Open Forum: Should citizens be concerned about 'Fairness Doctrine'?

To the dismay of many broadcasters, the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was abolished by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987, may be coming back, but perhaps under another name.

Because the public owns the air waves through which broadcast signals are transmitted, the FCC policy had two basic elements: Broadcasters were required 1) to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and 2) to air contrasting views regarding those matters.

“Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views,” says Steve Rendall of F.A.I.R. (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). “It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.”

So what’s wrong with that? Other than the Fairness Doctrine being government-controlled speech, the answer may lie in whether you are of the liberal or conservative persuasion. Citing editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, Bloomberg.com reports that “Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio.”

To get some answers, I contacted Bob Steel, the show host of “First News,”a talk radio program on KARN News Radio in Little Rock. Bob has the credentials to talk knowledgeably about the Fairness Doctrine—30 years in broadcast journalism as a reporter, producer, executive producer, assistant news director and news director at television stations, including NBC affiliate KARK-TV and ABC affiliate KATV in Little Rock.

Downs: What about the Fairness Doctrine?

Steel: There’s really not a whole lot wrong with it when you think about journalism, which is supposed to present both sides of an issue. I never had a problem with the Fairness Doctrine because my journalism training taught me that I should include both sides of an issue when I was doing a hard-news story and let the listeners or viewers make up their minds.

Downs: Is there a downside to the Fairness Doctrine?

Steel: What I have a problem with is someone says I am required to do this. When you are an opinionated talk-show host, whether a liberal or a conservative, the listener or viewer knows that going in so we should be free to discuss anything we want to in any way we want to, as long as we are not using filthy words that are prohibited by the FCC and also by good taste. It’s just like editorial writers for newspapers. You read what they have to say and figure out which side of the issues they are on. They have the right to say whatever they want to say. I feel the same way toward liberal and conservative talk-show hosts. They have the right to say whatever they want to say, to believe anything they want to do. And we have the right listen to them or not to listen to them.

Downs: What about the “chilling effect” that some broadcast journalists say keeps them from tackling controversial issues because they are required to provide all points of view?

Steel: I think that has more to do with the manager you are working for rather than the on-air persons themselves. I never felt “chilled” by the Fairness Doctrine because both of the stations I worked for had a hands-off policy when it came to dealing with the news content of programs. They just wanted us to be fair. If there were rat feces in McDonald’s hamburgers, I didn’t worry about whether I was going to cost the station the McDonald’s account. Or if tires were exploding on Ford Explorers, I knew it wasn’t very easy on the sales department when we were reporting that, and their advertising for Ford Explorers went down.

Downs: I read recently that while President Obama doesn’t support “reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” [he] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why he supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

Steel: That sounds good. But the reality is there aren’t that many diverse voices that can be heard, probably because there is not that much interest in their being heard. Broadcasters will put anything on the air and anything that people want to listen to that makes money. But lately, it seems that most people do not want to hear much more than conservative points of view.

Downs: Why not?

Steel: I don’t know. But liberal thoughts, especially in terms of radio, have not been well received by the audience. “Air America” is not doing that well. I don’t think the KARN management worries whether I’m left, right or in the middle. What they do worry about is whether anybody is listening to the show. That’s how they sell advertising — through listeners. My general manager agrees with Rush Limbaugh probably 50 percent of the time or even less. But she doesn’t care because his ratings are through the roof and products sell that advertise on his programs. So it’s really not about what someone is saying; it’s about whether someone is listening.

Next week: Bob Steel, show host of KARN’s “First News,” talk-radio program, and I continue our conversation on efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and why viewers and listeners should care. Bill Downs: downsw@sbcglobal.net