Is the Fairness Doctrine a muzzle to silence conservatives?

Yes

1 of 26

by Lisa Mount

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Whenever you hear words like "fair" and "fairness" coming out of the mouths of the likes of Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IN) or Diane Feinstein (D-CA) you know that your wallet or one of your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are up for give-and-take negotiations: you give, they take. The liberal Democrats in Congress are hoping that we the American people will give up some of our rights to choose the speech we listen to and in return, they will give us "fairness." Being the decent people we Americans are, surely we want fair. But the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 is a Trojan horse in our First Amendment fortress regardless of our political leanings.

On the surface the Fairness Doctrine sounds reasonable: to bring balanced debate to controversial issues for the benefit of the voting public. The FCC applied the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 when there were only three broadcast stations and the radio played only the top 40. The Fairness Doctrine was put in place to ensure that the broadcasters presented a variety of views beyond their own on controversial subjects. The FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 when it found that the Doctrine did not deliver as planned. Instead, it had the net effect of reducing rather than encouraging debate because broadcasters tended to avoid controversy for fear of government fines and the potential loss of a federal license.

With the wide variety of media outlets available today thanks to advancements in communications technology, the Fairness Doctrine is an anachronism. There exists potential for all views to be heard. Despite this, overall balance in the media remains a perennial problem for the conservative viewpoint because the liberal Left dominates broadcast news, most cable news channels, the vast majority of the print media and Hollywood. It's a wonder why the hard sell to put the Fairness Doctrine back into play.

When one considers the riotous success of conservative talk radio, the wonderment ceases. Why is conservative radio so threatening to the "progressives?" The answer lies in two words: Rush Limbaugh. And Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck and many other highly influential radio personalities who seem to have more affect on opinion polls and legislators than all the rest of the liberal media combined. To wit: Diane Feinstein blames conservative talk radio for the failure of the immigration (amnesty) bill to pass in the Senate last June.

The Left claims that liberal talk shows are purposely denied access to the airwaves and their right to free speech. The solution then, is to apply the Fairness Doctrine to force conservative hosts to provide equal air time for opposing viewpoints. Yet there has been no talk of applying the same standards to the slew of other comfortably liberal media outlets. Proponents of the Doctrine insist that there is no such requirement; rather the regulation is for an equal number of liberal talk shows on the AM band. The latter is surely true, but equal time per show is mandated in the FCC regulation. The First Amendment is contrary to this kind of federal management.

The success of conservative radio is a matter of economics, not partisan politics. No one denied Al Franken's Air America access to the airwaves. It failed because it sucked and there went the advertising revenues. National Public Radio would undoubtedly be off the air too if it wasn't supported by the taxpayer. The elitist Left refuses to accept that profit-the engine of American prosperity for the rest of us-or lack of it has been responsible for the failure of liberal shows to take off in AM radio. The Left can't believe that liberal claptrap isn't popular with the majority of radio listeners, and therefore isn't popular with radio station investors.

The demand for conservative radio is a demand for reality, not wishful thinking. The Left has failed in radio because its 1960's nihilistic social and political ideology has been and will continue to be summarily rejected by a majority of the American people who, having suffered decades from the fruit of their policies, demand common sense and rightness in governance. Since the Left's ideas cannot compete, the left wing of the Democrat Party is seeking to use the power of the Legislature to shut down the competition. If the so-called Fairness Doctrine comes back to life, what is to stop the Left from pursuing similar regulation of the Internet?

The Democrats' proposal to pull the Fairness Doctrine up from the grave in response to the influence of talk radio is a thinly veiled attempt to marginalize, confuse or otherwise silence conservative debate of the liberal agenda. To squelch conservative talk radio is bad for liberal and conservative Americans alike and will set the country up for bad, and even dangerous, governance.

Learn more about this author, Lisa Mount.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.