"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
--Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Kennedy Administration [1]
Today, there have been a number of reports that the liberal Democrat lead Congress is making yet another attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.
- For those who do not know what the Fairness Doctrine was;
The rule was first articulated in 1949, when television was in its infancy and radio meant a handful of AM stations in each market. In its final form, the rule required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance." Until it was abolished in 1987, this Federal Communications Commission rule required broadcasters to air all sides of controversial issues.
At first glance, something called the 'Fairness Doctrine' may sound innocuous. Fairness is, after all, a basic American value. But as a matter of principle, any such government controls on media content is anathema to constitutional guarantees of free speech. And in practice, the so-called fairness doctrine was deeply unfair.
Liberals are so intimidated by conservative talk radio that they are attempting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats state that the Fairness Doctrine will guarantee that more opinions will be heard. Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard.
By requiring, under threat of monetary penalties, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine say they believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.
Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. [2]
Additionally, I believe that Nancy Pelosi and her crew know EXACTLY what the re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine would do - that it would decimate conservative talk radio and TV. These are broadcasts where not only are opinions given; news stories are reported that are not heard at all on mainstream media channels and information is given to Americans who are too busy with work and families to chase the truth of news themselves.
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.
[1]Quoted in Jesse Walker, "Tuning Out Free Speech," The American Conservative, April 23, 2007
[2] Excerpts from the Heritage Foundation - 1993
