From the Hill: FCC chairman agrees to strike Fairness Doctrine from rule books

This is huge news. Republicans have been pushing for this change for years:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said his agency will remove the Fairness Doctrine from the rule books in response to a recent request from House Republicans.

"I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead," Genachowski wrote in a letter Monday to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

"I look forward to effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the process can be completed in the near future."

Genachowski has frequently voiced his opposition to the rule, which required broadcasters to cover controversial public issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC.

The commission stopped enforcing the rule in 1987 after concluding it was unconstitutional, but in recent years some Democrats have suggested reviving the policy in response to the increasingly partisan nature of cable news.

The Fairness Doctrine

TNR has a story about a conservative uproar over the possible reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.

The fairness doctrine was established over 60 years ago when limited airwaves caused the FCC to establish a policy mandating that opposing views be given to controversial topics. Since the airwaves were owned publicly and access was granted by a license issued by the FCC, broadcasters risked losing their licenses if they did not comply. In the 1980s, the expansion of access -- plus the opposition of ideologically oriented broadcasters -- led to the retraction of the policy.

Though conservatives, who believe they will suffer from the policy since conservative talk radio stations would be required to counter Rush Limbaugh with, say, Michael Moore.

Here's some pro and con about the policy.

Con: From the Heritage Foundation.
Pro: From Common Dreams.

Not Fair?

The House rebuffs Senate efforts to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

Restoring the Fairness Doctrine

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.