[August 22, 2008]

OPINION: Nanny state 'fairness'

(The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Aug. 22--The Fairness Doctrine sounds so "fair."

Mandating that if a broadcast station airs a point of view, it also must give the opposition time to be heard sounds so "balanced."

And should Democrats win the White House and overwhelming control of Congress on Nov. 4, the Fairness Doctrine (or a subtle version of it) could be brought back from the dead.

But the public should do everything in its power to drive a wooden stake through its heart.

The Fairness Doctrine is evil disguised as goodness. It's fair in the same way the communist Chinese government is fair about airing various points of view at Tiananmen Square. No one gets to speak his mind. The government's doctrine ensures that no one voice dominates that public forum.

The Federal Communications Commission threw its age-old doctrine down the memory hole in 1987, allowing something called "free speech" to flourish on the radio and TV airwaves.

And flourish it did -- with a vengeance.

Too much vengeance, especially on talk radio, says the left. Too many Rush Limbaughs and too few Al Frankens.

So the left is poised to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. If it does, it will hush Rush. And it will cause listeners to think that the bland talk host is called Yawn Hannity. Ho-hum. Goodbye talk radio and hello cooking shows.

This scenario is not theory; it's history.

Until 1987, a station owner risked an FCC fine or loss of the broadcast license for violating the government doctrine. No license means no access to the "public" airwaves. No access means no audience. No advertisements. No revenue. No nothing. Game, set and match.

The FCC doesn't have quite the firepower that China does to enforce fairness. Loss of a license still is preferable to being crushed by a column of tanks. But the effect is the same -- an eerie silence.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, is one of the original co-sponsors of the Broadcaster Freedom Act. It's designed to prevent the FCC from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Walden also owned five radio stations in his home state until selling them in 2007.

"Rather than encourage vibrant dialogue, (the Fairness Doctrine) suppressed it," Walden says.

In the name of fairness, should a broadcaster air all opposing points of view?, he asks. "Which rebuttal is the one that is the other viewpoint?

"When there is uncertainty about opposing viewpoints, when your entire livelihood and license are on the line, and with censors in Washington, it's not worth the risk."

Why shouldn't an atheist demand equal time on a religious broadcast? Or conservatives on NPR?

The bill has about 200 co-sponsors but not one Democrat has dared to add his name, Walden says.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, Walden says. And if there is a President Obama in 2009, chances are that the agent of change in chief will be delighted to change the rules of engagement regarding speech and allow the Fairness Doctrine to again silence talk.

"The last thing this country needs are nannies of the airwaves in Washington to decide what you can talk about," Walden says.

Depending on what happens on Election Day, Walden might not be allowed to say that next year on a radio or TV station -- unless someone else says that the republic needs more nannies.

That sounds fair -- to the nannies.

Dimitri Vassilaros is a Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. His column appears Fridays. He can be reached at dvassilaros@tribweb.com or 412-380-5637.

To see more of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/.

Copyright (c) 2008, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]

Discussions: