Once upon a time, the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea. In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission initiated the principle in “an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair.” Relatively few radio transmission frequencies were available and television was dominated by “the big three,” CBS, NBC, and ABC. The FCC determined that “broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective.” Americans would not be subjected to, and possibly misled by, Soviet Union-style monolithic propagation.
The Fairness Doctrine placed severe burdens upon FCC licensed broadcasters. Editorials had to offer differing points of view. Stations were required to “seek out and address issues of concern to the community,” and report directly to the FCC on efforts to do so. Citizens or companies on the receiving end of broadcast criticisms had to be notified of such proceedings and be given opportunity to respond. Stations were required to “offer ‘equal opportunity’ — i.e. equal air time — to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if [the station] had allowed any person running for that office to use the station.” The FCC’s power to assess fines and issue licenses coerced broadcasters into strict conformity with Fairness Doctrine principles.
Many journalists chafed under these conditions, believing the Fairness Doctrine to be a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press. Reporters and editors should be allowed to make their own choices about balancing stories, the thinking went. Moreover, the FCC itself recognized an unintended negative consequence of the Doctrine’s existence; many stations avoided controversial news or editorial items for fear of violating the FCC mandates. In 1985, the FCC reported a “chilling effect” had descended over news organizations, resulting in fewer important dispatches available to the general public. After a 1987 court ruling declared “the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it,” the FCC dissolved it.
Several Congressional efforts to revive the Fairness Doctrine have failed. However, now that Democrats have regained control of both houses of Congress and a Democratic victory in this year’s presidential contest looks probable if not a lead pipe cinch, talk of resuscitating the restrictions has revived. Senator Dick Durbin said, “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.” Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, has pledged to ”review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine.” Among many other Democrats, John Kerry is also on board and reporting for duty as a Fairness Doctrine advocate.
Why the Democratic interest in the Fairness Doctrine? The single biggest result of the doctrine’s dissolution was the nearly immediate ascendancy of talk radio, a media niche dominated by conservatives. Rush Limbaugh founded his national radio show in 1988, prompting Daniel Henninger to editorialize “Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination.” A scant six years later, Limbaugh was credited as a major factor in the Republican’s historic House and Senate victories in the 1994 mid-term elections. Combined with a host of other conservative talk show hosts, Rush has become a sizable thorn in Democrat hides. Liberal attempts to counter-punch with their own talk radio have been embarrassing failures. It seems the only course of action left to Democrats seeking to neutralize Rush and his cohorts is to codify the Fairness Doctrine, perhaps the best argument for not doing so.
The chief reason justifying the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 — scarce frequencies — no longer exists. The few bands of radio and television waves existing fifty-nine years ago have become innumerable today. Hundreds of broadcast and cable TV channels provide ample opportunity for the airing of all points of view. Liberals have proved they can access radio time; they just can’t get anyone to listen.
Government oversight of the type Democrats are pushing would diminish the free-flow of ideas from the right and left, a disastrous development in any democracy. Moreover, just who would determine the definition of “fair and balanced,” and who would make sure the government watchdogs are impartial? A contemporary Fairness Doctrine would strangle the free exchange of thought, leading to endless debate and, no doubt, courtroom squabbles over definitions and applications of enforcement. Who, in a free country, would want this?
House Majority Leader John Boehner doesn’t. “The best way,” said Boehner, “is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger. [People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet.”
We’ll give Republican Representative Jeff Flake the last word: “Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That’s precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that’s why it ought not to be revived.”
Only Trotskyites will argue with that.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Media, Politics, Video