Fair or Foul?

Booke Musterman and Adam Martin

Controversy sells. Controversy diversifies. So why is the government shunning such a pillar of our social and economic freedom? Why must the government decide what is fair for us?

Not according to the Fairness Doctrine, which was introduced in 1949, and rescinded in 1988.  Radio stations would be required to present both sides of controversial issues in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.

"Honest, equitable and balanced?" By whose standards? Who is in a position to mandate which opposing side gets equal time? Will we also be giving equal time to crooks and NAMBLA members?
Who decides what's "fair?" I wonder how quickly Liberal, er, Progressive stations will be to invoke the fairness doctrine for things like the Evolution/Intelligent design debate.
First of all, why in the world would we need anything close to the "Fairness Doctrine?' Doesn't every radio have an OFF switch? If you don't happen to like what is on the air, you are fully within your rights to turn it off.

Any Conservative, will tell you that the media is slanted leftward. Any Liberal, will tell you the opposite. There are several websites dedicated to the respective exposes of biased news. So if both are right, don't we already have a sort of equal time?

Adrian Cronauer, the inspiration for the 1987 Robin Williams film, Good Morning Vietnam, writes in his article, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, that radio stations would just not air controversial issues. This would allow less access to varied viewpoints. He says that the current ever-evolving, immediate access to media "is achieving the sort of diversity and access the Fairness Doctrine was designed to foster, but could never attain."

Steve Rendell of the Progressive media criticism group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, says in The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back, that the doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but just that contrasting viewpoints be presented. 

So the opportunity for slanting and bias is still there. A Liberal host would be fully within the law spending 30 minutes presenting a shiny argument for his side, while getting a dull Conservative to spend 5 minutes on the opposing side.

Some say this is a purely Capitalist issue. Think of it this way, radio stations who air Rush Limbaugh's show are often very opposed to his caustic manner. But his ratings are so good that the advertising money potentially lost would be unimaginable.

When Sinclair Broadcasting was going to air the anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor, the backlash from Liberals was huge. However, even when bombarded with complaints and calls to action, the FCC wouldn't prohibit the airing of the documentary. Eventually, Sinclair bowed to an advertising boycott threat.
Though the Fairness Doctrine no longer applies today, Congress passed  Dick Durbin's amendment, which "calls on the FCC to 'encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.'"
Enforcement of the doctrine was extreme and controversial. The FCC could refuse to renew broadcasting licenses, upon violations. Station owners resented the fact that they, were the only media subject to this regulation.
Dick Morris seems to think that this will cause talk radio to be limited to the Internet. Of course, then the internet will be regulated, which will then limit Conservative talk to private conversations, then when they start policing those, it will be limited to mere thought, and then, in come the thought police. It's all so very 1984.

A source from the FCC told me, "Although the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the real target is AM radio.”

This is so suspicious. Why are they "targeting" AM radio. It would seem that they are directly trying to thwart Conservative talk. Think about it, when was the last time you heard someone crying for the Fairness Doctrine on generally Liberal slanted TV.

Why is the print media any different? According to Patrick Gibson, aka, The Evil Conservative, this is because radio is interactive. TV and print don't encourage dialogue. Even so. why should it be subject to differing broadcast regulations? 

Why was the doctrine abolished? According to Adam Thierer, Director for Digital Media Freedom,  "there were concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles." 

Val E. Limburg, of The Museum of Broadcast Communications, concurs, saying, that the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In 1987, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and that the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The doctrine was dissolved that year. 

Backers of the doctrine claim that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They are afraid broadcasters would resort to partisan coverage of such issues. But it's not as if diverse opinions are silenced. We have an outlet for any and all sorts of opinions to be heard. 

FCC Chairman, Kevin J. Martin says, "I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment, and believe that such a step would inhibit the robust discussion...over the nations airwaves."

I was able to interview Patrick Gibson, aka The Evil Conservative, host of WVOX's Evil Conservative Radio in New York. I wanted to find out exactly how Conservative talk would be affected by this.

Why does the FD only apply to radio? The FCC controls TV as well. 
The fairness doctrine is designed to... make controversial programming burdensome for radio stations. Radio stations are the target because they carry talk radio, and the issue-oriented focus of talk radio offends liberals. Liberals love government and hate talk radio... so it's a hop, skip, and a jump from there to using government to attack talk radio.

How enforceable is the doctrine? It isn't....The Fairness Doctrine is almost European in its potential for silly and destructive unintended ramifications. Or maybe that's exactly what they intend. Who knows?

Isn't this a purely Capitalist issue? Liberal talk doesn't seem to sell as well as Conservative. It is from the side of free speech. For the authoritarian liberals it's a matter of morality. People should do as they are told and feel the way [the media] tells them to feel. They are viscerally offended by talk radio and its issue-based, in-depth content. They know that, in the arena of ideas and concepts, they can't compete....To the authoritarian liberal, there is something patently offensive about analyzing events through a constitutional lens. 

How feasible is providing equal time to every issue? What about things like evolution/intelligent design?  This isn't an agenda focused on free thought and expression at all. It is exactly the opposite. In all likelihood the govt would see evolution as scientific fact requiring no equal time for rebuttal... like global warming. 

Don't we already have a sort of fairness doctrine with the accessibility of varied media?  we have as much "fairness" in media as the government could or should provide. You see the variety on cable TV... while the regulated networks all preach off the same page. Contrast the diversity available in the same medium with and without regulation. 

c. 2009