Matt --
Radio and broadcast TV use the public airwaves, a limited spectrum that requires licenses to operate in the public interest. Today, broadcasting powerhouses like Clear Channel own nd operate multiple stations in mulitple markets and have a stake in what formats go to on stations which vary in dial placement, frequency and power. Most conservative programs are carried on more powerful stations with better signals; most liberal broadcasts are carried on stations way down the dial with weaker signals. So to cite a failure of liberal talk radio is a misnomer since its not an even playing field.

I got my broadcasters license in 1979 and worked in radio news in New York State; the Fairness Doctrine made it a requirement for me to seek out Republican reaction to Democratic stories and vice-versa. And frankly, seeking two sides of the story made for a better news story.

Print media, cable and satellite news can carry whatever news/bias they want; its a closed spectrum. But the open public airwaves need the Fairness Doctrine.

Right on Matt!

But how can anyone be against a "fairness doctrine"?

Here they go again . . . . radical-libs trying to undermine the Constitution w/o a constitutional ammendment.

Most Network TV & Newspapers have been so far-leftist for so-long, biased & one'sided in promoting their left-wing agenda/propaganda - they couldn't or wouldn't be "fair" if the had to.

But that's not the concern of the "Speaker" anyway - only those who disagree with her extreme views.

The extreme-libs have effectively & wrongly silenced the Christian churches - who can they pick off next . . . .

Dan:

The Fairness Doctrine puts the federal government in the position of rationing political speech, deciding what "equal time" is.

Pelosi and the left would never dream of having the FCC tell licensees of the public airwaves what kind of music to play and how often, yet the one area in which they should let alone -- political speech -- they want the feds too play keeper of the political speech ration book.

And let's face it: this is a bald, ugly political maneuver to silence the conservative talk radio.

Matt - That's hogwash; The Fairness Doctrine would not silence conservative talk radio and it won't silence liberal talk radio; it would justy make sure that two sides (or multiple sides) of a story are told. There's a serious LACK of debate in both formats. Too much "cut off his mike" O'Reilly/Limbaughism if a caller doesn't stay with the party line. Too much "you're an idiot if you're a Republican on Liberal programs. Too much call screening to the point that there are websites that offer tips for progressives to use when trying to get past conservative talk show screeners (all I have to say is I'm in Orange County, California as if that's code for "he must be conservative and therfore, OK."

And we're talking about the limited spectrum of the public airwaves. Stations still have to broadcast in the public interest. And there's nothing fair about the dial allocation conservative talkers get over liberal ones.

Dan,

Assuming arguendo that the "limited spectrum" rationale cited justified the fairness doctrine historically, that rationale wouldn't seem to apply today in a world that offers much broader communications channels, notably cable television and satellite radio (not to mention the internet - podcasting, the blogosphere, et al.) (In short, the world of communications is much changed since 1979.)

The so-called "fairness doctrine" (an Orwellian term to be sure) burdens broadcaster's rights to free speech. It is difficult to argue that government is justified by a compelling government interest in furthering free speech, given the broad avenues of communication available today, and the fact that the fairness doctrine chills rather than furthers free speech.

I seriously doubt that the fairness doctrine would, today, survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Your argument that it is not a level playing field is based on the results of the marketplace. It is like arguing that because the ending score in a ballgame is not equal that this is a result of the playing field, rather than the ball teams.

The fact is that, in 1979, media was dominated by liberal media that largely held a (government granted) communications monopoly. Conservative talk radio (and Fox News Channel) have been a success because there was an untapped demand for conservative viewpoints that wasn't being met by the dominant media.

To Rogue Elephant:

I could not have said it better myself. I second that!

It is reminiscent of the "fair share" put into effect by Gray Davis. People not in support of unions, who did not want representation by them are forced to pay dues to the unions. This significantly strengthened the unions in CA. Take a look at the election that Governor Schwarzenegger tried to cure some longstanding issues in CA that would have helped clean up our economy and the unions paid for massive advertising against those initiatives and they failed. Therefore we still have a budget nightmare in California because someone thought it would be "fair" to make people pay union dues that didn't even want to join unions.

Not everything in life is "fair", nor should it be, if everything were totally "FAIR" I think you would call that distribution of the wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't because after all it's not fair for some to be rich and others to be poor.. (oh, whoops, I think a lot of that goes on now) and in the end the more we make "fair" the more we resemble "socialism"...fairer still? Communism???

So now the Liberal Television Media that has ruled for years by NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN gets one competitor, FOX that knocks their socks off. It encourages a conservative talk show revolution where the liberals have failed miserably, so we have to be "fair" to them? Oh please.

I can't wait to hear what the "fair" Loretta Sanchez has to say. I'm going to see Rosie Avila tonight. I'll ask her what she thinks of this, but I'm pretty darn sure of the answer I'll get from that conservative lady! And I'm sure I'll like it!

Matt, did you call Rosie and ask her?

I failed to see how conservative talk radio would be less successful under a Fairness Doctrine. I'm sure it will do just as well as before. Fox News, as in the Fox News Channel, is a cable outlet that would not be impacted by the Fairness Doctrine at all. And you guys need to check the ratings these days -- Fox News is in such decline that even Ketih Olberman beats O'Reilly every now and then. They are simply paying the price for wedding themselves to G. W. Bush.

The "Liberal" media is only as Liberal as its conservative owners allow. CBS moved a Reagan TV movie to Showtime after complaints from Conservatives, yet ABC went right ahead with "The Path to 9/11" movie that have a number of inaccurate portrayals. Conservative guests routinely outnumber liberal guest on the Sunday talk shows. Might I suggest Eric Alterman's excellent book, "What Liberal Media?"

The “Fairness Doctrine” was all about government censorship of the prime communication mode at that time in history, the TV. Over the air TV has lost its dominance a while back so the “Fairness Doctrine” was allowed to die out.

The only thing the “Fairness Doctrine” did was stifle competition. It protected the dominance of the “Bent Penny party” over all others. ( the crooked coin of Republican party and Democrat party)

"I failed to see how conservative talk radio would be less successful under a Fairness Doctrine."

Dan, that's because you don;t seem to understand the policy your are pushing for.

The Fairness Doctrine requires equal time. So for every, say, two hours of conservative talk programming there would have to be two hours of liberal talk programming. And since liberal talk radio doesn't have much of an audience, GMs and program directors would air less talk, period.

So the end result is less political dialogue, talk and news.

Professor -- that's incorrect; the Fairness Doctrine calls for equal points of views to be covered; not equal time. No one from the FCC or the broadcast outlet standing around with a stop watch.

As it stands right now, I'd love to see liberals go up against Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity without having their mic's cut in the middle of making a point. I also would love to see some conservative take Randy Rhodes apart on the air. It would make for better programming.

Let's look at this from a "sports" point a view.

Broadcasters fight for the chance to broadcast the LA Dodgers, the Anaheim Angels (oops, I meant the LA Angels ;) and the Lakers.

But teams like the WNBA Sparks have little or now radio coverage... Why? Because the Radio broadcasters know that Major League Baseball and the some NBA teams (I seriously doubt that the Clippers radio rights are in the same league as the LA Lakers) will bring in a lot of listeners, and therefore ad revenues.

Liberal Radio is struggling in many ways, and in many different markets... Why? IMHO, because it just isn't as popular as most conservative talk shows.

Maybe due to the fact that the "entertainers/talk show hosts" go to the most popular stations, and reflect the listeners opinions to keep them listening. Maybe the talk show host really feels his political opinion is the correct one. Who knows???

Should we regulate movies and TV shows on network TV? I say for the most part no. Yes we need to be careful with early evening programing when folks of all ages are watching, and should avoid strong language and violence in that time slot (But I think in the late evening, there should be a more liberal set of rules and more things are allowed).

And how about things like showing the Terminator Movies?? Should there be equal access for a Democrat in California to request air time since they showed the Governor in an old movie.....

Or how about PBS, should the conservatives get more programming on the network, since it uses the public airwaves and tax dollars??

Maybe less Jazz programing, and more Country Western shows.

Less Ballet and more MOSH Pit dancing...

A VERY Slippery Slope if they return to the Fairness Doctrine.

You are missing the point that broadcast radio and TV operate via permission to use the public airwaves and they must promise in their license appliation to operate in the public interest. The spectrum is limited and the Fairness Doctrine serves to benefit multiple points of view at the expense of a single point of view that has no trouble finding a home on cable TV, print and speciality magazines/websites.

There are a number of markets where liberal talk radio is competitive with conservative talk radio, but certainly not everywhere. John Campbell mixed up over the air properties with cable properties in his post on the Fairness Doctrine over at the Flash Report and I was a little surprised he didn't seem to understand the difference. Satellite radio is also a closed medium and with 150+ channels, its hard to argue for the fairness doctrine. But there are plenty of small communities served by a small number of stations who only get one point of view; and that is NOT in the public interest.