The unfairness of the 'fairness doctrine'.

Maybe those right-wing radio talk-protest too much.

The threatened renewal of the "fairness doctrine," as promised by House Speaker Pelosi, could be just another straw man, something to rile the fans of Rush Limbaugh.

But the doctrine was once used to threaten broadcast expression.

And it could do so again.

I remember what it was like to live with the "fairness doctrine" when working as a television editorial writer at CBS in the 1970s, at a time when the White House was at war with the news media.

In those days, the "fairness doctrine" provided a powerful tool that political foes could use to intimidate broadcast news operations, threatening to mount costly challenges to the federal licenses that permitted television and radio stations to operate--especially those affiliated with or owned by broadcast networks.

As it evolved at the Federal Communications Com mission, the "fairness doctrine" did not require anything like equal time for opposing views, but instead obligated broadcasters to afford "reasonable opportunities" for the presentation of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance.

Sounds harmless.

But not when the rules were made and enforced by a federal agency, the FCC.

When combined with the FCC's powers to grant and renew broadcast licenses, "fairness doctrine" complaints could be used to harass stations with costly regulatory proceedings, and could even threaten to put them out of business.

Groups could bring their complaints about specific fairness violations directly to the FCC, and the commission's decisions could also be contested in federal courts.

Ironically, the "fairness doctrine" was good for broadcast editorial writers, because the FCC spoke approvingly of editorials and editorial replies as a means for balanced discussion of controversial issues. In that climate, editorials and editorial replies had a regulatory purpose, as a defense against fairness complaints.

All of this certainly escaped hundreds of us who gathered in 1974 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington for meetings of the National Broadcast Editorial Association, a year when I served as president of the organization (later merged with NCEW). My job was to invite and schedule the speakers.

Our keynoter that year was Dr. Frank Stanton, former president of CBS, then heading the Red Cross.

He was my hero, and a hero for many of us.

As best I can recall, his remarks challenged the editorial writers to fight for full First Amendment rights for broadcasters, as he had so courageously.

At one point, Frank Stanton risked being jailed for contempt of Congress when he refused to comply with a congressional committee's order that it be allowed to examine the outtakes from a CBS documentary, "The Selling of the Pentagon."

Along with Fred Friendly and Richard Salant, who were CBS News presidents during the Nixon years, Stanton courageously stood up for full First Amendment protection for broadcast news.

They did so, as later chronicled by Salant, Friendly, and Corydon Dunham of NBC, under unrelenting pressure from White House staffers and supporters of the Nixon White House during battles over Vietnam, the Pentagon papers, and Watergate.

All real heroes in my book.

The constant pressure point: that broadcast licenses of stations owned or allied with television networks like CBS or newspapers like The Washington Post could be threatened by bringing complaints to the FCC. Complaints about fairness would be one of the tools.

So, I was among those who cheered when the FCC during the Reagan years abandoned the "fairness doctrine" and did away with much of the regulatory process that was used to threaten broadcasters during license renewal periods.

That brings me to another hero for broadcast expression: Barbara Cochrane, who will retire as president of the Radio and Television News Directors Association this year.

Thanks largely to Cochrane's efforts, the federal Court of Appeals recently heeded a lawsuit from the RTNDA and abolished vestiges of the "fairness doctrine" that forced broadcasters to jump through regulatory hoops if they editorially endorsed a candidate or broadcast a "personal attack."

NCEW owes Barbara and RTNDA much for standing up for full First Amendment protection for broadcast editorial opinion, even at a time when it is scarce.

So for those who fret about another "fairness doctrine," be assured that you can find plenty of reasons to worry--in history.

Peter Kohler is a vice president of editorial services at Cablevision Systems Corp. and chair of the New Media Gommittee. Email: pkohler@cablevision.com

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates