View From the Phlipside Radio - Fairness Doctrine

My name is Jay Phillippi and I've spent my life in and around the media.  TV, radio, the movies and more.  I love them, and I hate them and I always have an opinion.  Call this the View from the Phlipside.

On Monday of this week an era ended in the world of broadcasting when the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, removed the Fairness Doctrine from the official regulations for broadcasters.  This was probably an inevitable move given that President Reagan abolished it back in  1987 and the FCC has declined to enforce it for at least a decade.  The Doctrine itself has been a subject of some disagreement even within the broadcasting industry.

First let’s be clear what we’re talking about.  The Fairness Doctrine called upon broadcasters to insure that controversial issues were discussed in an equitable, balanced and honest manner.  It shouldn’t be confused with the Equal Time rule which covers political candidates. The Doctrine first appeared in 1949 and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the FCC did in fact have the right to enforce it in 1969.  It’s original intent was to insure that in a time of limited media outlets (1949 is still pre-TV as a mass media) all matters would be heard on the public airwaves.

So what was the discussion all about?  Opponents have always maintained that the Doctrine limits free speech and was burdensome to the broadcasters.  They also point out that the days of limited access to the media is past.  That’s certainly true.

And yet I have a problem with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine.  The idea that requiring discussion of controversial issues chills free speech has always struck me as absurd.  Most importantly for me is the idea that we are changing the rules not to insure the best for the American public, the traditional owners of the airwaves but to benefit the license holders.  Once upon a time the idea was that broadcasters were privileged to use the public airwaves and in return the American people required certain guarantees about how those airwaves were to be used.  Today the standard seems to be that the broadcaster is to be given the maximum freedom to what they feel is best for their listening audience.  I will grant that quality programming that covers all the issues is possible under the new paradigm.  I just think that in a world where one company can own over a thousand radio stations in our nation a few requirements on how the airwaves are used would only be, well, fair.

Call that the View From the Phlipside