It is interesting to me that the folks John Thune who benefit the most from not having a Fairness Doctrine are dead set against reinstating the doctrine in 2007. A recent editorial in the Reno Nevada Gazette-Journal which was printed in my hometown paper, The Lancaster Eagle Gazette offers some of the history of the Fairness Doctrine as it was applied to Radio and Television. The FCC required broadcasters to give both sides of an issue and offer equal time to all candidates. The idea being the airwaves belonged to the public and therefore should be representative of the public. No such standard was applied to privately owned newspapers.
Fair enough, so far.
Where I disagree with the editorial is the so called reality test. The author claims the Fairness Doctrine prevented free and open discussion of issues and candidates because radio and TV stations were afraid of running afoul of the rules.
DUH?
Isn’t that a bit like saying I’m not a tax cheater because I’m afraid of running afoul of the law?
Or,
I don’t speed because I’m afraid of running afoul of the speed laws.
Rules are a direction for conduct or a standard procedure for solving a class of problems. The Fairness Doctrine is not a rule based on the idea of shutting folks out, it is just the opposite. The Fairness Doctrine was meant to encourage discussion.
Further along in the same editorial the author claims a vigorous debate is critical to the survival of our democracy. Now, just how can there be a vigorous debate when only one side is presented?
I think it is time for one sided talk radio to depart for the land of tubes and analog dials. If I can’t be assured I'll be given a reasonable opportunity to hear both sides of a controversial issue then give me back the music. A little Buck Owens, George and Tammy, the Beatles, Tommy Dorsey and some Bluegrass on a Saturday night is fine with me.
When our radios started talking to us we not only lost the music, we lost our right to be fully informed.
