ASHINGTON - Federal regulators suspended two controversial rules requiring television and radio stations to give political candidates and individuals free air time to respond to campaign endorsements or personal attacks.
The ''political editorial and personal attack'' rules have been suspended for 60 days in response to repeated legal challenges from broadcasters that have contended the regulations violate their right to free speech. The decision by the Federal Communications Commission means the rules will be suspended in the last few weeks before November's election - a time when they are most likely to be invoked.
In its ruling, the agency said now is ''an ideal time to determine how broadcasters are affected'' by the rule.
Broadcasters had argued that the regulations have made them reluctant to endorse candidates and that the rules no longer make sense because there are so many outlets for politicians to express their views.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, who heads the Media Access Project, an advocacy group, lamented the FCC's decision. Schwartzman said the rules are aimed at broadcasters who would endorse a candidate without allowing an opponent equal time to respond. He said that even though the rules have been rarely invoked, their existence has ensured fairness by broadcasters. He also predicted that some ''irresponsible broadcasters will abuse the suspension,'' thereby leaving their viewers uninformed about opposing views on controversial issues.
Yesterday's action was in response to a 1999 order by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requiring the FCC to justify the two rules and then either modify them or take them off the books.
Broadcasters, however, expressed concern that the agency will use the proceeding to broaden the rules or even resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, a federal policy that once required TV and radio stations to cover controversial issues, provide balanced coverage, and give free response time to individuals or groups covered by a station's news report. The FCC abandoned that policy in 1987.
''It is outrageous that the FCC refuses to discard tired regulations that stifle free speech rather than enhance it,'' National Association of Broadcasters president Edward Fritts said in a prepared statement. ''It is equally astonishing that the FCC would consider reviving the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that allowed politically appointed regulators to pass judgment on the `fairness' of a news report.''
An FCC spokesman said yesterday the agency did not intend to use the proceeding to revive the doctrine but rather to ask the public for comment on the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to develop a full record for the court.
The doctrine was upheld in an unanimous ruling in 1967 in the hallmark case Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC. Despite the ruling, broadcasters continued to chafe at the policy until 1987, when the Reagan administration's FCC decided to stop enforcing the policy.
The decision to abandon the Fairness Doctrine policy did not affect the political editorial and personal attack rules, which were codified regulations.
The five-member FCC was sharply divided on yesterday's ruling, with its two Republican members calling for the immediate elimination of the rules. In his dissent, Commissioner Michael Powell wrote that the rules ''unquestionably impinge on editorial judgment and chill rather than promote speech.''
Powell argued that the rules were written when the media landscape was dominated by a three national networks. Now, he said, viewers can subscribe to cable or satellite TV or use the Internet.
