Words are often misleading when spoken by our U. S. Government. Take the name "Fairness Doctrine" for example. More correctly, the name "Unfairness Doctrine" would be descriptive and easy to understand by all.

The Unfairness Doctrine
The Unfairness Doctrine is my choice of title for:

A Federal Communications Commission rule that required radio and television stations to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced way, including providing equal air time for opposing views.

The Fairness Doctrine
American Politics says the Fairness Doctrine is:

A Federal Communications Commission rule that required radio and television stations to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced way, including providing equal air time for opposing views.

American Politics goes on the say the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC in 1969. In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration opposed the doctrine and, in 1987, new commissioners at the FCC repealed it.

A big deal
The big deal is that there is serious talk about reinstating the doctrine. Why should we let "them" do it to us?

Nothing is fair about Fairness Doctrine. Why should you or I or anyone else have to put up with listening to the other side if it isn't our choosing? We shouldn't. Why should any of us have to listen to the song "Amazing Grace" after listening to "White Lightning?" Ridiculous? Sure is. Same notion? Sure is.

Then, we have the pesky U.S. Constitution to think about. The first amendment clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words 18 - 22, "abridging the freedom of speech." What could be more clear. Doesn't that make the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional because it certainly diminishes the freedom of speech.

To hear the other side, change stations. If someone doesn't want to listen to that nasty conservative Rush Limbaugh then that someone should listen to some liberal station. Further, Rush Limbaugh should never be forced to say something in support of an opposing view. To do so wouldn't set well with him or his audience. Who would believe him? That would be the hoot of all hoots.

Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is laughable.

Of course, switching from conservative talk to liberal talk will not be an easy task since there is little liberal talk programming. Even the liberal Air America Radio, with Al Franken of Saturday Night Live fame, bit the dust. It was revived as Air America Media by new ownership.

A trend toward liberal talk radio could develop but probably not soon.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported on August 17, 2008:

The audience for political talk radio remains more conservative and more Republican than the public at large. Among those who listen to these shows regularly, 44% describe themselves as conservatives, while only 19% consider themselves liberals. Nearly three-in-ten conservative Republicans (28%) regularly listen to radio shows that invite listeners to call in to discuss current events, public issues and politics. This compares with only 17% of the general public. Men are more likely than women to listen to talk radio; men between the ages of 30 and 49 are among the most likely to tune in.

When considering these demographics, it seems to me there might be more liberal talk listeners if there were more liberal programs. Couldn't the solution to this "fairness" business be bringing more liberal talk programs on the air? Yes, but only if there is a market large enough to attract sufficient advertising dollars. That's the rub.

Repealing the repeal
In typical government fashion, efforts are underway, and have been underway for years, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which was adopted back in 1949 and later "unadopted." FOXNews.com reported just after Mr. Obama took office that an administration spokesman stated, ". . . he (Mr. Obama) does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated." But, what was said back in February may not mean much. It may not mean anything because we don't know what goes on between Mr. Obama and his handlers behind closed doors.

Waxman's at work too
The American Spectator tell us, also in February of this year, that Henry Waxman's House Energy and Commerce Committee advisers met with FCC staff for the purpose of putting a Fairness Doctrine in place with a different name.

Figures.

Enter Mark Lloyd
Mark Lloyd is an Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer for the FCC. Prior, he was a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP). In his capacity as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, he coauthored a paper titled, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." This paper argued that radio programming was currently "imbalanced" and that there are "serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans."

If Mr. Lloyd adheres to the three approaches for a remedy to the "imbalance" as he stated in his paper, we, as Americans are on the way to more government control over talk radio and television commentary. Senator Chuck Grassley's letter to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, expresses his concerns which should be of concern to every American.

After reading the letter, can anyone believe Mr. Obama will intervene and put a stop to any effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine by any name? Surely not for, after all, can't we safely assume Mr. Obama was instrumental in getting Mark Lloyd, one of his czars, in place in the first place?

Still, as a long-time professor of constitutional law, he should intervene. But, I have my doubts.

Suggested reading - Media Diversity Czar: Mark Lloyd