History of a Bad Idea The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation brought into effect formally in 1949 that required radio broadcast license owners to air a range of opinions about controversial issues in a fair and balanced way.
The Doctrine was intended to promote diversity in media opinions, but was deemed a hindrance to free speech and finally abandoned in 1985 under President Reagan's administration.
Although the Doctrine has been out of practice for more than twenty years, there have been attempts to bring it back, most resulting from claims that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves and that it needs to be balanced with more liberal voices.
The latest attempt is currently alive and being debated in Congress, with Representatives such as Dennis Kucinich showing their support for new legislation that would resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
Those For the Fairness Doctrine Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine have, at the heart of their argument, a concern for the welfare of "the people".
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) put it this way, "The airwaves should be used for public benefit.
It's broadcasters' one obligation for condition of license".
The belief is that airwaves are "public", and should be regulated so that the interests of the public are taken care of.
Thus, someone (the FCC) should be authorized to regulate the media given out so that a diversity of opinions is present.
In order to achieve this diversity of opinions, "we need to...
break up the major media conglomerates".
According to Fairness Doctrine promoters, since the abandonment of the Doctrine, there have been fewer and fewer owners who have bought more and more broadcasting licenses.
They would like to see more competition by limiting the amount of media outlets that can be owned by one conglomerate.
Opponents of the Doctrine Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine have several objections, ranging from the unconstitutionality of the Doctrine, to its bad effects on business, to the claim that it does the opposite of what it was intended to do.
Their strongest argument, legally, is that the Fairness Doctrine limits free speech.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
The Fairness Doctrine limits the amount of one side of a debate that can be aired, by requiring that the other side be given the same amount of time.
The "Hush Rush" Bill Another argument against the Doctrine is that it is bad for the talk radio business.
Talk radio tycoons like Rush Limbaugh rose to power after the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, a feat that would not have occurred were the Doctrine still in place.
Talk radio hosts earn their fame and money by having very strong, one-sided opinions which they share every weekday for about three hours a day.
If the Fairness Doctrine were in place, broadcasters would have to air three additional hours of talk shows per day with an opposing viewpoint.
This becomes very difficult and costly to manage, which leads to financial troubles for the talk radio powers that are already well established.
Broadcasters feel that the obligation to air opposing viewpoints would hurt them financially because those who listen to the talk radio hosts usually agree with the host's opinions, which is why they listen in the first place.
If required to air views that contradict those of the listeners, then listeners will stop tuning in and find alternatives.
For this reason the Fairness Doctrine was given the epithet the "Hush Rush" bill.
The Verdict So, which is more important: public ownership of the radio waves or free speech? The battle line is drawn almost uniformly between party lines.
Democrats want the media to be owned by the public and regulated by the government.
Republicans pursue their hands-off approach by arguing for free speech and the power of the market.
If one were to look towards the principles this country were founded upon, then principles such as freedom in the market and freedom of the press would stand out as strong supporters for the continued abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine, though well-intentioned, would not have constructive consequences on the American people, their opinions, or their beloved radio broadcasts.
The Doctrine was intended to promote diversity in media opinions, but was deemed a hindrance to free speech and finally abandoned in 1985 under President Reagan's administration.
Although the Doctrine has been out of practice for more than twenty years, there have been attempts to bring it back, most resulting from claims that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves and that it needs to be balanced with more liberal voices.
The latest attempt is currently alive and being debated in Congress, with Representatives such as Dennis Kucinich showing their support for new legislation that would resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
Those For the Fairness Doctrine Proponents of the Fairness Doctrine have, at the heart of their argument, a concern for the welfare of "the people".
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) put it this way, "The airwaves should be used for public benefit.
It's broadcasters' one obligation for condition of license".
The belief is that airwaves are "public", and should be regulated so that the interests of the public are taken care of.
Thus, someone (the FCC) should be authorized to regulate the media given out so that a diversity of opinions is present.
In order to achieve this diversity of opinions, "we need to...
break up the major media conglomerates".
According to Fairness Doctrine promoters, since the abandonment of the Doctrine, there have been fewer and fewer owners who have bought more and more broadcasting licenses.
They would like to see more competition by limiting the amount of media outlets that can be owned by one conglomerate.
Opponents of the Doctrine Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine have several objections, ranging from the unconstitutionality of the Doctrine, to its bad effects on business, to the claim that it does the opposite of what it was intended to do.
Their strongest argument, legally, is that the Fairness Doctrine limits free speech.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
The Fairness Doctrine limits the amount of one side of a debate that can be aired, by requiring that the other side be given the same amount of time.
The "Hush Rush" Bill Another argument against the Doctrine is that it is bad for the talk radio business.
Talk radio tycoons like Rush Limbaugh rose to power after the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, a feat that would not have occurred were the Doctrine still in place.
Talk radio hosts earn their fame and money by having very strong, one-sided opinions which they share every weekday for about three hours a day.
If the Fairness Doctrine were in place, broadcasters would have to air three additional hours of talk shows per day with an opposing viewpoint.
This becomes very difficult and costly to manage, which leads to financial troubles for the talk radio powers that are already well established.
Broadcasters feel that the obligation to air opposing viewpoints would hurt them financially because those who listen to the talk radio hosts usually agree with the host's opinions, which is why they listen in the first place.
If required to air views that contradict those of the listeners, then listeners will stop tuning in and find alternatives.
For this reason the Fairness Doctrine was given the epithet the "Hush Rush" bill.
The Verdict So, which is more important: public ownership of the radio waves or free speech? The battle line is drawn almost uniformly between party lines.
Democrats want the media to be owned by the public and regulated by the government.
Republicans pursue their hands-off approach by arguing for free speech and the power of the market.
If one were to look towards the principles this country were founded upon, then principles such as freedom in the market and freedom of the press would stand out as strong supporters for the continued abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine, though well-intentioned, would not have constructive consequences on the American people, their opinions, or their beloved radio broadcasts.
SHARE
