IS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE FAIR?

Before “1984” became a real year, Big-Brother-like politicians were using euphemisms to name legislative bills and administrative law. One such example: the Fairness Doctrine.

 

Nothing was much fair about undermining – perhaps suborning -- the speech and press freedoms among the five freedoms in the First Amendment..

 

Thankfully, the Federal Communications Commission undid the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Now, because of the perceived influence on public opinion by talk radio, moves are being made in Congress to reinstate the doctrine.

 

Old arguments about the so-called scarcity of space on the electromagnetic spectrum – the airwaves – the government has a right to regulate the content, particularly the political content, that is broadcast. More about that later.

 

Citizens have a right to criticize their government because “We the People …do ordain and establish this Constitution for the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States of America.” If the government could decide what could be said in criticism, there could be no freedoms, such as those guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Because those speaking about government and those writing and publishing opinions about it were protected from governmental interference when the Bill of Rights was ratified 1791 it is only rational to assume that words and images about government would have been protected had broadcasting  been invented by then.

 

Is that not logical? Why then the argument?

 

Broadcasting is inherently no different than the print media in transferring facts, ideas, entertainment, indeed, lies and deceits for that matter. In fact, neither are cable, the internet, broadband, sideband and whatever else might come along. Even proponents of the Fairness Doctrine must admit it does not apply to the content of cable because cable is not part of the electromagnetic spectrum and thus cannot be parceled out to licensees.