There have been many calls here over the past four years for the return of the Fairness Doctrine to broadcasting, primarily in comments, and I have done my level best to explain (1) why it wasn’t what everyone thought it was; (2) why it wouldn’t do what everyone thinks it will; and (3) why it is probably not going to return.
I am, by profession, a radio programming consultant. As such, I read a lot of trade publications focused on the broadcast industry. This morning, one such publication, Inside Radio, published an article citing David Oxenford, who is a well-known broadcast attorney, on the Fairness Doctrine … what it was, what it did and didn’t do, why it isn’t likely to be reinstated.
Two lines stand out as the main reason why it would never do what everyone believes it would:
“The Fairness Doctrine never required ‘equal time’ in the sense of strict equality for each side of an issue on a minute-for-minute basis.”
And:
Moreover, stations were able to choose which opponents to the issue to offer the time to. “The viewpoint, not the spokesperson, was what counted.”
So even if the Doctrine was still in effect, all a station had to do was schedule “some amount” of opposing views, and could choose someone to present those views who could be lukewarm rather than passionate. No full-on attacks on Rush, or Carlson, or Hannity, or Dobbs.
The Inside Radio article quotes Oxenberg’s own Broadcast Law Blog, which expands on the above. Please read at least the first and if you have time, the second.
And then, please stop calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Ain’t-a-gonna happen, and even if it did you wouldn’t be happy.