The Fairness Doctrine: Just Say No

In the weeks leading up to the 2006 elections, I remember listening to Neal Boortz warning that the Democrats would try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine, enacted in 1949, was a regulation by the FCC that forced radio stations to give equal time to both sides of a controversial issue. After listening to Boortz's warning, I didn't believe that it would actually happen. However, it looks like Boortz was right.

On June 20, the Center for American Progress (a liberal think tank) released a report titled: "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." In the report, it talks about how conservative talk radio dominates political talk radio. The report concludes that this is a problem and needs to be solved.

This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:

Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

On June 24 (last Sunday), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) showed interest in looking at the Fairness Doctrine while on Fox News Sunday. Here's the transcript (Wallace refers to the host, Chris Wallace):

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

Senator Feinstein's use of the phrase "correct reporting" is chillingly interpretable and too Orwellian for my tastes.

In The Hill today, Democratic Senator and majority whip Dick Durbin called for the revival of the fairness doctrine.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

While interviewed on a New York radio station, John Kerry called for the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

So, with three key Democratic senators on record in favor of the fairness doctrine this has become a serious issue.

As the title of this post says, I strongly disagree with the fairness doctrine and do not believe it should be implemented. I believe radio stations should be allowed to choose how they use their programming time without government regulation of "equal time." I believe that the reintroduction of the fairness doctrine will stifle political speech on the radio airwaves. This will occur because the mandated "equal time" provision will burden radio stations and may eventually make political talk radio unprofitable.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of how the fairness doctrine will stifle political speech. Let's say a conservative talk radio host talks about a controversial issue. Let's say that talk radio host talks about the issue for an hour and a half. In response, a liberal or a liberal group called the radio station and demand equal time. The radio station may then be forced to air an hour and a half of an opposing viewpoint. Maybe the listeners of the radio station aren't that interested in that opposing viewpoints. Those listeners may then decide to change the radio station, reducing ad revenue and thus decreasing the profitability of the radio station.

Another point, who died and made Durbin, Feinstein, and Kerry the arbiters of fairness. Their definition of "fairness" will undoubtably be different that others' definition of "fairness." Under the guise of fairness, lawmakers and regulators at the FCC may go after certain sections of political talk radio that do not fit their agenda. This imposition of "fairness" and "balance" seems incompatible with the First Amendment and its rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

There is a reason America is better than totalitarian states such as Cuba, China, Syria, Iran, and many others. The reason is, in America people were allowed freedom of conscience and the freedom to speak their minds as they please. I see no reason to backslide on the First Amendment. If we do, what we are doing is chipping away at the revolutionary ideals of the founding fathers. I see absolutely no reason to do such a thing.

Others covering this topic: Captain's Quarters, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry,