The Democrats in Congress have started to talk about reviving the Fairness Doctrine—the abandoned FCC policy that required broadcast outlets to present controversial public issues in what the agency determined was an honest, equal and balanced fashion. The chief proponent of revival is Congressman (and Presidential candidate) Dennis Kucinich, and even though Kucinich is not considered a mainstream legislator, his idea has been picked up by Senators John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein. These proposals are a reaction to conservative representation in the field of talk radio, which Feinstein complained “pushes people to... extreme views without a lot of information.”

It is doubtful that we would even be addressing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine if programs like Air America did as well as those of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Until 1967, the principles that now make up the Fairness Doctrine were applied selectively. In 1967, however, the Doctrine was incorporated into the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine was initially upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, but a series of later Court rulings—Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo and FCC v. League of Women Voters—pushed in the other direction. Eventually, in 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by unanimous vote. Congress attempted to revive the Doctrine legislatively that same year, only to have President Reagan veto the attempt. Congress made another effort in 1991, but the threat of a veto from President George H.W. Bush was enough to derail the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Now, with Democrats back in power in Congress and facing a politically weakened President, the time seems ripe for Democrats to try again. No one doubts that it would be good politics for Democrats to try to blunt the influence of conservatives on talk radio. But good politics doesn’t always make for good policy, and efforts to revive the Fairness Doctrine should be defeated.

While Democrats complain that the Doctrine is needed in order to bring balance to a talk radio field supposedly dominated by conservatives, the true nature of talk radio is more nuanced. As Tom Finnigan points out, talk radio is full of varied and contradictory opinions regarding the issues of the day. Given that the Fairness Doctrine is all about giving equal time to differing points of view, it is difficult to see how it could be enforced in a political environment where—as Finnigan highlights—there are often more than two sides to a given story.

Another problem with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine has to do with the impact the Doctrine will have on the nature of speech. Consider the following statement:

Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.

Those were the words of Bill Ruder, the Secretary of Commerce during the Kennedy Administration. As James Gattuso argues in quoting Ruder, the Fairness Doctrine would force speech to become dull and colorless in order for speakers and broadcasters to avoid running afoul of the Doctrine. In Gattuso’s words:

Station managers whose programming ventured too far into controversial subjects could quite easily find themselves subject to a fairness doctrine challenge. And even if the challenge ultimately failed, the cost of defending against it could be substantial. So the safe route for most was to stay far away from controversy. As a result, policy discussion on the airwaves for decades was, for the most part, as bland as cottage cheese.

It is important to note Gattuso’s observation that the Fairness Doctrine could be—and has been—similarly used by Republican Administrations against their political opponents. The sword of the Fairness Doctrine cuts both ways and while it may currently seem that the Doctrine would most harm conservative radio hosts, efforts by liberal radio hosts and broadcasters like Ed Schulz and Air America to make it in the talk radio world could also fall victim to it.

As Derek Hunter writes, reviving the Fairness Doctrine would mean crippling or killing off talk radio as a whole, since stations will not be able to afford balancing each conservative radio program with a liberal one. Liberal radio programs like Air America have had trouble gaining traction in the market. No radio station will want to take on a (thus far) market loser like Air America merely to comply with the dictates of the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, the political talk format as a whole will lose its viability. It is doubtful that we would even be addressing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine if programs like Air America did as well as those of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

And of course, it is puzzling that we are discussing the revival of the Fairness Doctrine in light of the overwhelming evidence of political bias on the part of mainstream reporters. The reporters of the mainstream media are resolutely and monolithically in favor of the policies and programs of the Democratic Party, so much so that they even at times violate the policies of their own news organizations to donate considerable amounts of money to the Democratic Party. Imagine how much more pronounced that imbalance would be if the Fairness Doctrine were used to wipe out any vestige of a conservative presence on talk radio.

The Fairness Doctrine, if revived, would wipe out the talk radio field and would leave unchallenged the serious and pronounced ideological bias that exists in mainstream media. Presidents Reagan and Bush the Elder were right to let the Fairness Doctrine wither away. Here’s hoping that it doesn’t get a second act.

Pejman Yousefzadeh is an attorney living in Illinois. He blogs at A Chequer-board of Nights and Days, and Red State.

Image credit: Photo by Flickr user goldberg