Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine Is Not What It Seems

The question of fairness is something that all people in the world have asked themselves: what is fair? At what point do we take right and wrong and mix them together? What do we gain from too much or too little compromise? In the quest for equality and equal opportunity, we find ourselves losing the right of free speech in the form of the Fairness Doctrine. I am staunchly against the implementation of the Doctrine for a multitude of reasons.

The first reason to oppose the Fairness Doctrine is that it is not constitutional. The First Amendment allows for the freedom of speech. The Fairness Doctrine does the exact opposite of what this amendment allows. For example, it positions a select group of people, appointed by the current administration, to monitor the Federal Communications Commission, thereby giving them complete control over what they perceive to be fair. The Fairness Doctrine states that equal air time should be given to every person. An example of this is that for every 3 hours of air time on one particular topic, an opposing view must be allowed to present equal time to present their opinion. The Constitution does not require us to present a view that is contrary to what we believe. This doctrine ties the hands of the people who would express themselves.

Supply and demand is the second reason that I oppose the Fairness Doctrine. If one looks at history, it shows that supply and demand is the rule in business and communications. To require a company to air positions that would not benefit them financially, such as to market liberal opinions to conservative audiences or vice versa, would eventually cause them to have to drop programs, because of lack of funding or audience interest. If they do not supply what the audience is looking for, or they provide the opposite, then demand will drop, and the company will lose money and be forced to shut down.

The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted in the 1940s to provide the public “fair and balanced” views, concerning the public interest. At that point in time, radio and television stations were publicly owned and operated. In today’s society, there are multiple media for information, private and public. With that being said, the need for regulation and control is much less now than it was then. The Fairness Doctrine has become outdated. The government has no place regulating privately-owned media.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not have the last say in matters of fairness. To have a group of people controlling all the media would allow for biased approaches to fairness, especially if they have to answer to no one. The freedom of speech and press is granted to all people in the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech or of the press.” John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon each, during their presidencies, wanted to use the fairness doctrine for political gain, to hush their opponents. This is another example of why the Fairness Doctrine should not be allowed to be implemented again.

The final reason against the Doctrine is: at what point do we stop controlling what people say? Does it extend into the home? Does it extend into the church? Where do we draw the line for government control? How much control over our lives as American citizens do we want to give to people that we have never met? Another thing to keep in mind is that these people would be appointed by a partisan President. How much freedom are we willing to give up for the sake of being “fair”?

The proponents of the Fairness Doctrine would suggest that not everyone has equal resources, such as time and money. They argue that this makes them less capable of producing the same amount of exposure and that equality is in the best interest of the public. These points have some merit on the surface. However, the Constitution tells us that we are entitled to our opinions, and we should not be forced, or force others, to promote views contrary to their own belief and values. We must be vigilant and not allow our government to overstep its boundaries. The government is in place to protect the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not there to promote political and financial gain.

I am not a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine. I do not agree with government regulation over the private sector, in regard to what people choose to say or not say. I believe that the doctrine will unfairly hurt businesses and is no longer necessary or appropriate. There should not be a single group of people overseeing the communications industry, due to the lack of guidelines and measures for preventing abuse of the system. The Doctrine has the potential to spread beyond the scope of communications, threatening our freedoms.


Hey everyone look for this to be a reality in the near future. With the new administration in the white house, we will see this come to pass mark my word.