Fairness doctrine No reason to restore outdated regulation

Conservatives are sounding the alarm about a possible attempt by the next Congress to revive the outmoded "fairness doctrine," which would require television and radio stations to air opposing views on controversial issues.

The fairness doctrine, first adopted in 1949, had been federal policy until the Federal Communications Commission abandoned it in 1987 with subsequent approval of the Supreme Court. The intent was to ensure airing of multiple viewpoints at a time when there were limited radio and television stations.

Supporters argue that the fairness mandate would provide more balanced programming.

Conservatives see the doctrine as an attempt to silence popular talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Doctrine opponents argue that broadcasters would simply abandon controversial programs and turn to less objectionable programming rather than give time to opposing viewpoints.

Rather than advance diverse viewpoints, the doctrine could have just the opposite effect of limiting free speech if stations chose to eliminate programming subject to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine is an infringement on the constitutionally protected right of broadcasters to determine what show they will air, which should be their decision without government interference.

Meant for another era, the fairness doctrine is unnecessary today with the thousands of television and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, cable television, Internet Web sites and bloggers offering diverse viewpoints.