Revive the "Fairness Doctrine"?

A recent Op-Ed piece in the Boston Globe brought up the question of possibly bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine. This was an FCC regulation that required radio and TV broadcasters to strive for giving roughly equal time to both/all sides of various political issues and topics. It was established in 1949 but revoked in 1987. The crux of the article is whether the doctrine is needed to restore some measure of equilibrium in the media world.

On it's face, the Fairness Doctrine is one of those admonitions that seems innocuous and not necessary - like saying "play nice" to children, which is probably why it was dropped. However, as so often happens when rules are removed, people take advantage by pushing the boundaries of appropriate behavior and statements. The article's author believes that the rise of ideology-driven talk radio is directly linked to the removal of this doctrine, and I think he's right. The doctrine doesn't bar anyone from expressing their views, but just requires the radio or TV station to give some time to opposing views.

In many ways, I think it's fair to say that dropping the Fairness Doctrine had similar consequences to the banking deregulation that occurred in the late 1990s, such as rescinding the Glass-Steagall Act, which for over sixty years had barred commercial banks from getting into investment banking. This action is considered one of the key factors that led to the financial implosion of the past two years. Both actions eliminated a rule that had become considered antiquated and unnecessary. However, the human tendency to take advantage of loose guidelines has occurred in both the banking world and broadcast media. Just as many banks started selling derivative investment options linked to excessively risky sub-prime mortgages, the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine essentially meant that "the gloves were off" in the derivative realm of news analysis and discussion, which made it possible for strongly-opinionated commentators on radio and TV to become widely heard and followed.

I would like to see this doctrine brought back into the media market, as a way to have some true "fair and balanced" examination of the complex public issues we face. Unfortunately, that goal doesn't seem likely, given the great income and attention that the commentators earn for themselves and their networks.