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.

This conversation takes place at a gas station. 

Gas Pumper #1: Man, I sure hope Congress passes that windfall profits tax on these greedy oil companies.

Gas Pumper #2: Why?

Gas Pumper #1: It’s about time those oil companies get their comeuppance.

Gas Pumper #2: What do you mean?

Gas Pumper #1: They are gouging us and making billions of dollars in the process.

Gas Pumper #2: How much does the oil company make from each gallon of gas?

Gas Pumper #1: I don’t know about a dollar, maybe two.

Gas Pumper #2 (replacing the hose on the pump): Would you be surprised to learn that the oil companies make between 10 and 13 cents per gallon?

Gas Pumper #1:  You are lying; you work for an oil company don’t you.

Gap Pumper #2: Nope, I don’t.  I read and try to know about an issue before I make a decision.  Furthermore, that company who made that soda your wife is drinking, has a higher profit margin than this oil company.  Now, do you want to know who is making money from a gallon of gas?

Gas Pumper #1: I have a feeling you are going to tell me.

 Gas Pumper #2: That’s true, I did intend to.  Anyhow, it’s the various local, state, and federal governments.  They make up to 68 cents a gallon depending on where you are pumping the gas.  The federal government alone collects 18.4 cents a gallon, more than the oil company makes.

Gas Pumper #1: Since you’ve not left I assume there is more.

Gas Pumper #2: You are very observant.  First, it’s OPEC, not the US oil companies, that set the world’s price on oil.  Second, oil companies do want to expand production.  Exxon has spent 15 billion dollars trying to do just that.

Gas Pumper #1: But the profit garnered by Exxon earlier this year was 11.7 billion dollars or 1,300 dollars a second!

Gas Pumper #2: Sounds impressive doesn’t it.  Do you remember the soda company? They along with chemical companies, electrical equipment manufacturers, and computer companies all have a higher profit margin.  But let’s say we tax those oil profits.  Who pays?

Gas Pumper #1: The oil company pays and they should give something back.

Gas Pumper #2: Well they didn’t exactly steal the money from us, we paid it if somewhat grudgingly.  If we were serious about cutting the profit to the oil companies we’d use less. But to date we’ve not done anything to drive (no pun intended) the price of gas down.  The consumption of gas actually increased last year!

Gas Pumper #1: So what! I still say tax them and tax them heavy!

Gas Pumper #2: This tax will impact you more than you know.  First, the price of gas will go up.  Taxes are not paid by corporations.  They are paid by us.  They are paid in the form of higher prices. So while those folks in Washington contemplate higher taxes on gas for us and a windfall profits tax for the oil companies, it’s a double whammy on us!   Furthermore, if the profits go down chances are your retirement portfolio will drop a bit in value as well.  It won’t kill the portfolio because most likely you have mutual funds that are highly diversified, but there may be an impact.  My friend it all rolls downhill.

Gas Pumper #1 (finally replacing the gas hose): What do we do? We’ve got to do something.

Gas Pumper #2: You are right. WE have to do something!  WE can’t leave it to the politicians. You could start by reconsidering that Hummer.  If you really don’t need it, if it’s just a status symbol trade it in and get something that is more fuel efficient.  If you do need it, drive less. That could help lower the demand for oil.    WE could walk or bike more and pay less in gas prices.  That helps us from a health standpoint as well.  There are a myriad of things WE can do.  The idea is to not hope somebody else, that somebody being in the form of politicians, solves our problems for us.  WE must get in there and do it ourselves. 

Gas Pumper #1: Maybe you are right.  What else can I do?

Gas Pumper #2: Do your homework and tell folks what I just told you, if the word gets out maybe WE can spend less at the pump.

*The facts in this conversation are from Robert Hardaway a Professor in the College of Law and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Denver and from a CNN article by David Ellis printed on February 1, 2008.  Interestingly, there was no mention of profit margin or any of the other important information (except for the increase in demand) in Mr. Ellis’ article.