What is the Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was a mid-20th century United States FCC regulation demanding that broadcasters present controversial issues in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. It originated with the 1949 "Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees" (13 F.C.C. 1246), because of "McCarthyism" - the witchhunt-like search for Communists in Hollywood (although that didn't end until the mid 1950's).

The Fairness Doctrine was solidified in 1967 with two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some airtime to talking about controversial public issues, and to air contrasting views about those matters.

The first fault of this Doctrine is found here: Who decides what's "controversial"? As we've seen with the FCC many times where it's a matter of opinion what's considered obscene, this could be just as subjective.
The second is: Who decides what's "fair and balanced"? It is quite possible that those hired to monitor it would themselves be biased to one side or the other.

The Fairness Doctrine required a lot of government monitoring, and ended up putting a damper on free speech because, rather than allow opposing viewpoints, news outlets began staying away from doing programming where these rules would apply.

For reasons such as this, in 1985 the FCC announced that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the First Amendment and was not in the public's best interest.

Also, due to rapidly growing computerized technology, the skimpy rationale behind the Fairness Doctrine did not hold up to the wide variety of public debate. Furthermore, airwave technology was becoming so vast that there were limited resources to monitor the amount of speech that had to be opposed by differing viewpoints.

The last two rules of the Fairness Doctrine were repealed in 2000 ("personal attack", where a person had to be notified within one week about a personal attack against them and given a chance for rebuttal), and the "political editorial" rule (about stations and newspapers endorsing candidates, where unendorsed candidates could speak up). I'm not sure why these two lack merit, but as for the rest of the Fairness Doctrine...

Why is the Fairness Doctrine scary?

The Fairness Doctrine required the monitoring of the airwaves, most specifically radio stations, to make sure that when someone talked about something "controversial", people expressing other views were granted equal time. This would be great if everyone did this like the conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes who share a program and voice both sides in one hour. But do we really want a Hitler, or the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or the extreme terrorists who cut peoples' heads off to be given equal time on our radio stations?

Why is The Fairness Doctrine unnecessary?

Nobody is restricted from starting their own alternate website, radio station, or TV station. As far as political campaigns, we already have the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, co-sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) . and John McCain (R, AZ), prohibiting grass roots organizations from sending, to their interested constituents, endorsements or information about specific political candidates within a certain amount of time before an election. Religious organizations and churches are threatened with losing their tax exempt status if they do so.

Congressman Mike Pence (R, IN) introduced The Broadcaster Freedom Act in 2007 to prohibit the resuscitation of the Fairness Doctrine. He states:

"Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation..."

"Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine..."

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech..."

"The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Pence's Amendment passed the house in June 309-115. But it won't be so easy in the Senate.

Who wants The Fairness Doctrine back?

Our ultra-liberal Congress people want it: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) would love to bring it back. She is joined most vocally by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), the afore-mentioned Feinstein and California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. Pelosi has not been allowing the Broadcaster Freedom Act to come up for debate or a vote in the Senate. Hmmm. That's fair.

Why do they want it?

Because they would love for their viewpoints to have the same massive audiences as The O'Reilly Factor (who does post e-mails with opposing viewpoints), Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and FOX News.

Sen. Feinstein has said: ""I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way." When asked on the same broadcast why doesn't the other side just start their own successful programming? She replied "Well, there's a problem. We're trying". Try as hard as you can, Diane. Most American people who are sensible patriots and are well-informed by "orators" other than Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell just aren't interested in the ultra-liberal, socialist/communist re-hashing of how bad capitalism and conservatism are and how religion is the devil.

And it's not like the "mainstream" media air all sides! There are many things that don't hit ABC, NBC, CBS or even CNN. Why don't they air it?

For example, last week's story about John Edwards being caught in a hotel earlier this month at 2:30 in the morning, leaving shortly before or after a woman long alleged to be his lover, started out as only a National Enquirer story. Who could believe that, right? But it's now been reported on Hannity and Colmes that even his bodyguard confirmed Edwards ducked into a bathroom to hide from the press for 15 minutes. Remember, Hannity and Colmes is a bipartisan program. Now, whether or not the part about an affair is true, you can bet if this was a Republican it would be ALL over ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and every single radio station anywhere, with or without confirmation.

Conservatives are always being told "if you don't like what you're hearing or seeing, leave the room". But when liberals don't like something, such as public prayer, they take it to the Supreme Court or Congress and try to stop it from going on at all, or they want to do their whining in front of the conservatives. Yet, the conservatives are the hypocrites?

I suggest that liberals everywhere start their own radio programs and make them just as successful as "the other side's". Nobody is stopping you.