Thread: Fairness Doctrine: Right move is do nothing

Fairness Doctrine: Right move is do nothing

Tom Jicha
TV and Radio Writer

July 2, 2007

Who could be against "Fairness?"

Anybody with a brain should be, in one important instance. Some liberals are so chagrined by the dominance of conservative talk radio they are advocating a drastic measure to thwart the right. Unable to win the battle of the airwaves against Rush Limbaugh and other conservative hosts, who prosper while liberal Air America struggles to stay afloat, some on the left are advocating a reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, which 20 years ago was eliminated as no longer necessary due to the explosion of outlets for expressing opinions. And this was before the Internet.

Theoretically, the Fairness Doctrine sounds like laudable policy. It obligated broadcasters to present all sides of controversial issues. In practice, it didn't work so well. Rather than being forced to open their airwaves to anyone who had a contrarian viewpoint, broadcasters steered clear of issues for the most part. The exceptions were saccharine public affairs shows that aired in the middle of the night or on Sunday mornings when no one was listening.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine opened the way for the in-your-face talk shows of today; bringing it back would probably end them. If the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, any station carrying Rush would be obligated to offer time to counter everything he said. A station with three or four conservative hosts would have to carve out several hours daily for rebuttals. This wouldn't happen; the more expedient solution would be a return to the not so good old days by dropping talk in favor of less-controversial formats.

A recent study released by the Center for American Progress — an organization headed by former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta — found that roughly 90 percent of all issues-oriented talk radio is conservative. With far less to lose, it's easy to understand why the left would love to do anything that would eradicate talk radio.

However, they haven't considered the double-edged sword they would be forging. Conservative talk might be neutralized but angry right-wingers would be sure to retaliate. National Public Radio would be a juicy target.

Loopy far-right host Michael Savage said on his program that with nothing else to do, he would sit at home monitoring the broadcast TV morning shows and newscasts, demanding an opportunity to speak against anything he perceived to be slanted left. How far he would get is debatable, but he could make enough of a nuisance of himself to have an impact.

Closer to home, conservatives could demand time to present opposing viewpoints to the barrage of leftist talking points Neil Rogers reads every day. Rogers would probably be forced to go back to his old fun and entertainment ways (which might not be a bad thing).

For the most part, the dirty work of championing a new Fairness Doctrine has been done by groups like the Center for American Progress, whose names camouflage their partisanship. However, eight days ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the most important politician to endorse at least examining the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. Responding to a question from Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday Morning, Feinstein said, "In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."

Pressed by Wallace about whether she is for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Feinstein said, "Well, I'm looking at it."

This was red meat to conservative hosts, who have been keeping their listeners fired up about this threat — even though, practically speaking, they know there is no chance of it happening for at least the rest of George W. Bush's term.

Another reason to think Democrats are being short-sighted is that Republicans are disaffected as never before because of the immigration bill, on top of all the other issues they have with Bush and their representatives. This was manifested in 2006, when enough of them sat on their hands to be a factor in turning over Congress to the Democrats.

They might be angry enough now to not care if the White House also goes to the other side in 2008. But there's nothing like a threat to have Rush and their other favorites taken away to get them back to the polls in record numbers.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/co ... 972.column

However, they haven't considered the double-edged sword they would be forging

Another part of the double-edged sword, which is not mentioned here, is that Spanish radio and TV wouldn't be able to put out political calls to its people without offering equal time for the opposing view. And you can bet we'd jump on that situation quickly! They do lots of political activism. The grand marches were a product of the radio programs calls to march.