Battle4Liberty

The so-called fairness doctrine just won’t go away. With Obama’s election, the democrats controlling both houses, and much of the informed, effective opposition to socialism coming from talk radio, those who wish to silence opposing points of view could get their way. The fairness doctrine is the idea that (radio) broadcasters should be required to air “both sides” of a political issue. It might sound reasonable at first glance, but it amounts to government censorship of free speech and must be resisted.

 

Freedom of speech is a highly cherished American value. Free speech on the airwaves, however, has been under attack since KDKA became the first licensed radio station in the United States in 1920. By 1940 there were almost 3000 stations, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) instituted the Mayflower Doctrine to prohibit radio and television stations from broadcasting editorial content. In 1949, the FCC instituted the “fairness doctrine” to ensure that broadcasters provide “balanced and fair” presentations of controversial issues. The policy remained in force for 38 years. Viewed as restrictive, cumbersome, and outdated, the FCC scrapped the fairness doctrine in 1987.

 

Various attempts have been made to revive the fairness doctrine over the past two decades. Just last month, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Cal) went one step further, calling not only for its return but also for its expansion to cable and satellite. Even if one assumes that the intent of Eshoo and others is “fairness”—which I don’t—such a move would be unduly restrictive and completely unnecessary today for several reasons. 

 

The relative influence of radio in the dissemination of news had declined considerably since the introduction of the fairness doctrine. In 1949, AM radio was the broadcast medium of choice and radios were common fixtures in American households. Although the number of stations was growing rapidly, many smaller markets had only access to only one or two. With only 98 television stations and a TV in fewer than 9 percent of U.S. homes, many Americans routinely turned to a few local stations for their news and information.

 

The situation is totally different today, however. There are about 14,000 radio and 2,000 television stations in the U.S. Television is the preferred medium for news and information, with cable and satellite bringing hundreds of stations into U.S. households. Due to the scope of FCC authority, the fairness doctrine applies only to broadcast stations and does not affect such entities as cable TV or satellite radio, not to mention the Internet. Even those who see merit in the fairness doctrine must concede that its relative influence today—unlike the post-World War II era—would be minimal.

 

The nature of competition in broadcasting has also changed dramatically since the inception of the fairness doctrine. With most markets dominated by one or a few stations, it was necessary for each to air a variety of programs tailored to different market segments. Today, the number of stations has increased dramatically, FM dominates music programming, and many AM students struggle to survive by serving smaller, less profitable segments abandoned by their FM counterparts.

 

The attacks on talk radio are ironic when one considers that the format helped revive news and information stations throughout the country, effectively saving AM radio from virtual extinction. FM listeners first outnumbered their AM counterparts in 1978. By the early 1980s, many AM broadcasters were scrambling to pursue non-music formats. In 1988—one year following the repeal of the fairness doctrine—the Rush Limbaugh program was syndicated and launched the rebirth of talk radio. Without Limbaugh and those who followed, most stations with talk formats would not provide any commentary.

 

Today, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Neal Boortz, and other syndicated talk radio hosts have been joined by the likes of Mike Church and Andrew Wilkow on Sirius/XM, a format whereby consumers PAY for the service in order to listen to programs of their choice. The fact that Rep. Eshoo desires to control the political speech of any broadcasters—even those on satellite radio—should send a chill down the spine of any freedom-cherishing American.

 

The fairness doctrine is neither fair nor necessary. The wealth of information outlets ensures that Americans are free to access diverse points of view on any topic. Rather, the current move to revive the fairness doctrine is an affront to free speech rooted in a dislike for talk radio. Most popular talk radio personalities happen to be conservative/libertarian because the pro-freedom point of view attracts listeners. It’s market-driven.

 

It is ironic that many of the same politicians who remind us to change the channel on the TV if we are offended by what we see or hear do not offer the same remedy when their political views are challenged. To his credit, even liberal commentator Alan Colmes opposes the fairness doctrine. Although I disagree with him on most issues, I respect the fact that he’s not afraid of free and open discourse from those who oppose his ideas.

 

Americans should be encouraged to consider multiple sources as they see fit—including newscasters, blogs, and talk radio hosts—and form their opinions accordingly. A return to the fairness doctrine would restrict not only the free speech rights of radio broadcasters, but also the ability of Americans to access multiple points of view and make informed decisions.