Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

'Fairness' blarney

Don't reinstate a bad doctrine

Published June 30, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

In case you hadn't heard, much of the political establishment, especially in Washington, really doesn't like talk radio. And this disdain crosses partisan and ideological lines.

It's not just Democrats and liberals beating up on national hosts that include Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Talk radio has some Republicans and conservatives hot under the collar, too - especially those who supported the failed immigration reform bill. In that context, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said to reporters "talk radio is running America - we have to deal with that problem."

Meanwhile, a host of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin and presidential front- runner Hillary Clinton, have apparently decided that the way to combat unwelcome speech from unfriendly radio hosts is to revive the Fairness Doctrine, a discarded regulation that once required broadcast stations to "balance" their political coverage. Make no mistake, radio is the target.

Look, we too cringe at the tone and content of some talk-radio programs. But that's part of the free-wheeling nature of political debate, and it ought to be encouraged.

Part of the motivation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine comes from a recent report by the Center for American Progress, which concluded that 76 percent of talk radio programming nationwide is conservative. (Duh.) The report urged Washington to consider what amounts to extortion - commercial stations that aired conservative talk shows might be forced to fund public radio operations - or what amounts to theft - "diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs." That means, we suppose, revoking or not renewing licenses of outlets that broadcast an "unbalanced" share of talkers.

At one time, the Fairness Doctrine was defended on the basis that government had granted broadcast licenses for a "scarce public resource." As a result, the theory went, regulators could control broadcast speech in ways that would be impermissible for the print media. The 1969 Red Lion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court said as much.

Even if that reasoning made sense at the time, the explosion of cable TV, satellite radio, Internet sites and podcasts renders the scarcity rationale meaningless.

Ironically, even as conservative talk radio continues to thrive, Democrats have done quite well in the political marketplace. They have retaken Congress, along with numerous state legislatures and governors' seats once held by Republicans (see: Colorado).

To date, there's no legislation that would impose the Fairness Doctrine - but that does not mean it won't soon be introduced. Meantime, the House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed an amendment to a financial services bill by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., that would block the FCC from spending any money during the next fiscal year to enforce the Fairness Doctrine - if it were reinstated.

The amendment offers a sign that lawmakers on one side of the Capitol may take free speech seriously, even if some heavy hitters in the Senate do not.