Fairness Doctrine is just plain censorship

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. So does Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) also jumped on the bandwagon. Their reasoning? A recent report by the Center for American Progress that says 91 percent of talk radio is conservative, with the liberal view taking up just 9 percent of air time.

The Center's report, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" is now used as ammunition by Democrats to work out a plan to change ownership rules and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

On Fox News Sunday, Feinstein said that "talk radio is one-sided and 'explosive.' She said it 'pushes people, I think, to extreme views without a lot of information."

Suggesting that talk-radio hosts are not informed is pretty much an uninformed assumption. It seems to me that they are more knowledgeable of the legislation's contents than our representatives and senators in Congress.

But what is the Fairness Doctrine? Why are some Democrats so interested in bringing this back? It was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949 to make sure broadcasters devote time to public interest issues and to make sure they present opposing viewpoints when they did. It was based on the fact that during the 1920's, as radio was being born, Congress declared that the airwaves were public property and wanted to make sure it was regulated.

Having a broadcast license was a public trust that carried with it a public trust to serve all shades of public opinion. When the Doctrine was formulated in 1949, TV was essentially nonexistent, and even in the late 1950's, major cities might have half a dozen stations and small cities were lucky to have two. The explosion of radio and TV came during the 1970's, then came cable, and now the internet where you can find all viewpoints.

It was not surprising that in 1987, the government dropped the Fairness Doctrine. It was unnecessary. Yes, the Democrat-controlled Congress tried to bring it back twice and it was vetoed by President Reagan and George H. W. Bush. It was not a law but a regulation of the FCC.

The need for such a doctrine changed. In 1949, the FCC took the view that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.

Later on, it modified its stance to having an obligation to "actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."

But Democrats are not happy with that. They prefer that if a radio station wants to air Rush Limbaugh, a talk show host with an opposing viewpoint must be given the same amount of time.

Air America did poorly. Is this their way of using the government to force their way into every talk show on the radio?

Yes, there are a finite number of broadcast licenses. It is also true that there are hundreds of cable and satellite channels and XM/Sirius so there is no shortage of choices for Americans.

Fairness Doctrine? Don't need it.

CNS News - Unfairness Doctrine

WorldNetDaily - The 'Shareness Doctrine': Because fair is fair

Here's Senator Kerry for the Fairness Doctrine: