25 JUN 07 / "The Unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine"

Democrats in Congress are seeking to reestablish the 'Fairness Doctrine', formerly a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that was repealed under the aegis of the Reagan administration in 1987. The doctrine stipulated that media producers must provide 'equal time' for opposing points of view on controversial subjects of public importance. Not surprisingly, President Reagan understood the doctrine violated the First Amendment and constituted excessive control of the media.

If reenacted into law, the doctrine would effectively silence most of the popular conservative talk show hosts because radio stations would change their format rather than give equal time to political opinions that do not attract advertising revenue. Radio stations, faced with the necessity of offering differing points of view, would be forced to run programming that does not attract any advertising -- and many stations could choose to drop their all talk format in favor of something else.

This is a blatant and calculated attempt, like the McCain / Feingold campaign finance law, to limit political speech. The Democrats want complete dominion of the airwaves. It's not enough that there is a liberal slant to network television news, most major newspapers, and publicly-funded PBS and NPR; they want to conquer the talk radio domain as well, despite failing on a level playing field with 'Air America'. In the free and vibrant market of radio, there is little support for their ideas. Democrats are trying to staunch the bleeding of the mainstream media, as viewers, listeners, and readers have been going elsewhere for their news. The Democrats pay lip service to the notion of free speech, when -- in reality -- they're merely trying to stifle dissenting points of view.

The United States already has a doctrine of fairness -- the marketplace of ideas. If an individual desires a differing point of view, he or she simply needs to change the channel on the television or radio or change the address of a website. Why do the Democrats consider it unfair if differing points of view are found on other programs? They certainly exist nevertheless. The marketplace of ideas should be free and unrestricted from government interference. What the Democrats propose amounts to government take over of the media. Consumers of the news are free to choose the source.

And who decides what's fair? The people should decide what's fair based on their viewing and listening habits. What's purportedly fair to some is patently unfair to others.

Talk radio is the counterbalance to the liberal mainstream media, who vote 9 to 1 for Democrats according to a recent study. There is parity now precisely because of the power of talk radio.

There could be a backlash against talk radio by supporters of the immigration reform package because most conservative hosts fomented the groundswell of antipathy toward the legislation, but I'm sure that Senator Trent Lott who said that "talk radio controls America" would not necessarily be advocating the return of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'

The difficulty is that the 'Fairness Doctrine' is an attractive sounding term to the uninformed voter who rarely delves below the superficial aspects of a particular issue. Yet it would be unfair to the American people, who would actually be exposed to less information and less debate on the issues that will determine our future. As Senator Dianne Feinstein said in a Sunday morning television interview "I think there should be fairness ..." Unfortunately, this is how a lot of uninformed Congressional constituents will likely think. The 'Fairness Doctrine' sounds like a reasonable proposition. It is supremely ironic that California Senator Dianne Feinstein would criticize talk radio for it's extreme nature and hyperbole when her fellow senators exhibit that very behavior each and every day.

The First Amendment provides for a free press. As such, producers of the content should be free to present the news in any format they see fit. Media is a business. And, while a certain amount of regulation is necessary and proper, as in the regulation and allocation of spectrum and the issuance of licenses. To ensure the press is free, it must not be under government control. Despite a Supreme Court ruling in 1969 upholding the doctrine, I believe it clearly violates the First Amendment. The court used the limited broadcast spectrum of the time as its primary rationale. Today, however, the broadcast medium has been greatly expanded. The Supreme Court also determined in a subsequent and related case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate".

The legislative attempt to reinstitute the doctrine would be humorous if it did not have a good chance of passing. What it is instead is downright scary. Republicans should turn this legislation in its ear during the debate and demand that the doctrine instead be applied to the network evening news.

Two other attempts were made by Congress to restore the doctrine. The first, in 1987, was vetoed by President Reagan. The second, in 1991, failed when President Bush threatened a veto.

If passed by Congress this time, it would likely be vetoed by the president, yet it would certainly return in subsequent Democrat-controlled Congresses and would become law if a Democrat is elected in 2008. At which point the stop gap might be the Supreme Court revisiting the issue. Even in this worst case scenario, all of talk radio shows would survive on the web, which is the fastest-growing source of news.

The irony is that every conservative talk show host I listen to allows callers with opposing points of view on the air. It's an open, exciting, and enlightening forum. But, of course, the Democrats aren't listening.