The candidate is buying the time.

What does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with it when it’s a Paid Political Announcement and qualified as such?

John McCain has all the right – and money – in
the world to match Obama’s media buy in the deregulated, free-market post-Fairness Doctrine broadcast universe; one in which, the majority of broadcast talk radio is in fact 24/7 extremist Right Wing–and has been for nearly a decade.

So just what exactly is it you’re complaining about again?

I am willing to concede some validity in your definition of The Fairness Doctrine and of the potential of abuse by those who operate radio stations; but that alone, as you choose to overlook or ignore the implications of it. While correct in pointing out that Conservative hosts currently dominate the market, you ignore the place of both NPR and Air America in radio. You say that there is nothing democratic in this dominance, ignoring the rights of the listeners to choose what they will hear. These are commercial radio stations whose owners serve their listeners and judge their product by how well it sells. If the market, as defined by the those that listen cannot be trusted to choose what they will hear, who will, you or a government agency perhaps? Is this not the totalitarian horror that you reject? No, if the liberal talk hosts were capable of generating a wider audience appeal, they should easily be able to find a home on the airwaves.

What’s more, like most who cry out for the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, you seek to limits its affect to radio alone. If this doctrine is valid, should it not extend beyond the radio airwaves? Will we mandate Fairness on television as well? Will cable stations be obligated to follow the same guidelines as those of broadcast television? Should newspapers be likewise obligated to provide Fairness in their editorial policies, and equal space to opposing views? Surely you will not deny a liberal bias in both of these media? Are they to remain in this equally tainted state, or are they exempt because they espouse perspectives more closely aligned with your own? Perhaps then, it is only these extreme Conservative voices the need be silenced?

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. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.