The so-called Fairness Doctrine

The old Equal Time Rule, often called the Fairness Doctrine has recently reared its head. Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have mentioned in passing that it may be time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Even former President Bill Clinton seems to have become an apostle of reviving the doctrine. It is highly unlikely to even see a Senate committee room but the mere mention of it has caused much wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

The Fairness Doctrine was a federal rule that required broadcasters (but not newspapers or magazines) to present opposing views on controversial subjects. The Rule was abolished in 1987. The Rule required a broadcaster to present a view in opposition to the one it presented on what the Federal Communications Commission decided was a controversial subjects and to present that opposing view at the broadcaster's own expense and not the oppositions expense. The results was to chill free expression of views on anything that coould be considered controversial.

As I sat thinking about that several thoughts came to mind. Everything in the U.S. these days is a controversial subject. It would be easy to create a controversy over breathing in public, which spreads germs and disease. I wonder what it would be like if all of the atheist in the country demanded equal time from christian broadcasters to espouse atheism, equal in time to the christian doctrines promoted?

There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. One of the reasons people start a publishing or broadcasting business is to influence public opinion. They certainly want to influence public opinion to a view with which the publisher / broadcaster agrees. This has been the case since shortly after Gutenberg created a printing press. The creation of radio and television did not change that. In fact, it made it even more inviting. Making a broadcaster give equal air time to any view which the broadcaster does not agree and not allowing the broadcaster to charge market rates for those opposing views is a taking of private property (use of equipment, personnel, electrical service, etc) without just compensation. This is a violation oft the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

I do not believe that a new Fairness Doctrine will be reinacted but if one is, I assume that at least five of the nine Supremes will have the courage to rule the government has committed a foul. Just some thoughts while thinking.