IN THE buildup to the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections, several prominent Democratic representatives began to whisper about how a sweeping victory would offer an opportunity to reinstitute an ancient relic of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” If codified into law, the Fairness Doctrine would empower the FCC to silence any news program that it deemed was presenting blatantly biased and unbalanced coverage. Democratic Senator and Party Whip Richard Durbin, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and even our old friend Senator John Kerry have openly expressed interest in reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine to Congressional legislation. Although these Democrats just want to root out the blatantly deceitful and malicious news coverage that undeniably exists out there, they fail to understand the dangerous implications tied to the doctrine’s actual implementation and are only attracting unnecessary negative attention toward their party.
Although not explicitly stated, Democrats seeking the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine are responding to the widespread popularity of right-wing conservative talk radio programs such as the Rush Limbaugh and Lars Larson shows. As a frequent and thoroughly entertained listener of these shows, I have found that their disregard for factual information is superseded only by the insidious narcissism with which their hosts propagate their pathetically assembled worldviews. Even as a Democrat, however, I have come to appreciate these hosts for their relentless bravado and even respect the reality that a huge group of Americans genuinely agrees with what people like Rush Limbaugh are saying these days. Is this a discouraging, perhaps terrifying reality? I’d say so. But is it a just cause for something like the Fairness Doctrine? Absolutely not.
In order to understand the Fairness Doctrine today, it is imperative to examine its origins. In 1949 The FCC adopted the Fairness Doctrine as official policy with the intent of ensuring that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio stations being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Specifically, the doctrine required the holders of broadcast licenses to present “controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.”
Considering the extremely limited number of broadcast stations available to the American people at the time, the idea behind the doctrine was well-intentioned, as it was designed to ensure that the American people received professional news coverage that kept them sufficiently and responsibly informed.
By the 1980s, however, the broadcasting industry in America had changed completely. The scarcity argument that had justified the doctrine’s creation lost all traction as the number of available channels greatly increased through cable TV. The chairman of the FCC, Reagan-appointee Mark Fowler, publicly vowed to kill the Fairness Doctrine for its blatant violation of the right to free speech. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the Supreme Court declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year, a motion that has not been reversed to this date.
The bottom line is that those Democratic representatives who support the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine can provide no valid justification for it in contemporary America. Their recent expression of support for the doctrine stems from a childish bitterness toward the widespread popularity of ultraconservative radio talk shows and reflects their unfounded delusion that the federal government has a legitimate right to regulate it. If anything, any Democrat’s public support for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine serves only to provide Republicans with much needed ideological ammunition to unload on a Democratic Party that has just won such an overwhelming victory. Let’s face it, words like “censorship” and “tyranny of information” are words that a political party under accusations of socialist rule should steer clear of. Also, prominent Democrats’ open support for the doctrine has the capacity to alienate the independents whom the Democratic Party just recently worked so hard to woo.
While I do not think that the Democrats are concealing some conspiratorial plot to take over the entire American media network, the doctrine does pose a threat to the First Amendment. Its codification would set a dangerous precedent for future legislation concerning media regulation. Who or what would determine what is “honest, equitable, and balanced?” If someone like Rush Limbaugh violated a guideline of the Fairness Doctrine, would the FCC really be willing to throw him off the air? How would such a bold, repressive move be perceived by other free democratic societies around the world? It will be a shame if Americans ever know the answers to these questions.
Jed Crumbo’s column usually appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.crumbo@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
