Fairness doctrine abandoned to free market effects 1987
It was the end of the civilized world, to hear some react to the prospect of unregulated debate. Without the Fairness Doctrine, predicted one Congressman, “Candidates would lose the right to reply, parties out of power would not be able to respond, radio stations could allow supporters of one candidate to dominate the news, and local and state ballot issues could no longer be covered.” “I am concerned that . . . broadcasters could use the public airwaves as their bully pulpit,” said another. “They could every day pound away at their point of view, with absolute, total disregard to the other point of view.”
The national director of Americans for Democratic Action simply warned that “The public would be considerably less informed if the Fairness Doctrine is repealed.” Supporters twice passed bills in Congress to make the FCC regulation into law, only to be frustrated by Presidential veto.
And yet, nearly two years later, the sky has not fallen. Radio and television stations did not suddenly become vehicles for one-sided debate. The opposition party is still getting its weekly reply to the President’s Saturday radio message. Election-year coverage clogged the airwaves with news and views about candidates, conventions, and issues.
However, the new administration may turn out less hostile to the Fairness Doctrine. A Federal court has been asked to review the FCC’s decision to abolish the doctrine. Some background will help us understand why the old doctrine may yet rise out of its coffin.
“A Facade of Pious Theories”
The Fairness Doctrine was a cornerstone of government regulation of broadcasting. Ernest Holdings, the U.S. Senate’s most eloquent proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, identifies four assumptions underpinning broadcast regulation:
1. “A valuable public resource, the electromagnetic spectrum, remains scarce relative to demand; broadcast channels are limited, despite the introduction of new video and audio services.”
2. Congress in the Communications Act of 1934 “has chosen a system where a select few are licensed to utilize the broadcast spectrum in exchange for a commitment to operate in the public interest as public trustees.”
3. “The doctrine has permitted those who do not own broadcast stations to have an opportunity to participate in important public debate and has provided the public with a greater range of views upon which to make informed decisions.”
4. The doctrine is simply “no more than good journalistic practice that does not chill the speech of broadcasters.”