Why the 'Fairness Doctrine' Isn't

This 1949 FCC Regulation Actually Stifled the Flow of Ideas

There is much talk these days about re-instating the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' which is an old FCC regulation that initially was created to keep the then few media outlets from presenting only one point of view. In 1949 there were not that many radio stations and the monopolization of them seemed a valid threat.

In fact, the doctrine was seldom invoked, but created a climate where radio stations generally avoided controversial content all together. Most stations simply built their market share around a particular music genre and their public discourse content seldom ventured beyond broadcasting political debates [where the presentation of opposing views is self-contained].

In 1987 the FCC declared the regulation unnecessary and stated that it no longer served any valid purpose. There were many more media choices and the spectre of monopolization was non-existant. Congress attempted to pass the 'Fairness Doctrine' into law, but President Ronald Reagan vetoed it.

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh at that time launched his then unique talk program. The format was a continual presentation and discussion of Conservative ideas. Limbaugh proved to be a master teacher, putting the thoughts of such illuminaries as William F. Buckly, Jr. into the language of the common man. Rush had a rare gift for making this discussion interesting. He presented vivid examples and punctuated the show with musical parodies by Paul Shanklin. He never did 'guest interviews' but bravely handed host duties to a parade of conservative heavyweights. Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Walter Williams and Tony Snow all took their turn in the 'Atilla the Hun Chair.' Audiences loved it. Today they have quite a few programs of this type and generally listen to several of them.

But Senator Charles Schumer has likened conservative talk radio to pornography and says that it is 'inconsistant' to want to limit pornography on the air and oppose re-instatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine,' which he desires to impose. Never mind that the left's idea of 'freedom of expression' embraces pornography as 'protected speech,' but cringes at the notion that some effective conervative might actually reach an audience in a free forum. Nancy Pelosi is on board for this legislation as well. Remember Senate Bill 1's 'Grassroots Provisions' in the 2006 Congress? This little provision would have used reporting requirements and huge fines to effectively silence conservative voices. It would have affected Dr. James Dobson who regularly presents analysis of public policy and its effect on the family and a host of independent bloggers. What's fascinating is that the 'Grassroots Provisions' were effectively opposed by the ACLU and Christian broadcasters!

As I said before, the old 'Fairness Doctrine' was actually almost never invoked. It had the chilling effect desired by simply standing in the way of stations ever actually presenting programming. A re-instated 'Fairness Doctrine' would allow for an onslaught of 'complaints' about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Dobson and all the others. The FCC would then presumably demand that equal time be provided for what it deemed 'opposing views.' On the am dial, that would probably mean the requirement to air some liberal talk show even if there was no market for it. Eventually stations would probably give up popular conservative shows rather than let the FCC determine their programming. The Los Angeles Times says: "The threat to talk radio is clear. If the rule were reinstated, stations that carry Rush Limbaugh could be forced to broadcast commentaries favoring everything that Limbaugh derides, from greenhouse gas controls to same-sex marriage. With hundreds of provocative talk-show hosts on the air, federal regulators could soon be awash in demands for rebuttals. But the danger posed by the Fairness Doctrine is broader and more fundamental than an attack on a radio format. No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available today to express them."

Christian Radio Stations would face an even graver threat. Using FCC complaints, homosexual groups or athiests could demand their 'rights' as presenters of an opposing point of view. Stations could be forced to air material that violated their own conscience or lose their license to broadcast. Faith-based radio could effectively be driven offshore.