Bland menace

Let the Fairness Doctrine stay buried

Date published: 12/1/2008

LIKE A MONSTER from a Japanese horror movie, It is hovering over the horizon, moving slowly in our direction--onerous, inhibiting, and unfair. "It" is the much ballyhooed Fairness Doctrine, and whether its planned resurrection by the Democrats is for real or just a chimera invented by right-wing talk radio to scare us, the bottom line is the same: The Fairness Doctrine is not.

Fair, that is, although that was the original idea when it was implemented in 1949. Back in those days, television was limited to the Big Three networks, and the radio band had finite space. The Federal Communications Commission, charged with licensing stations, decided that broadcasters had a civic duty to nurture an informed public, and that presenting opposing sides of issues was the way to do that.

The split didn't have to be 50-50. Still, concerned audience members could complain if local radio started tilting too much to one side of the political spectrum. The result was predictable: Concerned they'd be battling claims of bias, station managers rejected any programming that smacked of controversy. Issues shows became about as interesting as cold oatmeal.

Then came Ronald Reagan and a move to relax some onerous federal rules. In 1987, his administration ditched the FCC regulation that established the Fairness Doctrine. Congress responded by passing the doctrine as a law. Mr. Reagan vetoed it. And into the newly opened airspace walked Rush Limbaugh.

Mr. Limbaugh (described as a "bloviator" by 70 percent of the people writing about him) was clever about the way he syndicated his show, and turned it into a big money-maker for radio stations. Nothing the Left has produced has come close to it, or to the radio programs of Mr. Limbaugh's more popular right-wing brethren.

That's why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are fondling the idea of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine, mandating, in other words, the advent of the Anti-Rush.

Bad idea. The vigorous interchange of ideas demands more freedom, not less. No one has gagged progressive talk radio--it just hasn't snagged an audience. Air America, the Al Franken answer, went bankrupt in about two years. Nova M Radio is giving it another try. But the failure is liberals' failure to capture many listeners. Requiring "balance" will simply stifle commentary.

Further, media outlets have proliferated since the post-World War II period. Americans now have AM, FM, satellite radio, regular broadcast television, cable, satellite feeds, and Internet streaming. No longer are radio and TV limited by bandwidth. So why impose restrictions on broadcasters?

Let's hope that the dark stain on the horizon is simply pollution from China. Or hot air from the Right. The Fairness Doctrine was killed, fair and square, in 1987. Let it rest in peace.

Follow us on

Date published: 12/1/2008

Most recent reader comments: