Nothing Fair About This

The Fairness Doctrine is a misnomer and has nothing to do with fairness, but rather curtails and strictly limits free speech on the airwaves. What makes the FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's latest comments so chilling is that should the Fairness Doctrine be revived, its proponents would apply it to the Internet as part of a so called net neutrality fight:

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

Sorry, but that will never fly here. And I would fight it with every ounce of strength to make sure that this crippling restraint on free speech be tossed on the ash heap of history.

There's a reason that conservative talk shows are successful on radio - people want to hear what they have to say. If you are a raving liberal, you want something to rail against, whether it's Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin. If you're a right winger, you want someone to bolster your worldview. Either way, it's entertainment and it makes those stations pull in listeners by the millions, and that in turn means that Rush Limbaugh can be signed to a $400 million deal. The more listeners you have, the more advertising dollars can be had - and that in turn allows the radio networks to operate.

Air America is worth a mere fraction of that amount and was rescued from Chapter 11 bankruptcy - that is when it's not under investigation for corruption and fraud among its financiers and hosts - because it isn't entertaining and wasn't pulling in listeners.

Under the Fairness Doctrine, you'd end up having no choice but to listen to something that isn't entertaining. More basic than that, radio stations would be limited in what they could produce because of some misguided sense of fairness.

The inherent weakness to the Fairness Doctrine is quite elegant in its simplicity. If you don't like what's one the channel - change it. No one forces you to listen to it, and the radio stations have paid handsomely for the rights to the airwaves. If they weren't making money, they wouldn't stay in business (see Air America). The Fairness Doctrine would circumvent the market and limit what's being broadcast and where.

So, who's behind relaunching the Fairness Doctrine? Democrats, like Rep. Maurice Hinchey of NY, who'd introduced legislation in the 109th Congress. That bill, HR 3302, entitled "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent excessive concentration of ownership of the nation's media outlets, to restore fairness in broadcasting, and to foster and promote localism, diversity, and competition in the media", would do no such thing. Fairness in broadcasting is a misnomer since it is designed to undermine the successes of talk radio formats. The bill never made it out of committee, but the concern is that under a Democratic controlled Congress and Barack Obama in the White House, this movement could pick up a head of steam.