Democrats in the Senate are trying to revive the fairness doctrine.
From 1949 to 1985 the Federal Communications Commission required that broadcast stations air controversial matters in a fair and balanced matter. There were concerns that stations that only aired one side of an issue would distort the quality of information the American public was likely to hear, especially given the limited number of stations available to listeners.
The problem for some broadcasters was that it would interfere with their right to determine what was fair and could lead to a chilling effect on the content of broadcasts. They may wish to shy away from issues that would trigger the fairness doctrine.
Mark Fowler--then FCC chairman--repealed the regulation. Congress restored the policy but Reagan vetoed it. Certainly Bush would do the same if the Democrats pass a similar law. Fowler argued that the fairness doctrine was not necessary given the greater variety of stations available made the regulation unnecessary.
Critics argue that the repeal of the regulation unleashed the rise of conservative talk radio. It's hard to imagine that stations that carry Rush Limbaugh would have the same impact if he was followed by a liberal commentator. Critics might also argue that Democrats are using their muscle to deflate the impact of talk radio since it's been an effective motivator for the Republican Party. A cynic might suspect that one's opinion of the doctrine is conditioned by whether one's party is helped or hurt by it.
For my part, I'm interested in whether the repeal of the doctrine contributed to what seems to me to be a more superficial political environment.
A realist may point out that since the doctrine could not apply to the internet and cable television--since neither is regulated by the FCC--the restoration of the doctrine may have little impact.
