Why Even Rush Limbaugh Shouldn't Fear the Fairness Doctrine

"DEMS SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT," blared a recent headline in the New York Post -- one of a seemingly endless series of articles warning that if Democrats take power in Washington, they're going to hush the Rush Limbaughs of the world via a sinister plot to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was a longstanding, if seldom enforced, regulation that required broadcasters using the public airwaves to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. It was taken off the books by the Reagan administration in 1987 -- a move that is often credited/criticized for sparking the rise of right-wing radio.

Now it seems that anytime the GOP dips in the polls, up pops news of a secret plot to "drive political talk radio off the dial," to quote the Post. It's red meat for the right-wing base.

But here's the truth: The Fairness Doctrine is never, ever coming back.

And that's a good thing.

A Phantom Threat

In a down year for the GOP, the Fairness Doctrine never fails to rile up the Dittoheads -- a phantom threat that mostly serves to get the pundits peddling it on talk radio shows or to raise money for right-wing media watchdogs.

Brian Anderson of the Manhattan Institute, who wrote the Post article, as well as one two weeks earlier for Investor's Business Daily, is the most prolific of the Doctrine doomsayers. He warns that a Democratic victory could unleash "a full-scale war to drive critics -- especially on political talk radio -- right out of legitimate public debate."

George Will, writing in his widely syndicated Washington Post column, listed vetoing a new Fairness Doctrine as one of the top two reasons to vote for John McCain. "Liberals, not satisfied with their domination of academia, Hollywood and most of the mainstream media," he proclaimed, "want to kill talk radio, where liberals have been unable to dent conservatives' dominance."

Reading op-ed pages and blogs, or listening to some of the conservative talkers, you'd think the Fairness Doctrine was at the top of the Democratic Party platform. But no serious policy advocate in Washington is pushing to restore it. No bill to bring it back is moving through the Democrat-controlled Congress. And Barack Obama, has stated -- unequivocally -- that "he does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters."

But why let reality get in the way of good direct mail pitch?

The Doctrine Won't Work

Some progressives -- and misguided members of Congress, too -- cling to the notion that restoring the Fairness Doctrine would restrain right-wing talk radio. They should see that the Doctrine is just a manufactured controversy that emboldens their opponents.

If you want more balance and variety on the airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine won't do it. It's a poorly designed, constitutionally dubious policy -- one that failed to meet its arguably well-intentioned purpose the first time around.

The old Fairness Doctrine -- which admirably did establish a duty for each broadcaster to cover local issues in their communities -- was infrequently enforced and easy to avoid, as Matthew Lasar details here. Only a miniscule number of complaints filed were ever taken up by the FCC.

And despite the heated rhetoric in the conservative press, progressives should remember that a new Fairness Doctrine would cut both ways. For every complaint about some noxious shock jock's rant, there's sure to be a coordinated attack on "liberal advocacy journalism."

The government simply shouldn't be in the speech-regulating business. Instead of bureaucrats deciding what constitutes "balance," we need policies that encourage -- in the words of the Supreme Court's 1945 Associated Press decision -- "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."

The Real Problem

Political imbalance on the radio dial shouldn't be blamed on the Doctrine's demise. The real culprit is runaway media consolidation. The biggest companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus have swallowed up hundreds of local stations, shuttering newsrooms and supplanting local talent to pipe in the same cookie-cutter, mostly conservative content from coast to coast.

According to a 2007 study by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, 91 percent of the programming is conservative on the talk stations owned by the five biggest commercial radio owners. Clearly those figures don't match the political leanings of the country. But, then again, the nation's media owners don't represent the U.S. population: Less than 8 percent of commercial radio station owners are people of color, and just 6 percent are women.

But media consolidation is also why local news and musical variety are disappearing from the airwaves. It's why many parents won't tune in with their kids in the car, because they're afraid to hear sexually explicit content on the way to school. It's why so many of us -- regardless of our political persuasion -- think the radio seems so much worse than it used to be.

Which brings us to the best reason to abandon the Fairness Doctrine: There's a much better, bipartisan solution.

Forget the Fairness Doctrine

Both the left and the right widely agree that the corporate media is too concentrated and ignores local needs. Instead of policing content, Congress and the FCC should adopt policies to increase the diversity of owners, the choices for listeners or viewers, and the opportunities for new voices to get on the air.

We also need to open up the airwaves with policies that allow more low-power and other community radio stations. We must protect free speech on the Internet and pass "Net Neutrality" laws to keep the phone and cable companies from becoming gatekeepers who decide which content gets preferential treatment.

Rather than trying to limit the range of opinions, we should be working to foster as many alternatives as we can imagine. The public debate we should be having is about how well the media are serving our communities and bolstering our democracy.

The Fairness Doctrine is just a distraction.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Guardian. Read it there if you prefer your color with a u.

Follow Craig Aaron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notaaroncraig

Comments

[Edicius4]

The success of conservative talk radios is not due to the evils of corporations; It is do to supply and demand. The vast majority of liberals i meet in my daily life watch the news and follow politics only is a passing way.

The failure of Air America illustrates how most liberals have little interest in in death discussion of the issues important to the day. Air America ultimately came off as simply anti-american, constantly bashing every aspect of the American Way.

Most of the liberals on this site though, are educated and thoughtful people fortunately; the type that would listen to Air America.

[LeiftheLucky]

Some good points about the Fairness Doctrine, but, never fear? Schumer is already touting it. As to government policies to encourage diversity of ownership, just sounds like another excuse to allow government to infringe on freedom of speech and press. For more...

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/liberalism-is-a-control-thing/

[tomas0808]

I think bringing up the Fairness Doctrine would be playing into the neocon's hands. The real problem is corporate consolidation.

[radiclib]

.
.
Bring it back.
And call it the ``Fairness and Balance Doctrine'' and see if right-wing radio and Fox News Channel want to argue against wording like that.
We are going to win this election big and we will have a whip hand.
Use it!
.
.

[BSERIUS]

There is absolutely no difference between AirAmerica , MSNBC,FOX and"right Wing radio other than ratings and who they spew to...Any attempt at restricting ipinion , even ones you don't agree with, is socialist.

[lemonyashes]

And there is always a good old boycott. Already O'Reilly is falling in the ratings because of Obama's likability so people are turning to Olberman so they don't have to hear their candidate soon to be President trashed. And if their ratings keep on sinking so goes the money to sustain them so quit watching or listening to those that offend. If everyone who voted for Obama refused to listen to the right wing talking heads they will only get the ultra right listeners which may be a dying breed.

[TRYKER]

That old fashioned use of "shunning" seems called for in dealing with the right wing nuts. Shun any of them that keep the lies and attacks and fear mongering alive.
Its time for them to grow up.
I totally agree with you Craig Aaron, its the consolidation in this and a lot of industries that has trouble written all over it.
There is AIG, too big to fail...so WE have to bail them out.
Same with the banks and brokerages.
Media Corporations should be stand alone companies. In fact a lot of Corporations should be stand alone.
We have a lot of reform to do, but NOW is the time, we can't trust anyone to do it for us, we have to demand reform in govt and regulations and keep the pressure on the new administration.

[rafaelkafka]

O'Reilly has the double audience of Olberman and would never be moderate because his audience is a right wing one.47 por cent of this country are conservative.Get Back to earth,

[arvay]

I heartily agree -- the Fairness Doctrine is an inherently bad idea.

Regulation of speech is dangerous. Who gets to decide what's "fair?" It's always going to be those in power, just as surely as deregulation enabled corruption. If the FCC wants to bad a few "dirty words" there's little real harm done. But ruling on political matters should be out of their grasp.

This could be tempting when there's a solidly Democrat administration, but eventually someone else takes over.

Right-wing radio hosts can rally their troops, but their outrageous ideas increasingly alienate the broad mainstream. It will be far more satisfying to see Limbaugh and Hannity gradually assume the role of the Flat Earth Society.

[ladyv]

Well, the thing is, these are public airwaves. Not just anybody can broadcast. There has to be organization to assign the available frequencies, since otherwise it'd just be a big muddy mess. Same with broadcast television. The networks and the radio stations do not pay to buy or rent the airwaves. They're licensed to use our airwaves - airwaves the public owns - for free. In exchange, they have always had some regulations. That's why local stations offer some children's programming, some programming they can call "community service," why they have news broadcasts, etc. That's part of the price they pay for using our airwaves for free. That's why they have decency standards, too.

So, I'm not sure the Fairness Doctrine is inherently bad. In satellite radio, cable TV, on the internet, there isn't a limit to who can "broadcast." There can be (practically) infinite channels and web sites. There cannot be infinite broadcast networks and radio stations. They're finite. So, if a small group locks down ownership of all the licensing, they can completely control what is broadcast, and that's what's happened with radio. I'm not sure reinstituting the FD is what's needed, but there's a problem here with the way this public resource has been hijacked.

[arvay]

Ownership of the media companies is a different matter, and a proper subject for regulation and maybe some rules that dissipate corporate power.

But we're still stuck with the problem of who decides what is "fair." It's much easier to allocate time for public service broadcasts, childrens' programs, cultural events etc. Most of us can agree on what those are. But I think political balance is subjective, and it's risky to have government people, who after all owe their positions to one party or the other, making the call.

Rush Limbaugh's success is due o that fact that he attracts an audience of about 20 million "dittoheads" who are target of advertising. You can say the same about rock stations pushing classical music off the air. Maybe we don't like that, but legislating some "balance" of musical taste doesn't seem to line up with freedom of choice. I'm a classical music lover, but I'd rather focus my efforts on the educational system.

[rjmiller]

What's a "radio"?

[NCGigi]

Limbaugh's show was produced by backers who offered it for FREE to radio stations to get it placed. Meaning, it was free air filler and stations could still sell ads surrounding the program. This is not an example of the free marketplace of ideas holding sway by popular demand. And Limbaugh did not rise until the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

So, radio stations are offered free programming without the requirement to offer opposing views and Limbaugh rises. Not a hard case to make. I'm all for the marketplace of ideas, however, when one political or social view owns the marketplace the opposing views do not get aired. These are facts, inconvenient I agree, but facts none the less.

[archcon]

Does that mean that the major news networks including MSNBC and print media should be forced to offer opposing views as well? I'm referring of course to the overwhelmingly left-leaning slant of those entities. Just wondering????

[burningbushdissident]

No serious policy people are advocating the return of the Fairness Doctrine? Would Nancy Pelosi qualify as a serious policy person? She and others are very keen on it.

[Vurz]

The problem, as I see it, is that until media ownership is back into the hands of the many - we do need a fairness doctrine. Arguably, we only need one for news programs, but we need one.

Let's take a hypothetical news story. Let's say there is a measure being considered in some legislature, state or federal, that would earmark money raised from certain taxes to be spent on children's medical insurance. The vote is Democrats yes-75 no-1 and Republicans yes- 2 and no-78. The measure of course fails 77-79. It was a popular measure with the voters. Here is how it is reported:

Conservative media, papers and radio: Democrats fail to pass children's insurance legislation.

Of course, if you look at the vote totals, you will see that the Republicans are why the bill didn't pass. But those are way down in the story, and before you reach them you have one of the Republicans voting "Yes" talking about the only Democrat who voted "No" and how little they care about children.

This hypothetical situation happened. It wasn't on children's insurance, but a bill with the same general "Almost every Democrat"/"Almost no Republicans" vote was actually reported as "Democrats fail to pass" instead of "Republicans block" or "Republicans vote no" or whatever.

Until we get truth in news, we need the fairness doctrine.

[GregJL]

Weird...I know there is no such thing as a completely neutral viewpoint, but if this headline were phrased like this:

"Children's insurance legislation fails to pass in the legislature."

And then the vote totals are given, it would be probably as close to no bias as you can ever get.

[vegas9999]

Why did you leave out the little fact that Nancy and many other liberals have said that thet want to re-visit the Fairness Doctrine?

[kwalters]

I disagree. These airwaves are a public trust. The FCC has been allowed to concentrate media in fewer and fewer hands. Certainly, regulating ownership and limiting it would be a step in the right direction. Ever wonder why people continue to vote against their own best interests? HELLO! These ditto head sheeple recite right wing talking points. We have never been more polorized than we are now. Do you think it might have something to do with an inordinate amount of right wing zealous nuts spouting their misguided policies and hatred over the PUBLIC AIRWAVES? Liberal Radio is spotty throughout the country. Where you can find it, it is usually confined to the high end of the dial; reception is lousy and the signal doesn't carry as far. Right Wing Nuts will tell you, "Liberal radio is dead. It's not viable. No one listens to that crap!" That's like saying only certain types of comedy is funny. Or only fiction is worth reading. The truth is, talk radio is only as entertaining as the person behind the microphone. PERIOD! There is great radio on the right and there is great radio on the left. However, the left usually questions things like, oh I dunno, Election Fraud? Media consolidation? Consumer protection? Illegal wars? etc. I say bring the Fairness Doctrine back until we can stifle unprecedented media consolidation.

[667NOTB]

Yes, the government should be fair. I earn less than 20k per year, and in the interest of fairness I am glad that all the wealthy donors and movie stars that contributed to the Obama campaign will be paying higher taxes, and that their money will go toward people like me. I'm all for having a Socialist president - just give me a low-ball work quota and a few bottles of vodka like they do in Russia and I'll be happy to help suck the life out of our economy. I'm sure that there are millions of other lazy low-life bums out there just waiting to do the same. Thank you Hollywood ! Eat the rich !

[Catfish1968]

I'm sure that you've been doing nothing but sit around all day everyday, it wouldn't be any different under Obama.

[Yermammy]

Low life bums? You said it. You also included yourself in that. Proof read much?