, satellite services, and over the Internet. This means it legally applied only to a small subset of what we consider news and content today. I think this history is necessary to keep in mind. However, I ll note that in recent times we have seen the effects of division in this country in ways that I never imagined that I would see in my lifetime. Some have expressed frustration with polarizing forces in our society, including the harms of misinformation and disinformation. Others have expressed concern that their viewpoint may be absent from media outlets and that some sources may amplify falsehoods and do genuine harm to individuals and communities. These are issues that need thoughtful discussion in a modern way. I welcome efforts to have this dialogue. I also remain mindful of the limitations of a doctrine from the 1940s and recognize any effort to update it will require action from Congress. Furthermore, any work to do so would be constrained by the First Amendment. With respect to proceedings before the Commission, we will continue to be guided by the Constitution in addition to the Page 2 The Honorable John R. Curtis Communications Act and other applicable statutes, along with the principles of localism, diversity, and competition that have informed our work in this area. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jessica Rosenworcel