Why The Fairness Doctrine Isn't

The Fairness Doctrine basically says that stations on the ‘public’ airwaves must provide equal time for opposing viewpoints. The concept sounds simple and, well, fair. It’s really not. Consider this the Fairness Doctrine comes from a time when we had limited accessibility to news and information. The radio and television were our only free choices of information. Now you can say that’s still true today, we must pay for cable or satellite radio. We must also pay for Internet access. While that is true, the Internet is widely available in public libraries for free. Libraries are accessible in most every town and city in our great nation. 

According to Limburg writing on the Museum of Broadcast Communication website notes the doctrine was to ensure that broadcast outlets “allow all points of view.” This seemed logical in its time, but is it really. Consider the concept of all points of view. What does that mean? If we are looking at our current crisis in the economic sector do we need to have the liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, constitutional, libertarian, etcetera, etcetera points of view, with all of them getting equal time? This is not pragmatic. The doctrine is there to ensure the main two points of view are covered. It’s not fair in respect to those apparently ‘lesser’ points of view. 

Now consider the time when this is being floated. Talk radio is decidedly conservative. The newly minted liberal House, Senate, and President are apparently supportive of the return of the doctrine, which is done by the stroke of an FCC pen and not by legislation. This will require one hour of conservative talk be balanced by an hour of liberal talk. It has become apparent that liberal talk, for whatever reason, doesn’t pay the bills. So, if a station can’t put an hour of liberal talk on the air and be profitable, then the station will be fined for not being ‘fair.’ Thus, the option is to go with local talk and have some minor issues and stay away from the major ones. Keep things fair and balanced at a local level. The other option is to simply get out of the talk radio business and go to music, entertainment news, or sports. Air your news at the top of the hour and air some public service announcements and you will be good to go.

Who is watching? Well there are liberal websites online that are salivating at the prospect of ending talk radio as we know it. In anticipation of the return of the doctrine, they are asking their constituents to report on any violations on their websites. In essence, they are looking forward to stifling the conservation viewpoint from the free airwaves. This should be frightening to anyone, liberal or conservative (or any of the aforementioned positions except for perhaps communist or even socialist) to accept. If you are able to essentially dismiss opposing viewpoints from the airwaves, who is next? If you have a sign in your yard that espouses a particular candidate or position will you be made to put up an opposing viewpoint? The reasoning to force this could simply be that your yard is visible from a ‘public’ thoroughfare. 

I am opposed to slippery slope arguments, but I do see the Fairness Doctrine being wielded as a weapon against conservatism. This is simply wrong, it would be wrong to use it against any position. If the opposition party is successful who might be the next target? Will churches be asked to remove any vestiges of religion from their buildings and signage so they do not offend any atheists? After all, their churches can be seen from public highways. Will we as individuals not be able to express our personal views in a classroom unless there is an opposing view given? Will we not be able to express our views with buttons or bumper stickers that can be seen in public? This may seem a bit far-fetched, but it’s happened before.