Why the Fairness Doctrine was Dumb.

Inquiry:


The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation created by the FCC in order to ensure that news broadcasters presented controversial issues in a balanced manner. It was abolished in 1987 because it was deemed as a restriction of free speech. Since then, some supporters have called for its reinstatement.

It does not make any sense to revive the Fairness Doctrine. The Doctrine is vague and therefore easy to exploit.

The Fairness Doctrine demands that broadcast media “air and engage in controversial-issue programs that affect their communities.” But what is a “controversial issue?”

Consider, for instance, the idea of perpetual motion machines. Anyone with a high-school education in physics can understand why such machines are impossible. Yet every few months, another self-described “amateur engineer” breaks news with his or her claim of some new device that defies the laws of thermodynamics. When these misinformed individuals find their work criticized by legitimate scientific organizations, they often end up railing against the “scientific establishment.”

Does a case like this constitute a worthy controversy? If the Fairness Doctrine were to be followed to the letter, then the answer would appear to be ‘yes.’ After all, a machine that could keep working forever without a regular influx of fuel/energy would impact every community in the world. It would solve every major resource problem known to mankind. And there are clearly two opposing sides – those who defend the integrity of observable science, and those who imagine they’ve had a breakthrough that just isn’t recognized.

But few would seriously suggest that we should place empirical fact and unsubstantiated nonsense in an equal forum on a regular basis. Once the facts are demonstrated to enough of the public, the time and money spent on presenting false material will simply become a waste for the broadcaster.

The above example may seem far-fetched, but this is exactly what happened with anti-smoking campaigns in 1971, just in reverse. It was clear to the tobacco companies that their advertisements would appear to be hollow propaganda when presented side-by-side with the facts. So they bowed out altogether. But observe – assuming all other things to be equal, if the Fairness Doctrine were still in effect, every anti-smoking campaign or warning would have to be coupled with an equal amount of space for pro-smoking advocacy.

There is simply no reason for the Fairness Doctrine – or any other similar regulation - to exist in today’s world of multiple media formats. Between the Internet, hundreds of cable channels, extended radio platforms, and other forms of media, any controversies that need to play out have plenty of options. It should no longer be the responsibility of any single station to represent the broad span of the “public interest.” Rather, people need to become more proactive in seeking out and supporting the stations that carry programming relevant to their individual interests.