Commissioner McDowell's Mistaken Views on Fairness Doctrine

[Commentary] In his recent speech to the Media Institute, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell warned against the return of the fairness doctrine and said that its return might put in jeopardy the entire broadcast regulatory scheme like children's TV rules. I believe he is wrong on several counts. First, the doctrine never required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. It required that broadcasters afford a reasonable opportunity for contrasting views, and it gave them great discretion in discharging this obligation. Second, Commissioner McDowell does not appear to understand the "spectrum scarcity" basis of the doctrine. The scarcity was never based on the number of broadcast outlets, but on available frequencies (which is still true today). Indeed, there is a serious question whether broadcasting should be treated like its main rival cable, and required to pay a modest spectrum usage fee in lieu of the public trustee obligation, with the sums so raised going to a trust fund for public broadcasting, so the latter could render high quality public service in areas like children's TV, in-depth informational programming, cultural and minority fare. Others argue that the public service obligation should be clarified and made more effective. The appropriate regulatory scheme for broadcasting in the 21st Century is the overriding issue - not this skirmish over the unlikely re-appearance of the fairness doctrine, especially with mistaken notions of its nature and operation.

(Henry Geller was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (NTIA) in the Carter Administration and FCC General Counsel in 1964-1970.)