Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine

The assumption made by many conservative talkers and others is that the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine would have a deleterious effect on stations airing controversial material. There is no basis for the claim that reviving the Doctrine would function to shut down conservative talk radio. Why? Simply because talk radio hosts whose programs are of a controversial nature typically have OPEN calling allowing for countervailing opinions, e.g., the Rush Limbaugh program. His show met the FD standard for allowing reply time for those with alternative views. The Commission has never audited comments to determine whether any kind of reasonable balance had been achieved. In addition, it never authorized action under the FD based on citizen complaints. There is no history of either administrative or case law in which a station was forced to offer reply time in response to a talk radio program when the FD was in force. If the FD, as previously enforced, was reinstated it would not cover controversial talk radio programs. There is no jurisprudence in which the FD was imposed by the FCC on this format. And there were controversial talk radio programs prior to the demise of the Doctrine.

Sincerely, 

Manny Lucoff, PhD
Professor (ret.)
Telecommunications Law & Policy

• Login or register to post comments

I can understand why Jon Sinton dislikes the Fairness Doctrine. I have not found any broadcaster who favors it, because the rules of the game would apply to the left and and right, and nobody wants the government curtailing free speech. They also don't want a government rule which will impact their bottom line.
But I can drive more than a thousand miles across this great country and never hear Air America. Why do giant swaths of this country hear only Rush and the rest? It isn't just about ratings, as many well performing progressive stations have been taken off the air and replaced with shows that do less well. It is about advertisers, as Mr. Sinton well knows from the infamous memo from 90 major corporations which boycotted Air America Radio. AM radio content is controlled by both the ownership and advertising sides.
The point is, the airwaves are intended to serve the public interest. The public interest in Nebraska, as well as the public interest in NYC. How do we move policy so the public interest is served? Many media reformers believe that changing the ownership model would do the trick. But if corporate advertisers really are the ones in control, they will freeze out any message they do not like, regardless of who owns the station. As one who personally worked under the Fairness Doctrine, I fully understand its pitfalls. Were we to have a Fairness Doctrine, it would have to be revised. Perhaps the better answer is to put teeth into license challenges, so local communities can regain control.

Sue Wilson
Broadcast Blues

• Login or register to post comments