Real Media Fairness
by Wes Vernon

Would it be fair to push Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, the G-Man and others like them off the air? That would be the effect of bringing back the government's version of fairness, called the Fairness Doctrine.

In the days of the Fariness Doctrine, millions of conservatives spent decades doing a slow burn---knowing that on controversial issues, their views were often ignored or disparaged in the mainstream media. For evening network news, their choices were ABC, NBC, or CBS, all virtual carbon copies of each other. Viewers detected a liberal tilt.

One reason the “Big Three” sound so much alike is that in their Manhattan headquarters, everyone reads the New York Times—-the writers, reporters, the anchors, and the higher ups. At “story meetings” news chiefs and reporters frequently take their cues from the NYT as to what is and what is not“news.”

So before licensed broadcasters were set free, many viewers around the nation figured maybe they would get a straighter approach to the news from local TV and radio.

Sometimes that worked. More often, the local on-air and producer talent aped the “big boys” at the networks with which their stations were affiliated. I’ve worked at places like that---right smack in the middle of the Red State America.

The local newspaper?

Sorry. The local daily often supplements its wire coverage with the news services offered by the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times—all reliably liberal.

So choices in news product were limited for Americans .

Local TV and radio stations that wanted to editorialize or hire controversial commentators were discouraged by the so-called “Fairness Doctrine," invented and enforced by the Federal Communications Commission. This government enforced fairness decreed that air time devoted to one point of view had to be matched by “equal time” for the opposing position.

Sounds reasonable on the surface. But there was nothing “fair” about it.

In reality, if a station programmer put a Rush Limbaugh on the air for three-hours, theoretically that was OK. But the station would then have to find a liberal talkshow host to balance him for another three hours.

Suppose you couldn’t find a liberal who would draw listeners to attract advertisers to pay for the air time? And you couldn’t afford three hours of air time devoid of advertising? Too bad. You would have to get rid of Rush. That imposed a chilling effect on broadcasters otherwise willing to wade into controversy and take sides. The end result: “Play it safe” with bland meaningless mush.

Stations would find it hard to come up with a liberal host because the public believed it already was getting the liberal line through the networks and the print outlets of the mainstream media.

Clearly labeled commentary is not necessary to get a point of view across. Selective editing can do it.

In 1969, Frank Shakespeare, who was a communications point man for the Nixon White House told a convention of the Radio and TV News Directors in Detroit that most reporters try to be fair and honestly believe that they are fair. But he said when newsrooms attract people who act alike, do alike and think alike, human nature intervenes and plays a major role in judgments as to what to leave in and what to leave out.

In 1986, a federal court held that without congressional approval, the Fairness Doctrine lacked the force of law. So Congress passed such a law. President Reagan vetoed it. Congress did not override. The FCC then junked the doctrine altogether. Since then, Americans starved for a multiplicity of voices have finally found refuge.

Despite the rise of talk radio, cable news (especially Fox), the establishment media remains dominant. But its influence is slowly—but steadily—decreasing. Nightly network news audiences have been shrinking, as have newspaper circulations.

Liberal “Limbaugh’s of the Left” have bombed. The Air America radio network, subsidized by left-wing moneybags (and now under fire over a charity scandal), has had weak ratings.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine appears to have been the unwritten goal of some attendees at a St. Louis meeting last May of a group billing itself as the National Conference on Media Reform. Nowhere in the written agenda is the doctrine mentioned. However, the panel discussions and the scheduled speakers indicate that is exactly what “reform” really means in the context of that gathering.

For example, one panel focused on “Challenging Your TV or Radio Station’s Broadcast License” with discussions on “how to submit your complaints to the FCC, and how to use the licensing renewal as a hook to raise awareness about broadcasters’ service obligations to the community.” The code language there is obvious.

The conference was top-heavy with identified leftists, including Air America’s signature host Al Franken; Medea Benjamin (a speaker at a Workers World Party “peace rally”); Noah Winer of the ultra-liberal Moveon.org.; current FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein who view favorably the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

No identifiable conservatives were listed.

Legislation has actually been introduced in Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. If a Hillary Clinton-like politician gets to the White House, such a bill would not be vetoed. It would become law.

The enemies of free speech never rest. Neither should Americans who treasure real fairness through freedom and competition over government-decreed "fairness."

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

Email the Editor