The Revival of Fairness Doctrine Could be the Snake that Bites Us All

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, November 21, 2008

There is an old Al Wilson song from the early seventies that was a favorite of mine. It tells the story of a “tender woman” that found “a poor half frozen snake”. She takes pity on the animal and the song tells of how she took him into her home, laid him by the fire and gave him honey and milk. After work she comes home to find him fully revived and healthy. As she snuggles him to her chest, he delivers not a word of thanks, but instead inflicts her with a fatal bite. As she lay dying, she asks him why he bit her and in his reply she realized her mistake. “Shut up, silly woman, you knew darn well I was a snake before you took me in.”

Among the whispers coming from Washington these days is the hint that there are many Democrats who think there is another “poor half frozen snake” that needs revival. This snake is the Fairness Doctrine that lived and slithered its way around every radio broadcast and media outlet from 1949 when it was instituted to “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints”. As with many legislative regulations, its original intent may have been grand and glorious, but as it matured it became an ever-present poisonous reptile, threatening the free expression of viewpoints.

The doctrine was initiated by the FCC based upon the idea that the airwaves were the property of all Americans and should not therefore be subject to the threat of a monopolistic commercial enterprise. Its intent was to ensure a fairness by mandating that if one viewpoint was expressed, effort should be made to allow the expression of a contrasting one. The result was not quite the one intended. Instead of going to the trouble of seeking out representatives from every available point of view, broadcasters chose to go the way of many municipalities that chose to close the public swimming pools and playgrounds rather than go to the expense of meeting every regulation demanded by legislators.

Broadcasters found it easier to shy away from all controversial issues and, in effect, squelched the voices of any who would address a subject deemed worthy of a fair response from a conflicting viewpoint.

Faced with the realization that talk radio has become the safe harbor for many on the right to speak, and for their listeners to get unfiltered and unfettered information, Nancy Pelosi and others on the left are looking back at that old snake with increased interest. Asked directly by an interviewer in June 2008 if she would personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Speaker Pelosi responded: “Yes, without hesitation.” Chuck Schumer has also mentioned the need for its revival, even going as far as suggesting that talk radio is not much different from pornography.

So, why should we be concerned if the government steps into the broadcast booths of our radio stations and begins to monitor the content of talk radio? Wouldn’t it be a much better world if an agency such as the FCC could filter and regulate what is said on the air? After all, so much of the talk radio medium is currently dominated by conservative voices and if the government doesn’t step in, the liberal/progressive voices will be forced to the cable news networks and the pages of the struggling New York Times and LA Times.

Today we have more than the three major TV networks as our source of information. There is no fear of monopolization any longer. We have over 2000 AM radio stations broadcasting various talk shows, we have countless web blogs in operation and more being added by the second. Information has never been easier to access.

Like the lyrics of the song remind us, snakes are not easily tamed. If we allow the Democrats to revive this snake, its bite may soon reach to other mediums as well. In fact, a recent article on businessandmedia.org dated August 13, 2008 mentioned that the newly proposed Fairness Doctrine (although it will most likely be called by a different name) will also extend its fangs into the Internet. By claiming that they are trying to achieve fairness and “net neutrality” they will soon wrap their scaly body around every form of speech.

Our forefathers were prescient in their determination that the protection of free speech is essential for the preservation of all the other freedoms. We cannot tell the person standing on the street corner that he cannot voice an opinion without finding a person with a contrasting opinion to stand next to him and voice the opposite view and we should not place that burden on radio programmers or Internet bloggers.

Let freedom rin