It’s too soon to know for sure what issues the Majority party in the Senate will want to debate next year, but there already is one issue I am watching carefully. Some in Congress would like to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which, despite the name, is anything but fair.
The Fairness Doctrine mandates that broadcast media outlets (ostensibly because they use the public airwaves) must balance their programming by offering equitable airtime to opposing viewpoints. Put simply, conservative views would have to be “countered” by liberal views, or vice versa.
During the years when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, a broadcast outlet could lose its license if it failed to abide by this policy. As a result, broadcasting outlets often chose not to cover issues that could be construed as controversial, or decided to change their programming format entirely, rather than put their business at risk. The Fairness Doctrine was revoked in 1987 during the Reagan Administration.
But, in the past few years, many liberals have urged that the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated because of the success of conservative talk radio. Of course, nothing precludes liberal talk radio.
Indeed, talk radio flourished after the Fairness Doctrine’s repeal. In 1990, only 360 radio stations aired talk and opinion formats. Today, there are more than 1,300 talk radio stations of all political persuasions. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine also promoted new growth in the media industry and increased the availability of information from a variety of sources. Cable television and the Internet, also booming industries, host views and news on any side of any issue.
The National Association of Broadcasters has said that, “Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, unwarranted and unconstitutional. Complementing the absolute explosion in alternative media outlets since the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated, broadcast viewers and listeners today enjoy a rich diversity of viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum.”
Americans can get their news from so many sources today that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary. If a television viewer doesn’t like the way the news is presented on one channel, he or she can simply change to another. Talk radio is open to different viewpoints, though the success of the programs is determined by the listeners and ultimately the free market – popular programs stay on the air; unpopular ones do not.
I have supported efforts in Congress to prevent the return of the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, I cosponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act (S. 1748), which would allow broadcasters to continue operating freely without government monitoring and supervision
With so many media outlets available today, Americans are as free to hear diverse opinions as they are to freely change a channel or to tune the radio dial. In a world with 24-hour cable news channels, non-stop talk radio, and the Internet, Americans have more access to different viewpoints than ever before. There’s no need to return to an antiquated policy that was designed for the 1940s.
