The Fairness Doctrine is anything but

The Fairness Doctrine was first imposed in 1949 stating a broadcasting company must, " afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views." At the moment, the FCC has the authority to reinstate the doctrine without any legislation or executive action. Currently pending, is legislation to reimpose this doctrine into law for good, and legislation to ban this doctrine forever. The debate is on.


In 1987, this rule was revoked due to the fact that it failed to spark discussion of important and controversial issues. Over the years, the number of broadcast outlets have increased tremendously. There is no such reason for the federal government to get involved to try and make sure conflicting views are presented. With all the ways of communication nowadays, all different points of view will be presented many times over. There is also the question of the constitutionality of this rule. Though this issue has hit the courts, the United States Supreme Court has not deemed it unconstitutional. One reason being, the specific case being heard may not have adequately shown the limits of free speech it has imposed. The court has said though they have not seen any rights violations, if violations could be proven, they would reconsider their decision. In another decision, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, they did not deem it unconstitutional but stated, "the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate." The fact of the matter is, it does limit free speech. Let me give you an example. You start a talk radio show that has an hour slot time. You and your friend each have 30 minutes each to get your point across. You are 28 minutes in, and talking to a guest on your show. You guys are in a heated discussion about this topic and listeners are tuning in from around the country. Then two minutes later, you are forced to stop your discussion due to the fact your friend must present his point. That is a limit on free speech. It is a fact, that more Americans tune into conservative talk radio than liberal talk radio. Liberals do not like that conservatives dominate talk radio. I'm sorry people, what makes money, will last longer. It is not like liberals do not have an equal opportunity to host a radio show. They have just as much as a right as conservatives do. Now on the other hand, television airwaves and newsprint are dominated by liberals. Do you see conservatives pushing for fair time for conservatism on television? No. The push for the fairness doctrine is another attempt to silence conservative talk radio by the far left. Everyone needs to accept the fact that the two ideology's will dominate different parts of the media. Also with this rule, would come more federal regulation. Anyone who supports this doctrine please know, the federal government will have to decide for each individual broadcasting outlet what is "fair time" for each of the different views. All that will do is bring about massive lawsuits and censorship. What I mean by censorship is, say a news station gets word of breaking news. Some outlets may be reluctant to show the story, due to the fact it may be unbalanced. Unbalanced news may spark random invesigations into the fairness of the story. The truth of the matter is, the government cannot determine what is fair, nor do they have the man power to enforce it. There is a simple solution to this issue however. If you do not like what is being presented, don't listen. Turn off the TV, radio, or close the web browser.


So lets review. The fairness doctrine should be deemed unconstitutional. It clearly violates the first amendment. It will lead to more federal regulation, massive lawsuits, and censorship. Now after reading this, is this doctrine really fair? If your answer is no, please send a letter to your congressman or congresswoman addressing your concerns.