In 1927, Congress directed the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in a way requiring licensees to serve the “public convenience, interest or necessity.”
The future of radio was hotly debated: Should it be public or private?
Basis for the Fairness Doctrine
The debate included early arguments about how to address the public interest, as well as fears about the awesome power conferred on a handful of licensees. The limited early technology allowed a low number of potential licensees for an asset, the airwaves, that belonged to the public. As trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees had to accept public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves.
In 1949 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Fairness Doctrine. The doctrine was to ensure a variety of views were carried on the airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.
Intent and Effect of the Fairness Doctrine
The doctrine required all broadcasters, to provide air time for views differing from the views that were heard through regular programming. It was an equal time provision. It hung like a sword of Damocles over a broadcaster’s license. If there was a citizen complaint that the alternative view of a subject was not covered, an FCC investigation was a threat.
The doctrine was intended to promote public information about important issues; it often had the opposite effect. Broadcasters would avoid issues except to meet certain public interest license requirements. That way there would be no obligation to provide free air time. The doctrine stifled discussion rather than promoted it. There are important First Amendment considerations as well.
The Fairness Doctrine and Presidential Debates
In 2008 the American people had the benefit in their decision making process of seeing Senators McCain and Obama discuss the issues three times. Governor Palin and Senator Biden and Senator Biden got together in a national broadcast as well. The history of such debates goes to Nixon-Kennedy in 1960, which almost did not happen due to the Fairness Doctrine.
In any presidential election there are many ballot qualified candidates besides those of the major parties. The Fairness Doctrine’s equal time component required qualified candidates to receive similar consideration as those of the major parties. No broadcaster wished to make available time for every minor candidate, and hence a reluctance to provide coverage of the major candidates. An exemption for “new events” was created, allowing Nixon-Kennedy to go forward, creating a great American tradition.
Because of issues with the Fairness Doctrine, and the need to come up with exemptions, no debates took place again until 1976. Though the issues were addressed the Doctrine actually stood in the way of broadcast discussion by major office seekers. That was on a national level, local debates were limited by the same considerations.
1987 Repeal and Divided Government
In 1987, the FCC, with members appointed by Ronald Reagan, repealed the Fairness Doctrine. In 1988, Congress passed legislation to restore the doctrine, and failed to override a veto by Reagan. In 1991 another Democratic congress attempted again, but fell short under a threat of a veto by President George H. W. Bush. Divided government stood in the way of reinstatement.
Technology Overcomes Communication Limits
Since 1949, the media of communication have grown exponentially. Broadcast outlets number in excess of 11,000 radio stations. The average US home receives 118 television channels. There’s the internet, available to 72% of the United States population.
Anyone who wants to find an outlet to express views on important public issues can find a pulpit. The nature and quality of those ideas are likely to determine whether or not they can find an audience. Since 1987, there has been a tremendous growth in talk radio expressing views of hosts and the audience. Freedom from government regulation has lead to vigorous and open public debate. The philosophical need for the doctrine has been superseded by technology.
Democrat Party Support
The Democrat Party now has both houses of Congress and the White House. Leading Congressional Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, Senator Kerry, Senator Feinstein, Rep. Dingell all support reinstating the doctrine. A close ally of President-elect Obama, Senator Durbin thinks it’s a good idea.
Though Mr. Obama has said he does not favor the doctrine, that is much different from indicating a Reagan like veto.
 |
