The FCC announced it was doing away with dozens of rules today, including the Fairness Doctrine--perhaps one of the most widely misunderstood media policy concepts of all time. As the Hollywood Reporter put it:

Bound to get the most attention though is ditching the Fairness Doctrine, an idea that was meant to force radio broadcasters into offering as much left wing political content as they offer right wing commentary.

This is the Fairness Doctrine as imagined by right-wing talk show hosts as a way to scare listeners. Rush Limbaugh called it the "Hush Rush Bill," and claimed that it would force radio stations to air liberal programs or face FCC sanctions.  That was nonsense.

As FAIR's Steve Rendall explained in a fantastic piece in Extra! (1-2/05), the Fairness Doctrine did not mandate anything resembling equal time (a misconception advanced by an array of conservatives, but also by liberals hoping to force ideological balance on the nation's airwaves).

He wrote:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Rendall went on to describe the upside of the Fairness Doctrine:

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

Politico reported (2/16/09) that a new poll shows that support for the Fairness Doctrine has dropped. Unfortunately, the policy described in the poll question bears no relationship to the Fairness Doctrine as it actually existed.

The Rasmussen polling firm asked respondents whether "the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary." But the Fairness Doctrine never called for equal time for any points of view; it actually required, as codified in a 1959 amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, that "a broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance."

What was "reasonable" was deliberately left vague; in practice, the FCC interpreted it as requiring something like one hour of rebuttal for every five hours devoted to promoting a particular point of view.  In other words, a talkshow where the callers got as much airtime as the host, and where one out of every three callers disagreed with the host, would be perfectly in compliance with the Fairness Doctrine, without any other programming required.

Given that much more extreme and intrusive policy invented by the pollsters was only rejected by a modest plurality, you have to wonder how an honest description of the policy would poll.

See Extra!: "The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It, and Why We Need It Back" (1-2/05) by Steve Rendall.

After giving a dubious account of the causes of the Democrats' 1994 electoral disaster, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (11/14/08) provides an inaccurate description of the Fairness Doctrine, which he calls

a federal regulation (overturned by the Reagan administration in 1987) requiring broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing political viewpoints. Under this doctrine, three hours of Rush Limbaugh on a radio station would have to be balanced by three hours of his liberal equivalent. This may sound fair and balanced. But it is a classic case where the "unintended consequences" are so obvious that those consequences must be intended. It would destroy the profitability of conservative talk radio and lead other outlets to avoid political issues entirely--actually reducing the public discussion of controversial issues.

I have to say--if that's what the Fairness Doctrine was, then I would be against it. But it was never an equal-time rule; instead, it required broadcasters to provide some coverage of controversial issues and to make some provision for opposing views. In practice, the FCC would accept roughly a 5-to-1 ratio as providing adequate balance. Far from making conservative talk radio impossible, a talkshow format in which the host occasionally takes calls from listeners who disagree was an easy way for stations to fulfill their Fairness Doctrine obligations.

The genius of the Fairness Doctrine was that it balanced the broadcasters' First Amendment right to express their point of view with the reality that the government is granting a monopoly to license-holders to broadcast on a particular frequency--in effect saying that they and no one else has a right to express themselves on that particular street corner. The Fairness Doctrine says that every once in a while, you have to let someone else share the soapbox. I wonder why right-wing pundits find that so threatening?

News Corpse blogger Mark Howard chronicles (11/12/08) how "pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc." are not just "on the wrong side of public opinion in the recently concluded election," but "are also losing listeners and viewers who are rapidly awakening to the dishonesty and hostility wafting through the conservative media's airwaves":

In a feat of denial, though, the conservative punditry is barreling headlong into a campaign of fear-mongering and frightful tales of censorship. They believe, and hope to persuade others, that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are surreptitiously plotting to reinstate the dreaded Fairness Doctrine that their hero, Ronald Reagan, vanquished 20 years ago. Should that happen, they say, their little ideological monopoly of the air will come crashing down. The main problem with their scare tactic is that there is neither substance nor truth in it.

Howard patiently explains that, "what's more, Obama has explicitly stated his opposition to the Doctrine on multiple occasions."

Which is too bad, actually. Read FAIR's magazine Extra!: "The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It, and Why We Need It Back" (1-2/05) by Steve Rendall