Now that the President has just signed into law the most massive increase in the size, scope and spending of the Federal government and dealt a serious blow to capitalism, our government now prepares to move on to the next greatest threat to our national security: talk radio.

From all corners of the government you are now hearing calls for action heralding back to those days when the government controlled the content of the airwaves. Within just the past few weeks we have seen statement after statement urging the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine from liberal Congressmen and political pundits alike. So what is causing this sudden demand for the oppression of free speech? To understand this, we must first examine what the Fairness Doctrine is and why it was originally created.

When broadcast communication was in its infancy, the government saw the medium as serving a vital role as a public service to communities by being a medium over which matters of public interest could be discussed. These matters could range from local all the way up to federal and international issues and would be an essential way for the public to gain knowledge of issues that had traditionally had very limited exposure. However, there was the concern that large corporations that possessed vast amounts of capital could potentially monopolize the airwaves by buying up the fairly limited amount of stations, thereby controlling the content and effectively public opinion along with it. Fearing that this would result in a disservice to the communities these stations served, the FCC enacted  rules to prevent the editorialized presentation of the issues. The early attempts to control the content of the airwaves were commonly referred to as the ‘Mayflower Doctrine’. This rather strict doctrine began by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in the late 1930s prevented any and all editorializing by broadcast stations. Yet, by the late 1940s this doctrine had begun to soften as it was dampening public interest in debating the issues. During the decade when the doctrine was in place, the FCC had begun allowing editorializing only so long as an opposing view was also expressed. This led the FCC to enact the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. This doctrine stated that the licensees of the stations were ‘ public trustees’ and had an obligation to cover controversial public issues in a fair and balanced manner by providing reasonable opportunities for opposing views. The commission later went on to include that not only did stations hold this obligation to the public, but that they must actively seek out issues of critical importance to the communities they served and provide ample coverage of those issues.

These protections made perfect sense in the early days of broadcasting, when there were fewer than three thousand radio stations (2,881) with eighty-five million listeners and under a hundred (98) television stations with only four million viewers nationwide. However, today where there are well over ten thousand terrestrial stations (13,837) and more than sixteen hundred (1,606) television stations, most of which are already broadcasting digitally, we have more choices for the 500 million radios and almost 200 million televisions than could have ever been imagined when this archaic legislation was enacted. This does not even take into account the multitude of choices provided by cable, satellite television, satellite radio or digital terrestrial signals. These technologies offer hundreds of choices for consumers far beyond the normal scope of broadcasting making the monopolization of the airwaves and absolute impossibility.

The arguments that supported the Fairness Doctrine sixty years ago utterly fail when faced with modern technology. One such argument was that due to the scarcity of the radio spectrum available to the public, the government must regulate the content to provide balance. While the radio spectrum has not changed much since the inception of the Fairness Doctrine, the way in which it is used most definitely has. This problem was alleviated to some degree with the introduction of FM broadcasting and is seeing its ultimate demise in the form of high definition radio and digital television signals. These new technologies allow for multiple channels and sub-channels to be broadcast in the same space that a single traditional analog signal occupied, providing even more space on the spectrum than ever before.

Another argument was that certain viewpoints are censored in the current market. This stems from the enormous success of conservative talk radio, specifically hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, but the argument itself is unbalanced at best. With the ample medium available on the market there are plenty of opportunities for liberal radio hosts to have shows and build their audiences into the millions such as these hosts and others have done, there just does not seem to be the market for such a thing to happen. National Public Radio is a prime example of a liberal leaning entity that has survived in this aggressive market where Air America is not. Air America, a very liberal oriented network, has attempted to gain a foot hold in the marketplace for years. However, year after year the most notable sound coming from the stations that hosted their personalities, other than the bile and hatred that so often was their format, was the giant sucking sound of money going down the drain. Air America was an unqualified failure because it could not generate a public following and make its sponsors money. They were not forced out of the market by conservative radio; they failed of their own means. That is the way the free market works, although I know most of those supporting this doctrine oppose that as well.

The last argument has always been about the public interest and the encouraging of debate. In this the Fairness Doctrine actually did more harm than good. When the FCC mandated that stations had to actively seek out public issues and provide opposing views for them, many stations went another direction entirely. To avoid the hassle of having to secure opposing positions for controversial issues, many stations decided it far easier to avoid them entirely. This caused a chilling effect on the public airwaves and found many venues turning solely to music programming or other programming that simply avoided critical issues so that no debate took place. There were no great talk show hosts of the 1950s, 60’s or 70’s. There were scarcely any public forums where listeners could call in an express their views over critical issues of the day. There was mostly only nice, safe music or informational programming. The Fairness Doctrine stifled free speech and open debate, the exact opposite of what the FCC originally intended.

Since the repeal of the doctrine, talk radio has exploded. There are AM, FM and satellite stations dedicated to this forum where anyone can call in and get involved in the debate by expressing their views. Now we see the calls for the re-enactment of a doctrine that has no merit in today’s market, actually suppresses the type of behavior it was supposed to protect and would be used to censor an entire market segment for political convenience.  However, we already have seen the signs that it will not stop there. These people have even begun talk to take this style of totalitarian control to the internet, thereby forcing blogs and editorial sites to provide opposing views and enacting government control upon more free speech. I find it odd how they do not assail unabashedly biased networks like MSNBC or CNN, whose hosts claim messianic man-crushes on political candidates and call a sitting President a terrorist and killer while lying through their teeth about the issues, but they attack only those mediums which oppose their political ideologies and challenge their will.

Only a totalitarian government fear the voices of its own people. Only these governments endeavor to suppress and control them.

Welcome to the USSA.