TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Fairness Doctrine Is Unfair

ADVERTISEMENT

By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

Special to the Los Angeles Times

Published: March 8, 2009

That the Democrats are keen to crack down on conservative talk radio - crack down on free speech they don't like, that is - is now impossible to deny.

Two approaches are being contemplated. The one getting the most attention involves creating a new Fairness Doctrine. The old doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission regulation, codified in the late 1940s, that required radio and television broadcasters to provide air time to opposing viewpoints and to cover issues of concern to their communities. The FCC, encouraged by the Reagan administration, junked the doctrine 22 years ago, rightly recognizing that the rule wasn't so much mandating fairness as imposing a government-backed curb on free expression.

But now, leading Democrats have been openly urging its resuscitation. Although the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the Democrats' real target is AM radio, where opinion is open and vociferous and where right-of-center talk shows dominate ratings - the one medium in which conservatives and libertarians have an advantage.

Although the Obama administration has said it is not inclined to support a new Fairness Doctrine, other top Democrats who have endorsed, or at least seemed sympathetic to, the idea include congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, as well as Sens. Tom Harkin and John Kerry (who blamed his loss in 2004 on the regulation's absence).

Here's the reality: A new Fairness Doctrine, which could be imposed either by legislation or through FCC rule changes, wouldn't achieve more balance. Rather, it would obliterate political talk radio. If a station ran a popular conservative show - say, Hugh Hewitt's - it would face pressure to run a liberal alternative, even though almost all left-leaning efforts to date have failed to capture either listeners or advertising revenue.

Many radio executives, already fighting for profits in a world of intense competition, would find the expense unsupportable and switch formats to sports or entertainment. Some might get out of the business entirely.

The Obama administration might say it doesn't back a new Fairness Doctrine, but it has suggested it might support another reform, called "localism," which also should worry defenders of media freedom. Localism would impose greater "local accountability" on broadcasters - that is, it would force stations to carry more local programming. Localism, as sketched out in a recent FCC report, also could require stations to set up permanent community advisory boards (including "underserved community segments") that would have to be regularly consulted on "community needs and issues."

The idea is as philosophically misguided as the Fairness Doctrine. After all, stations already serve their communities - their listeners and advertisers. If they don't serve them, they go out of business.

By what right does the government tell listeners what they can or can't listen to when it comes to political speech? All this is blatantly unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has long applied different standards to airwaves and print, claiming that the scarcity of broadcast spectrum justifies government oversight.

Whether that contention was ever true, it is absurd in our era of satellite radio, cable television and myriad Web sites. One hopes, then, that the judiciary will stop the Democrats before they silence their most energetic, and effective, critics.

Brian C. Anderson is the editor of City Journal.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT