More Foul Talk on Fairness Doctrine
- Oct 29, 2008 -
There seems to be a recurring concern in Washington, D.C., that Americans need help in insuring they are exposed to a balanced diet of political speech on the radio. Just last week, yet another member of Congress indicated his support for the revival of a doctrine that would potentially starve the airwaves of some well-known conservative voices.
In an interview Oct. 21 with an Albuquerque, N.M., radio station, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) said he “hopes” to see a push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. When pressed on whether he supports the policy, he replied unequivocally, “I do.”
He was referring to the dangerous policy that for four decades required radio stations to present “balanced” perspectives on issues discussed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the doctrine infringed upon freedom of speech, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) subsequently dropped it in 1987. And rightly so.
In the 1940s, the strongest argument for the Fairness Doctrine was rooted in “scarcity”—a limited number of stations, according to the argument, could otherwise place a hold on diversity of thought and present only one-sided views on issues. Whatever truth may once have been found in that line of reasoning has since evaporated. Radio and television, then in its infancy, multiplied exponentially in little time. Now the age of Web communication gives a majority of Americans access to competing viewpoints at any hour of the day.
Unfortunately, Sen. Bingaman is not the lone voice favoring this policy of unfairness. He joins a growing chorus of liberals on Capitol Hill who appear bent on drowning out conservative voices who populate the AM dial. Several other high-ranking members of the House and Senate have revealed their intent to attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
In the name of fairness, and with the stated goal of airing every point of view, the government would very likely stifle, not promote, free speech. The irony is striking. Radio is a market-driven system. Popular programs remain on the air, while programs that attract few listeners are quickly replaced. Such a policy would only drive conservatives off the airwaves. Christian talk radio might also be affected, including Richard Land Live!, a weekly current-issues, live call-in program hosted by Richard Land. Some suggest news-talk format stations would move to exclusively music for fear of violating the policy.
Some congressmen have been promoting a bill that would send the Fairness Doctrine to its grave for good. The Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) would bar the FCC from resurrecting the policy. Joining 196 Republicans, more than 100 House Democrats last year supported a one-year moratorium on the policy. But not a single Democrat has joined all the Republicans in support of a vote on the permanent ban that would be secured under H.R. 2905. The pressure to steer clear of the bill is apparently coming from the top. Meanwhile, supporters of the bill continue to be denied a simple up or down vote, with just a few legislative weeks remaining before Congress adjourns its 110th session.
No matter how innocuous the name or how “fair and balanced” Fairness Doctrine supporters make it sound, a return of the policy would be all trick and no treat for the American people. By all accounts, Congress should act swiftly to keep it buried for good.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to monitor issues of public policy in America, such as the Fairness Doctrine. If you would like to help us continue our efforts, please click here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Legislation, National