by Jim Kouri - The so-called Fairness Doctrine existed from 1949 until 1987 when broadcasters were required, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some opposing views.

While not specifying equal time for liberal and conservative points of view, it eventually evolved into radio and television stations using the airwaves to provide "balance" between differing opinions.

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). In that case the court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights.

But, a few years later in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". The Court's decision led to the FCC reevaluation and the Fairness Doctrine was kicked to the wayside.

According to FCC documents, government officials stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest.

"We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

Unfortunately, today liberal politicians and government officials are attempting to stifle those messengers they consider “controversial,” and silence those messages that expose them to the light of public scrutiny.

"If the “Fairness Doctrine” is resurrected, the result will not be easier access for controversial or opposing views.  Instead, broadcast stations, out of fear, will impose self-censorship by airing nothing that could be considered controversial.  The free marketplace of views and ideas, including the “controversial” Gospel of Jesus Christ, will be non-existent," said Larry Bates, CEO of the Information Radio Network.

It is estimated that approximately 40% of Americans get their news and information from talk radio, which has become the de facto voice of the conservative movement. To assault free speech with the “Fairness Doctrine” would be a serious blow to the future of freedom and liberty in the USA.  It is a time to resist these politicians who would seek to further empower themselves while enslaving the rest of us, according to Bates.

Since its demise during the Reagan Administration in 1987, liberal-left politicians in Congress have attempted to revive the Doctrine and its abuses.  The effort has gained strength as Democrats have gained control of both houses of congress and what they believe is the promise of taking the White House in November.

If reinstated, the Fairness Doctrine will be used as the liberals’ weapon of choice to limit the freedom of broadcasters to keep you informed about what the enemy of our souls and his agents are doing to keep the truth of the Gospel from being preached throughout our land, according to Dr. Kenneth Hill, a veteran public relations consultant and broadcaster.

Dr. Hill claimed in a telephone interview, that there is a surreptitious assault on virtually every right guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America under the Constitution and how that assault has been underway since the founding of our Republic.
ine.”

"But, unfortunately, those elements of our society who would deny freedom of speech to the opposition—that is, anyone with different political, religious, or ideological views—are again at work in Congress and in numerous public milieus to revive the 'Fairness Doctrine,'” says Hill, who recently released the book Assault on Liberty, Rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine

According to Dr. Hill, it is critically important for Americans to know the truth about the history of the “Fairness Doctrine” and to be aware of the efforts for its reinstatement.  The story, once told, requires vigilance on the part of each person who loves the freedoms that are enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

"This assault must be repelled for the future well being of our nation.  It is my responsibility, and it is your responsibility," he said.

(Special thanks to Ken Hill for providing this writer with an excellent interview.)