FCC’S FLIP-FLOP OVER FAIRNESS DOCTRINE : The agency is in the protection business . . . protecting the broadcasters, that is

Yes, the free speech will really hit the fan now.

Now that the Federal Communications Commission has liberated broadcasters from fairness by repealing the fairness doctrine, they will finally have the opportunity to be fair. Freed from the shackles of fairness, broadcasters will now be free to be evenhanded. If you only knew the burden of being fair when you’re required to act fairly. It’s much easier being fair when you don’t have to be fair. Liberating broadcasters from the unfair bonds of fairness was the only fair thing to do.

Uh huh . Will someone please call the van and have the little men in white coats throw a net over the FCC as soon as possible?

The FCC repealed the fairness doctrine Tuesday, saying its 38-year-old policy inhibited free speech. That puts the burden on Congress to override President Reagan’s veto of a proposal that would make the fairness doctrine law. It won’t be easy.

What a difference a few months make. This is the same FCC that last April sought to inhibit free speech by setting controversial new standards for so-called indecent programs aired “at a time of day when there is a reasonable risk that children are in the audience.” As interpreted by the FCC, that could mean midnight, 2 a.m., who knows?

.

The FCC is entrusting your rights as listeners and viewers to broadcasters, who can ignore, shelve or subvert them.

It’s true that the fairness doctrine opened (past tense, now, remember) the door for potential government meddling in news, a legitimate concern for all Americans. But censorship from within--from broadcasters themselves--is just as dangerous. Trust them , the people who give you all those ratings sweeps series on the local news? It’s like granting custody of the fly to the spider or trusting shoplifters with the shop.

The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to give contrasting views concerning controversial issues on news and public affairs programs. The doctrine also guaranteed air time for response to editorials and commercials on public issues.

Broadcasters have always argued that the fairness doctrine has stifled, not encouraged free expression. They contended that the horrendous potential for fairness complaints and airtime demands inhibited them from following their courageous instincts (hold your laughter till the end), the net result being blandness not boldness.

And the fairness doctrine was to blame?

Oh please. There are exceptions. But in general, the doctrine of self- interest, not the fairness doctrine, is behind the failure of most television news and public affairs programs to fully meet their informational responsibility to the public.

Even with the fairness doctrine, TV is not exactly a gourmet’s smorgasbord of diversity and opinion. Without it, just how will fairness flower?

Will there now be an explosion of provocative documentaries? Will slender network newscasts be expanded to accommodate longer and more thoughtful stories, more analysis and broader viewpoints? Will public affairs programs now embrace guests from the left as they presently do those from the right? Will special-interest groups of all political and philosophical stripes have at least the opportunity to lobby broadcasting’s gatekeepers?

Not as long as broadcasters are encouraged by the FCC to tend first to ratings and profits and second, if at all, to public interest.

Opponents of the fairness doctrine also argued that there are vastly more radio stations and TV outlets now--ensuring a broad diversity of viewpoints--than there were when the fairness doctrine was established in 1949. Hence, who needed this relic?

My station may not be fair or diverse, but Joe and Irene at the station down the street are, so the public is being served? That’s an argument for letting the other guy do the job you should be doing. What’s more, even with the advent of cable, VCRs and satellite dishes, this relative diversity is still inaccessible to a majority of American households.

Fairness doctrine opponents also argued that radio and TV should have the same First Amendment rights as the print press. Everyone is on broadcasting’s case, they say, but no one tells newspapers and magazines what to do.

The obvious difference is that TV and radio are subject to federal regulations because their signals are transmitted via public airwaves, and print media are not. What’s more, for example, not everyone can start a TV station to air their own views because the number of channels is limited. Given enough funds, though, anyone can publish a newspaper.

In terms of fairness and diversity of opinion, moreover, newspapers and magazines traditionally print letters from their readers, those critical as well as supportive, one would hope. With rare exceptions, though, TV always has the last word. Save the occasional call-in show and letters read on “60 Minutes” and a few other programs, viewers’ responses to TV are not found on TV but in newspapers.

At the heart of the fairness doctrine conflict is the role of government in protecting the rights of citizens by ensuring that broadcasters--who use and profit from public airwaves--act in the public interest. Hardly an outrageous concept.

The Reagan-appointed FCC is rigidly and openly anti-regulation (except in matters of alleged obscenity, apparently), however. The commissioners believe that listeners and viewers are best served by a broadcasting industry subject only to free marketplace forces that traditionally favor majorities over minorities.

In other words, the broadcasting industry can be counted on to do the right thing if government will just stay out of its way.

If you buy that, you’re probably still sending care packages to Jim and Tammy. If you don’t buy it and want the fairness doctrine to become law, let your congressional representatives know. It’s in their hands now.