Yip Yap Times

The Fairness or Unfairness Doctrine?

Whenever you hear words like “fair” and “fairness” coming out of the mouths of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein you know that your wallet or one of your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are up for give-and-take negotiations: you give, they take. This latest Democrat move to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine is nothing but an underhanded attempt to silence the opposition.

The Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was applied by the FCC back in the days when there were only three broadcast stations and the radio played only the top 40. The Fairness Doctrine was put in place to ensure that broadcasters presented a variety of views on controversial subjects, beyond their own. The FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 when it was found that it had the net effect of reducing rather than encouraging debate. Broadcasters tended to avoid controversy because they feared government fines and the potential loss of a federal license. The lack of real debate in the airwaves maintained the political status quo that was promoted by the print media.

With advancement in communications technology the Fairness Doctrine is an anachronism. It makes one wonder why the hard sell to put it back in place. The liberals don't lack for opportunities across the spectrum of American media outlets. They dominate the print media, the mainstream broadcast news, most of the cable news stations and the taxpayer-funded National Public Radio. How many conservative stations are supported by the taxpayer?

Clearly, the Democrats’ real target is to reduce the influence of the conservative voices on the AM band. The conservative radio talk shows have been so effective in providing fair debate to the Left’s ideas that Diane Feinstein has blamed them for the defeat of the immigration bill. That is, their unchecked bias was to blame and hence the need for “balance” on talk radio. Does Feinstein believe that all the rest of the comfortably liberal media was insufficient to loudly provide alternate views to those of a few radio shows? “Balance” is liberal speak for domination. The immigration bill failed because the liberals and their media lap dogs didn't have a leg to stand on and thanks to conservative radio shows, the American public found that out. Without conservative radio to balance the rest of the media universe, the American public will remain vulnerable to half-truths and flat out harmful liberal ideas.

The Democrats' sudden interest in fairness begs the obvious question: will MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, the editorial page of the New York Times and Bill Moyers will be required to give equal time to opposing viewpoints? Hardly. The problem is that the Left's 1960s nihilistic social and political ideology has been and will continue to be summarily rejected by a majority of the American people who, having suffered decades from the fruit of their policies, demand common sense and rightness in governance. Since the Left's ideas cannot compete, the left wing of the Democrat Party is seeking to use the power of the Legislature to shut down the competition. The First Amendment be damned, full speed ahead. If the so-called Fairness Doctrine comes back to life, what is to stop the Left from regulating the internet?

Thank goodness Representative Mike Pence (R-6th Indiana) is on his toes. On June 29, he introduced, along with 100 sponsors, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill that would prevent the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Pence's legislation is critical to ensuring actual fair and balanced debate of controversial issues. To squelch conservative talk radio is to set the country up for extremely bad, and even dangerous, governance and it is un-American to boot.

posted by Lisa @ 8:50 AM