With the recent debate over the possibility of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and Republican attempts to outlaw such a doctrine, it is important to look at what the Fairness Doctrine really is.
In the extended post, I discuss what the Fairness Doctrine is, what it would really mean for existing programs, its constitutional basis, and why we need it.
What It Is
Let us look at what the Fairness Doctrine would really do.
The most recent attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine was the unsuccessful "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005." Its "Fairness in Broadcasting" section had only one operative sentence. It stated:
A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
Is that going to end talk radio? What is wrong with an opportunity to discuss conflicting views?
Effect on Existing Programs
The Fairness Doctrine as defined by this act would not get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck. Nor would it get rid of Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, or Thom Hartmann. Each would be able to continue their show without change.
The Fairness Doctrine would only come into effect if a licensee (that is, something like Fox or Clear Channel) only provided one side and not the other throughout its lineup. They don't have to give equal time. They do not have to make every show be balanced. They only need to give a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of conflicting views on at least one show.
Legal Basis
The Fairness Doctrine has been well received by the Supreme Court. The Court upheld it in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). It has limited the doctrine to requiring balanced debate, as in CBS. v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), in which the Court affirmed the FCC's refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364, the Court reaffirmed the right to ask for a balanced presentation under the Fairness Doctrine while overturning a different regulation that prevented editorials on PBS.
In the League of Women Voters case, the Court wrote,
Our prior cases illustrate these principles. In Red Lion, for example, we upheld the FCC's "fairness doctrine" - which requires broadcasters to provide adequate coverage of public issues and to ensure that this coverage fairly and accurately reflects the opposing views - because the doctrine advanced the substantial governmental interest in ensuring balanced presentations of views in this limited medium and yet posed no threat that a "broadcaster [would be denied permission] to carry a particular program or to publish his own views."
We give away a government guarantee of a monopoly on a particular frequency range in a particular location. The government will fight pirates who try to infringe on broadcast or satellite frequencies. The government will prevent competitors from laying cable. The government will protect copyrights.
In exchange for government protection, isn't it only fair that we ask those beneficiaries of this protection that they do public service by allowing ideas to be fairly debated?
Dealing With Scandals
We have seen terrible scandals in which lobbyists have bought our politicians. When faith in our electoral process seems like it can't get any lower, it manages to do just that. We must always run fair elections. Elections cannot be fair if the candidates cannot get their message to the voters. It is simply part of the cost that any democracy must pay to run fair elections to provide the means for candidates to be heard. The biggest bribes that contribute to the destruction of our political process are campaign contributions. We must enact Clean Money. We must make it irrelevant whether a candidate or the lobbyists in his or her pocket have the money to win office.
But we must do more. To avoid ever getting back into this mess again, we must always ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard. We must not listen to just one side. We must replace partisanship with cooperation. To accomplish this, we must restore the Fairness Doctrine, ensuring that those media corporations that use government protected monopolies over broadcast and cable frequencies will always allow both sides to be heard. In this way, we can restore civil debates over the tough issues we face.