• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • This Is Not the 'Fairness Doctrine' You're Looking For

    The left sure seems to have a lot invested in convincing the American people they do not want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Whenever conservatives like George Will accuse them of wanting to revive the abandoned FCC rule, the usual suspects are quick to completely deny any such plans exist. It’s like that classic scene from Star Wars:


    The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen is the chief wannabe Jedi mind trickster. In response to Will’s latest, he writes:

    I haven’t the foggiest idea what compelled George Will to write such nonsense. It’s not only ridiculous, it neglects to mention to the reader that no one is seriously trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. TNR’s Marin Cogan recently wrote a great piece, noting that she couldn’t find anyone on the left who really wants to reinstate the policy.

    Really? No one? I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘Fairness Doctrine’. First some history. The original Fairness Doctrine was promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 pursuant to authority derived from the 1934 Communications Act. As Will notes, the Supreme Court held the doctrine did not violate the First Amendment in 1969 and the doctrine was still in effect up until the Reagan Administration abandoned it in 1987. In other words, no new legislation would be needed to revive the worst elements of the Fairness Doctrine. They still exist under the 1934 Communications Act and have been blessed by the Supreme Court. As one leading Washington think tank recently concluded:

    First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine.

    Moreover, the original Communications Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC to require “reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time” by a legally qualified candidate for federal elective office, and equal opportunities must be afforded all other candidates for that office. These obligations come from the same set of concerns from which the Fairness Doctrine arose. And Section 315 of the Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

    Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper.

    Which think tank authored those lines? Presiden-elect Barack Obama transition team chief John Podesta’s Center for American Progress published the above paragraphs in their report: The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. And what policy changes does the CAP report recommend to ‘fix’ this ‘structural imbalance’?

    More important, the Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders. Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.

    We recommend the following steps the FCC should take to ensure local needs are being met:

    • Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
    • Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.

    So under the old Fairness Doctrine, free speech on the radio was stifled by an FCC rule that required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air, with the government deciding the meaning of all the italicized words. Under the CAP/Podesta/Obama Fairness Doctrine broadcasters must renew their licenses every three years instead of every eight and when they do so the must “show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest” with public interest being defined as whatever ACORN like community organizers the left can rustle up to help define “community needs.” Will writes:

    In 1969, when the Supreme Court declared the fairness doctrine constitutional, it probably did not know the Kennedy administration’s use of it, as one official described it: “Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

    Doesn’t sound like the left’s game plan for stifling free speech has changed all that much in 40 years. CAP report co-author Mark Lloyd told The New Republic, “I don’t think there’s any movement [to restore the fairness doctrine] at all. … We don’t support it.” … In other words: This is not the Fairness Doctrine you’re looking for.

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to This Is Not the 'Fairness Doctrine' You're Looking For

    1. Mithras says:

      Ha ha! That's exactly what we wanted you to think. The Jedi Mind Trick worked.

    2. Mark,Houston says:

      What was that that the great P.T BARNUM said ? ,oh yes , "you can fool some of the people all of the time , all of the people some of the time , but you can never fool all of the people all of the time "I think Mrs. Pelosi and her foolish brood should take that to heart .

    3. Mayme, NY says:

      No fairness doctrine for me either, but I am scared of monopolies of our media. What will keep our major media companies being bought up and controlled by Saudis, China, India or as we now have, Australia. The standards of our Wall Street Journal are being lowered as we speak. The U.S. does not have a good world news reporting system anymore. I go to BBC, CBC and even Al Jazeera for world news. CNN and FOX for TV are pathetic.

    4. John Gallagher says:

      History has shown that when diversity of opinion is not given a voice, extremism will prosper. The quality and reasonableness of our nation’s political discourse has certainly suffered since the Fairness Doctrine disappeared.

      The Fairness Doctrine is necessary because broadcast licenses are limited by a finite number of available frequencies. Licensees are acting as trustees of a scarce public resource when they operate a radio station and so have an obligation to their listening audience to present a variety of views.

    5. Pingback: Underheight.com » Blog Archive » I’m telling!

    6. Joe, Nashville says:

      I guess I wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to the Doctrine if it would also apply to mainstream and print media. Radio is the only place I can to listen to conservative views and concerns in some detail. I think the regrettable performance of the mainstream media during the recent election is a prime example of this. If I want to hear a liberal view of something, all I have to do is turn on the TV. Taking away the ability to listen to a radio program simply due to the fact that it is conservative seems to be a slap in the face of free speech. I'm sure the owners of the radio stations will add liberal talk radio if they believe that people will tune in. It just makes sense – the old supply and demand adage. If there is demand for it, then someone will supply it. Somehow liberals just haven't been able to create enough demand for additional radio programs to be added. We shouldn't compromise the existing shows, but I have no problem with adding more, so long as its not mandated.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.