The Fairness Doctrine in Broadcast Media

My essay below was published today on the editorial page as a "My Turn"in the Burlington Free Press:

Fairness Doctrine in Broadcast Media

I believe the proposal to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a purely political maneuver to create a controversy heading into the 2008 elections because liberals have been unsuccessful in propagating their point of view on talk radio, now dominated by conservative programming. The Fairness Doctrine they would like to bring back would require 'equal time' for opposing viewpoints on the same radio or TV station. Many liberals are hell-bent on using the power of government to define fairness in media that uses the airwaves because they feel disadvantaged by or envious of the success of conservative talk radio.

Because they are 'owned' by the public, the Federal Communications Commission prevents technical interference on the airwaves by licensing only one broadcaster in a geographic area to use a specific frequency, power output and other technical requirements. In 1949, the FCC believed this exclusive right to broadcast should require station owners to present alternate points of view so listeners and viewers would receive balanced input on a controversial issue, thus the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in a unanimous vote by the FCC in 1987. In that decision they stated "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." (cite Wikipedia). Since then, all forms of electronic media have proliferated as technology enabled cable, satellite and internet communications.

Supporters of The Fairness Doctrine often cite the principle that the airwaves are 'owned' by the public and it's 'unfair' for one viewpoint to be unbalanced by others because a license is granted by the Federal Communications Commission to use a 'scarce' resource. Conservatives argue that the 'mainstream media' is dominated by news and current event programming created, omitted or edited by people mostly liberal/Democrat. Liberals generally argue that large corporations owning multiple radio and TV stations and newspapers in the same market restricts the broad spectrum of opinion necessary for a truly democratic society.

However, media leaders will say they are as fair and balanced as possible. Broadcast (and print) journalists argue that their important role in the public square requires them to be unbiased and that they are trained to seek the facts and omit opinion in reporting. This mantra has a nice ring to it, but it's nonsense. No person is unbiased, journalists included. How journalists and reporters think, report, vote, associate, and generally live their lives determine their biases. To pretend they don't have them or that they don't influence their media work is hypocritical. Better to admit a bias so readers, viewers and listeners know clearly what they are getting.

Given the proliferation of cable programming and internet sources, the Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur whose time has long since passed. The public is no longer starved for information by the 'scarce' resource of the airwaves used by a few broadcasters to provide news and opinion. We can stay informed or be influenced by any number of news and opinion sources.

Today's media landscape is diverse and growing increasingly so. The Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur in today's media world and best left to history's dustbin. If liberals are unhappy with their lot in talk radio, perhaps they need better spokespersons or better ideas or both.