Fairness Doctrine Boogeyman?
For about the last year, many conservatives and moderates have been fearing the consequences of a possible Democratic campaign to restore the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”. The “doctrine” actually refers to an FCC regulation abolished during the Reagan administration that required radio stations that contained any political content to provide content that was “balanced”. Because station owners feared that any definition of “balance” would be challenged by ideologues seeking anything but balance during licensing renewals, most station owners simply chose to avoid political content altogether instead. And that second-order effect is exactly what those leftists seeking the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” might be looking for — a way to shut down political talk radio formats that they have been unable to compete with.
Now, however, some are claiming that the whole scenario is a fiction invented by conservatives desperate for a rallying cry after broad defeat in the 2008 elections. Would that it were so. Several Democratic members of Congress did in fact state that they supported the return of the “Fairness Doctrine”. While some conservatives might be fairly charged with having exaggerated the significance of those statements, they didn’t make them up entirely.
But if Democrats want to prove conservative critics wrong on this point by refusing to push for a return of the Fairness Doctrine and/or refusing to support it if it is in fact proposed, they are very welcome to do so. Stay tuned — see if they develop amnesia on this one after January 20th.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
In my opinion this is a bellwether issue. Will the Democrats respect the will of the people – we have voted with their wallets and ears on the matter – or will they force government intervention on a market that has no use for what their ideology is selling? In itself a small issue but indicative of who our new leaders really are.
Talk about setting the bar low for Dems. This has been brought up time and time again over the years and no action has been taken, nor is their any real interest in Democratic circles to restore the doctrine. Now all the Dems have to do is, well, nothing, and they make the right-wing hacks look like the crying wolf.