The Return of the Fairness Doctrine

The "Fairness Doctrine" was a policy adopted by the FCC in 1949 that forced broadcasters to give equal time to contrasting points of view for any controversial issues they might air. The policy was ended under the Reagan administration in 1987 and hasn't been reenacted since. For a brief history of the "Fairness Doctrine" and a good description of what it is visit this article at the Museum of Broadcast Communications.

The argument for implementing this "Fairness Doctrine" was that there were a relatively limited number of broadcast license slots available for a particular area. To ensure that in the public interest all points of view were represented, the FCC forced broadcasters to allow equal opportunity to air various points of view for issues that might be controversial.

Over time a sort of "chilling effect" happened as reporters simply steered away from controversial issues to avoid this requirement of finding various additional points of view when compiling their stories.

Eventually, with the advent of cable television and the many more channels it brought, the FCC determined that the "Fairness Doctrine" was no longer necessary.

This analysis done in 1997 by Thomas W. Hazlett, professor at UC Davis, and David W. Sosa, student at UC Davis, demonstrates the harsh effects this policy had on programming and the subsequent dramatic increase in available programming after the doctrine was lifted. The true effects of the "Fairness Doctrine" really lent to limiting available programming options for the public. This was certainly not the FCC's intended effect by enacting the policy. This "chilling effect" shows up every time freedom is hindered in anything but is blatantly apparent in economics. These types of limits on freedom impede our growth as a society as is obvious in the above analysis by Prof. Hazlett and David Sosa.

Despite the advent of satellite television, digital cable, satellite radio, and the Internet since 1987, there is still interest now in Congress to pursue legislation that would make this "Fairness Doctrine" law. This wouldn't be the first time Congress has attempted to pass such legislation. Congress passed a legislative version of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987 (it was only FCC policy prior to that) - the same year the FCC ended its own "Fairness Doctrine" policy. President Reagan vetoed the legislation and it lacked support in Congress to override the veto. It was passed by Congress once again under the first Bush administration but George H.W. Bush too vetoed the bill and again there was insufficient support to override his veto.

A couple of weeks ago Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) appeared at the National Conference for Media Reform and stated that he would be heading up a House subcommittee focusing on bringing reform to the FCC and would bring back into consideration the "Fairness Doctrine." It can be assumed that once again President Bush will veto any such legislation.

This does bring into question the reason for bringing forward such legislation. The following points can taken into account:

• The "chilling effects" of the previous policy
• The availability of such a wide variety of sources for various viewpoints through regular television, cable television, satellite television, satellite radio, and the Internet via blogs, news sites and other resources
• The possibility that this sort of policy or legislation limits free speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment (as was noted in the FCC's Fairness Report in 1985)

It would seem that given those points the "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't have a lot of support in Congress. There is one major source that is fueling this resurgence in this type of policy: conservative radio.

Rush Limbaugh's AM talk show was first syndicated nationally in 1988 - following the abolishment of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talk show host and leads the pack in ratings with 13.5 million listeners. The top 5 talk radio shows are dominated by other conservative talk radio hosts:

1. Rush Limbaugh (Conservative)
2. Sean Hannity (Conservative)
3. Michael Savage (Conservative)
4. Dr. Laura Schlessinger (Conservative)
   
5. Laura Ingraham (Conservative)

(source: Talkers Magazine Top Radio Audiences)

The rest of the top 40 contains many other conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Jerry Doyle, Michael Medved, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Levin, Michael Reagan, and Hugh Hewitt.

This isn't to say that there are no liberal talk show hosts. The country is smattered with various liberal talk shows with a few reaching the top 40 like Al Franken and Alan Colmes. But the difference in listenership between conservative and liberal talk shows is very stark. It is this difference in audience size that has prompted certain members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich to look to legislation to try and forcefully balance the tables.

Certain markets enjoy sizable ratings for liberal talk shows and others do not. Seattle for instance has a sizable liberal talk show audience.

Recently Air America, a nationally syndicated collection of liberal talk radio programs (which includes shows like The Al Franken Show) filed for chapter 11 protection. In spite of the considerable effort and backing behind Air America, it failed to reach a sizable audience. This not because of any misdoings by conservative programs but due to simple economics. Air America's programs failed to gain popularity in the markets where it was present and subsequently were pulled from the air to be replaced by more profitable programming. This may have been due to improper market research prior to being rolled out in those markets or due to audiences not accepting the particular shows that were aired.

The effects of the "Fairness Doctrine" being reinstated in some form are bound to have a negative effect for all political talk shows. Audience members in Seattle are likely to be turned off by the inclusion of conservative viewpoints when listening to their favorite liberal programming. Perhaps turned off to the point that they choose to instead turn to a music station or other programming. Just as audience members in Dallas may be turned off by the idea of listening to liberal idealists on their conservative programing. This is not to mention regular TV programming which conservatives have long complained is biased towards liberal viewpoints. Imagine having CBS forcefully required to have a Rush Limbaugh style co-host delivering the latest conservative views during evening news programming or Sunday talk shows. The negative effects of this policy are certain to be profound and far-reaching. And in the end it's unclear that anyone would be a "winner" with this legislation.

Overall, our current system is based on freedom. Freedom for station owners to choose programming that works for audiences in their market; freedom for talk shows to feature whatever kind of content they wish; freedom for audiences to choose the programming that best suits them; and freedom for advertisers to have their products and services featured on programs that suit their interests or target demographics. The government involving itself in regulating (hindering) this freedom is bound to only have a negative effect for all involved parties. In fact, when is hindering freedom ever a positive thing for America? Again, look to the effects from the historical use of policies like the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" as a testament to this.