Be Not Idle

On February 5th, Michigan’s own Sen. Debbie Stabenow declared her support for a new “fairness doctrine” on the Bill Press Show: The Official Morning Show of the Obama Generation. (No, I’m not making up the subtitle. See Mr. Press’s website.)

It’s been nearly 22 years since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed the Fairness Doctrine to die a natural death. But some politicians are talking about reviving it like Frankenstein’s monster. Unfortunately, the average American thinks the Fairness Doctrine is a noble creature, brought into the world with noble intentions – not suspecting it will turn into a twisted thing.

I started taking Communications classes in the fall of 1987, just before the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. My professors, almost all Democrats and liberal to a person, had students read about and discuss the Fairness Doctrine even after it was gone. Why? Because it was a perfect case study of the Law of Unintended Consequences in action!

The Fairness Doctrine was supposed to PREVENT censorship, not force controversial subjects off the air. It was seen as an improvement over the Mayflower Doctrine, which prohibited any editorializing on the airwaves. (I remember hearing about a baseball fan who filed a complaint because the game announcers spoke so poorly of his team. But that could just have been an unfounded anecdote, so don’t quote me!)

Because there were a limited number of frequencies, the FCC made sure the licensees understood their obligation to use the precious resource for the public good. The Fairness Doctrine required that the licensees 1) cover controversial subjects of public importance and 2) devote time to more than one side of the controversy.

That was all.

If you hear discussions of “equal time”, “equitable timeslots”, etcetera, please understand those aren’t from the Fairness Doctrine. Those are terms arising from debates about how far the Fairness Doctrine could be stretched. For example, is it really “fair” if a Democrat spoke during a rush hour timeslot but the Republican’s rebuttal comes at 10 o’clock, after the commuting audience were busily working instead of listening to the radio? It was merely an academic question to provoke discussion, not a debate using legal precedent.

If you hear the term “equal opportunity”, that comes from the Federal Communications Act of ’37 (or ‘36?). It applied to political candidates. For example, if Mr. Obama addressed the radio audience before the primaries, the station would have offered Mrs. Clinton and Republican candidates a chance to repond. It didn’t apply to non-politicians. So if Al Franken ranted for 20 minutes, I would NOT have to offer Rush Limbaugh 20 minutes to rant – although if I were a licensee I would, because THAT would make an interesting program. (And if I had a TV license, I’d make it a CAGE MATCH!)

What alarms me the most is that some journalists seem ambivalent about a new Fairness Doctrine. Journalists – real journalists who stayed awake during their mandatory classes of Media Ethics (yes, there are), Media History and Media Law – should be howling protests at the very idea of a revival.

Because of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast journalists didn’t have the same free speech rights as print journalists. Station managers had to be very careful that if any controversial subject arose, they would be able to present opposing views. If not, they risked fines, firings or loss of the station license. As a result, there was a strong incentive to take the easy way out: avoid controversial subjects. So the Fairness Doctrine, which was supposed to open the airwaves to healthy public debate in the “marketplace of ideas” instead had a “chilling effect” on news programs.

I remember AM radio being dominated by niche music formats (Mel Tormé, anyone?) and Swap Shop, a local call-in show for people with items to buy, sell, or trade. Today there’s a greater variety of formats, and it appears that the current stations would still meet Fairness Doctrine guidelines.

For example, WJR in Detroit has programs that routinely discuss controversial subjects. Whether it’s “conservative” Paul W. Smith talking about the latest city scandal or “centrist” Mitch Albom discussing the stemcell proposal before it was approved by Michigan voters. Within the programs, they accept callers from all sides of the controversy.

The FCC rightfully let the doctrine lapse when new technology exploded in the ’80s. TV and radio were no longer the only “instantaneous” access news and information. Today there’s a plethora of truly “instant access” media. The public debates controversial subjects in print, blogs, and videos.

I admit, however, I wish they would stick to the old standard of controversies of public IMPORTANCE, not whether a teenaged actress was puking because she was a) drunk, b) anorexic, or c) poisoned by her rival in love.

But I digress. The fact remains that the Fairness Doctrine inadvertantly restricted First Amendment rights. I suspect that the revivalists are not ignorant of history. They’re deliberately trying to stifle free speech to the right.

NOTE: Senator Debbie Stabenow has a horse in this race: husband Tom Athans. He co-founded Democracy Radio in 2002 to combat rightwing radio.  In 2005, he became executive vice-president of Air America, in charge of new program development.  Air America went under, but he co-founded Talk USA Radio in 2006. A new Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations to hunt for syndicated radio shows on the left – exactly Athans’ specialty.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS