Genachowski is right to oppose the Fairness Doctrine – Part I — VOICES for REASON

Can you imagine anyone advocating for the government to force the New York Times to publish columns by Ann Coulter? Probably not, yet that is the policy that supporters of the Fairness Doctrine would have imposed on radio and TV. Thankfully, in his confirmation hearing, Federal Communications Commissioner, Julius Genachowski, vowed not to resurrect the Doctrine.

I’m no fan of Genachowski–and he is no friend of free speech–but I wholeheartedly support his commitment to keep this noxious policy buried.

A rejuvenated Fairness Doctrine would have required radio and television broadcasters to cover “controversial issues of public importance,” and to do so “fairly,” making time for “contrasting views.” That would have presented them with crucial questions: What qualifies as “controversial issues of public importance”? Which views are broadcasters required to air? How much time is each view entitled to? But as the Doctrine’s history showed, those questions are unanswerable.

Saddled with an inherently vague and incomprehensible rule, many broadcasters would inevitably have taken the safe route and minimized their coverage of controversial issues as much as possible. Why take the risk when a detractor’s complaint to the FCC could trigger a Fairness Doctrine investigation–an invasive and expensive affair, even if the FCC eventually decided not to fine you. (This “chilling effect” on speech was what prompted the FCC to abolish the rule in 1987.)

And what about the brave few who would venture to cover controversial issues? How many of them would have been willing to produce anything but the most bland, conventional, middle-the-road coverage? How many of them would have been willing to challenge their political leaders and risk raising the FCC’s ire?

Unlike the owners of the New York Times, who are free to print or reject any article they wish, broadcasters would have been forced to anticipate and cater to Washington’s preferences. They would not have been able to speak by right, but only on terms dictated by the government.

Nevertheless, there were voices on the left–voices that included Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer–who were eager to resurrect the Doctrine. In my next post, I’ll examine how they justified their support for the Fairness Doctrine.