The Ever So Laughable “Fairness Doctrine”

The Ever So Laughable “Fairness Doctrine”

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi Endorses “Fairness Doctrine”

Little background first:

The Fairness Doctrine traces back to 1949, and until 1967 was applied to broadcasting licences on a selective, case-by-case basis. In 1967, the Federal Communications Commission picked up the Fairness Doctrine as a general policy, under the auspices of President Johnson and the Democratic controlled Congress. It remained a matter of communications policy under President Reagan axed it in 1987 as an unconstitutional burden on the broadcasting companies and the right of free speech of the people.

So what is the “Fairness Doctrine”? The Fairness Doctrine argues that the radio airwaves are to be considered public band in all cases, and because of that, the government should have the right to regulate them. In this regulation, the government will enforce an “equal air time” on all broadcasters who discuss any political matters. What this means is that all broadcasting companies who, for example, play Rush Limbaugh’s three hour radio program, will be required to put a liberal host on their station for a three hour period.

So, what’s the issue?

The Fairness Doctrine amounts to government censorship over the radio news industry which has been governed by the rules of a free market since 1987. The radio networks are not supported by taxpayer dollars, but rather by paid advertising during broadcasting. As such, the content of the radio programs are determined not by broadcast managers with a particular political bent, but rather by the listening audience, who, in getting what they want to hear, cause the stations to net a higher advertising revenue. It’s the same formula TV stations use – higher ratings = higher charges to advertise during that period; or, more people tuning in = more money for the broadcasting station.

So, what happens when the “Fairness Doctrine” is implemented by the government to control what speech is on the airwaves? Well, each broadcasting station would have to undertake the arduous task of record keeping by-the-minute how much talk time is spent on each particular viewpoint, and then offset that with an opposite view, as determined by a bureaucrat in the FCC. Failure to do this could result in massive fines, or the loss of their broadcasting licence. A single political activist could send a letter of complaint to the FCC and have a station stripped of all rights to do business, or held up in litigation for months in a federal circuit court. Stations residing in smaller towns would simply abandon the format rather than risk their business as a whole – switching instead to, say, home gardening tips, or music content only. In effect, it is a government censorship that violates the entire spirit of the First Amendment.

It should be further noted that the Fairness Doctrine of the 60s and forward extended not only to political talk, but to religious broadcasts as well – every hour of any religious discussion on the airwaves had to be offset by an atheist discussing their point of view on the subject.

It’s not as though the left hadn’t tried to make their way into the broadcasting market either. The largest liberal broadcasting network is known as Air America – existing between 2004 and 2006, when a money laundering scandal forced them to shut down. Air America never made more than 1.2% of the total market share, being popular in cities such as Portland, Oregon and Madison, Wisconsin. Other cities, such as Los Angeles and San Fransisco also maintain prominent liberal radio stations. The problem such stations faced, however, was one of geography and demographics. Radio is an ideal format for bringing a message across large distances relatively cheaply – the equipment necessary to listen to it is both cheap and mobile. However, most liberal populations tend to live clustered, in city areas, where the expansive range available to radio is meaningless. The map to the left, though only by state, illustrates this problem. The vast geographic expanse of the conservative base lends itself more to radio than any other broadcast format; unlike print and television, which thrive in urban environments. As such, the radio only-effects of the Fairness Doctrine amount to a political squelch on what is perhaps the primary forum for the conservative movement.

In short, this is an effort by those Democrats controlling Congress to squelch political speech. Congressman Mike Pence (R-Tenn) has put forward a bill called the Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, which would ban the Fairness Doctrine for all time. This is necessary, because as it is now an act of Congress is not required to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine – only an order from the President, and Obama has refused to say where he stands on this issue. (An indicator that he supports it – however, the Fairness Doctrine polls badly with the left and the right both, it is only popular among elected officials.) Congressman Pence’s bill is currently being held in committee, awaiting the last few signatures he needs to force it out of legislative holding. In the article above, Pelosi is asked that if he gets the requisite signatures, will she allow the bill to be voted on in the House? Her reply is telling:

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation.  She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Here, she basically admits that the leadership of the Democratic party has every intention of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is a reprehensible assault on the free speech rights of the people. At its core, it is fundamentally wrong – the notion that the government somehow owns radio wave signals is akin to saying the government owns sunlight. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to censor political speech in opposition to those currently in power, because those backers of the FD know full well that stations will sooner silence themselves than try to balance a misguided concept of equal airtime. This form of attack on speech is exactly the purpose the first amendment serves – to prevent the silencing of the minority political position, and force an open transparency in government.

–J.L.

Update: Apparently, this is being followed in the great down under as well – for a good summary of what’s going on, check out this article as well.