Fairness Doctrine

In recent weeks there has been increased discussion about the reinstatement of the policy labeled as the "Fairness Doctrine." In short, the Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC (and at times a law) until its repeal in 1987 that required any media outlet utilizing the public airwaves to give an equal opportunity to both sides of contentious issues. The rational is that since bandwidth is finite and the broadcasters are licensed users of a public trust, there is a responsibility to present a balanced perspective for the public good. Thus, if a radio station wants to broadcast Rush Limbaugh they must also present an opposing viewpoint. Recently socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic legislators Louise Slaughter and Maurice Hinchey and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich have all public lobbied for the reintroduction of the policy. Rumors abound that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other top Democrats are favorably disposed as well. Here are the main problems with this concept:

1. At the time in which the original Fairness Doctrine was adopted there were very few media outlets from which to glean news. With advancements in technology since 19 it would be hard to argue - though Kucinich does - that there is a lack of information in the public sphere. Though I concede the media consolidation of recent years has lowered the number of media corporation CEOs (certainly not to pre-television levels), by itself this doesn't necessarily creates a media bias in either direction. What does cause media bias is the minimum 20-1 Democrat to Republican ratio in the news rooms of mainstream newspapers and broadcast television.
2. A Democratic Congressional aide recently let it slip that the top 2 targets are Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. This clearly indicates that while the large majority of the consumers of media from the public airwaves receive information from Democratic sympathizers, the left feels the need to silence conservative talk radio - the only source for opposing commentary.
3. The claim that Congress must regulate the "public trust" is really a non-starter. Radio, like other media, is a ratings-driven industry. If the host draws an attentive audience to their program, it becomes profitable for businesses to advertise during that program. With business interest/money comes radio stations who desire to utilize a host's popularity for their own commercial gain. Stay with me here...The public has the choice to listen or not listen to a program, which directly affects the desirability of advertising time during said program, which in turn determines how many stations are willing to syndicate this host. Simply put, the public regulates with its time and money the content of radio (or any other medium) broadcast on their own airwaves. How is this not already fair?

I listen to talk radio not because I have no desire to hear the other side of an issue. In fact, hosts like Micheal Medved, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt specialize in spirited debate on a variety issues. I listen because unlike mainstream media outlets, conservative radio is honest about their biases. A good host dare not gloss over a difficult issue (ie Mark Foley, Bush's shortcomings, etc.) expecting their listeners will not hear about it from another source. The tops hosts take these issues head-on. I prefer to hear a conservative take on current events from a transparent source than from someone who is terrified that his/her biases might be exposed.