FAIRNESS DOCTRINE FACING TOUGHEST TEST

The “fairness doctrine,” which requires television and radio stations to cover all sides of a controversial issue, faces its toughest challenge in 53 years as Congress decides whether to make it law or let it die.

The Federal Communications Commission, which instituted the doctrine under the 1934 Communications Act, now wants it abolished, claiming it “no longer serves the public interest.”

The doctrine’s intent is to ensure that every viewpoint on a controversial matter has access to the broadcast airwaves, which belong to the public but are controlled by private companies. The FCC contends, however, that broadcast space is no longer limited, thanks to cable television, satellites and various forms of video.

The FCC’s position is supported by the National Assn. of Broadcasters but has been criticized by others and has drawn opposition in Congress. A House bill introduced last week by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) would turn the doctrine into law. A similar bill introduced by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) is now awaiting debate on the Senate floor.

“We believe the fairness doctrine is an unconstitutional governmental intrusion into the editorial judgments being made in this nation’s broadcast newsrooms,” Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, told the House education and labor subcommittee on telecommunications Tuesday.

Fritts said the threat of violating the doctrine inhibits stations from covering controversial issues and “chills the expression of speech.”

Supporters of the doctrine range from consumer advocate Ralph Nader to conservative activist Phyllis S. Schlafly, both of whom testified before the House panel. Former FCC chairmen Charles D. Ferris and Newton Minow also believe the doctrine is far from obsolete.

“If the fairness doctrine is successfully abolished, the public trust will be abandoned, informing the American public in a balanced way will no longer be assured and a precious and valuable tool of democracy could be turned against itself,” Ferris told a recent hearing of the Senate commerce, science and transportation subcommittee on communications.

The stage for the showdown on the issue has been set by the courts.

Several rulings in recent years have called the scarcity issue into question, and in 1984, the Supreme Court, which 15 years earlier had upheld the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine, indicated it was time for its legal foundation to be reassessed. Three months ago, a federal appeals panel told the FCC to decide once and for all whether the policy is needed.

Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), bolstered by a 1985 FCC study that concluded the doctrine is outdated, promises to fight against the bill on the Senate floor. Its defeat would in effect repeal the doctrine.

The issue boils down to a basic disagreement over the “scarcity of spectrum space” issue. The FCC and broadcasters argue that TV and radio are no longer rare commodities that must be allocated equitably to the public.

“Today it is easier and less costly for a citizen to buy a broadcast station than it is to found a newspaper,” Fritts told the House panel. “The issue is not whether there is one outlet for each potential speaker but whether there is a multiplicity of voices or opinions available to the public.”

Former FCC Chairman Minow disagreed: “There are more people who want to broadcast than there are facilities available. . . . As long as you have people scrambling to get a channel, then scarcity exists.”

Broadcasters also fear that violation of the doctrine can be grounds for revocation of a station’s license, although former FCC Chairman Ferris maintains that no station has lost a license by violating the fairness doctrine.

John Spain, news director of WBRZ-TV in Baton Rouge, La., said the doctrine is used to “to inhibit and harass” stations. He cited an incident in which his station received a complaint from a “small but vocal group” that charged that its point of view was not treated fairly during a report on nuclear energy.

“We spent 45 days pulling together the information needed to refute their allegations,” he told the Senate hearing. “During those 45 days, we stopped covering the nuclear energy story.” Spain said when the station approached the group with its analysis, the group agreed the coverage had been fair.

Outgoing FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler insists there would actually be more and better programming on sensitive topics if the government got out of fairness enforcement. He said “market forces” should be allowed to compel the airing of opposing views.

Ferris, an attorney who now represents several Democratic campaign committees, contends that without the doctrine, too many broadcasters would tailor their editorial news content to the most powerful market forces while ignoring other interests.

“Television could easily become at most a variation of the Home Shopping Network, an electronic grocery store,” he said. “The fairness doctrine serves a visible reminder that broadcasters are indeed responsible for providing balanced views on important issues. Repeal of the doctrine would eliminate this protection.”

Mills is an intern in the Washington bureau of The Times.