No

by James G. Long

Created on: May 26, 2009   Last Updated: May 27, 2009

The Fallacy of the "Fairness Doctrine"

Taken at face value, the "Fairness Doctrine" may seem reasonable. Some might even think it to be a down-right good idea. After all, if information is power, shouldn't we be armed with both sides of any given topic? However, there are major problems with this concept. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) "Fairness Doctrine," poses some serious practical problems and more seriously, erodes Americans' First Amendment rights.

In 1949 amid television's infancy and the peak popularity of radio, the FCC enacted the "Fairness Doctrine."[i] The basic premise of the doctrine was that for every viewpoint given on any controversial topic, equal time and opportunity should be given to the opposing side of the argument. This idea sounds innocuous enough, but its effects were anything but. Many stations simply left out any discussion of topics that could be eligible for this requirement so as to avoid the additional cost and headache of providing a viewpoint contrary to the one already provided. Instead of promoting fair political debate, it stifled it. The policy was abandoned in 1987, opening the door for renewed political discussion and an explosion of talk radio. Recently, some politicians, including Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA); have supported a return to the "Fairness Doctrine."[ii]

Compliance with a renewed "Fairness Doctrine," would have potentially disastrous effects on the American political discourse. There were attempts to use it to quell anti-war sentiment on television in the 1970's.[iii] Much of the current debate centers on the conservative dominance of talk radio. The claim is that many individuals receive all of their information on political affairs, from one-sided media outlets and that as such, these outlets have undue influence over the political process.

Under the "Fairness Doctrine," outlets that feature "right-wing" commentators, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, would be forced to give equal voice to "left-wing" personalities like Rachel Maddow and Al Franken. This is simply not a viable commercial option.

Listeners and viewers seem to look for outlets that are already in line with their political stances and would not be likely to sit through the rebuttals to their favorite personalities. What is a listener likely to do when his or her three hours of the Rush Limbaugh show is followed by three hours of Al Franken or vice versa? The likely answer is, turn off the radio or change the station.

Overall ratings and advertising dollars for a particular outlet would plummet until they, like their 1949-1987 counterparts, dropped political discussion all together. There is sufficient room in the media world, between radio, television and the ever expanding internet; for both sides to be adequately heard, without dictating to outlets what they can and cannot broadcast.

Such broad guidelines on content are tantamount to restricting the right to free speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is of vital importance to a democratic society. It states simply, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," it is the cornerstone of a free society.[iv]

For the federal government to dictate content of this nature to any section of the press, is simply wrong. It is already possible to find material supporting any reasonable political viewpoint and even many that are patently unreasonable. To require each of these individual sources to espouse the ideals of another, would only serve to water them down beyond any value. Who is to decide what topics necessitate a rebuttal and where does it stop? If it is left in the hands of the government to decide what ideas get heard when, and where, then the press can no longer serve its duty as watchdog of the republic. An informed populace is an active and powerful one. If that power and impetus are removed, a docile public will become increasingly vulnerable to tyranny.

While the "Fairness Doctrine" has its supporters, it is not likely to make a return soon. White House Spokesman, Ben LaBolt told Foxnews.com in February 2009, that "[President Obama] does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."[v] Additionally, attempts to pass legislation mandating it have since died on house floor.

In a time when such a plethora of information is available to the public, it would be absurd for the FCC, or any other branch of the government, to renew any form of the "Fairness Doctrine." A person who wants to know both sides of any given argument can typically do so with little more than a Google search on the internet, or the simple act of changing the channel or station. Freedom of the press and of speech in general, is too precious to be jeopardized by a policy that might quiet productive political discussion and silence the ever-important voice of dissent.

[i] From: MSN Encarta, Radio and Television Broadcasting <http://encarta.msn.c om/encyclopedia_7615 66157_4/Broadcasting .html>

[ii] From: Accuracy in Media, June 26, 2008 <http://www.aim.org/a im-column/pelosi-sup port-return-of-fairn ess-doctrine/>

[iii] From: Harvard Law Review, "The Fairness Doctrine and Claims of Systemic Imbalance in Television News Broadcasting: American Security Council Education Foundation v. FCC, 1980

[iv] From: Bill of Rights, www.Constitution.org < http://www.constitut ion.org/billofr_.htm>

[v] From: Foxnews.com, "White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival", February 18, 2009 <http://www.foxnews.c om/politics/first100 days/2009/02/18/whit e-house-opposes-fair ness-doctrine/>

Learn more about this author, James G. Long.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.