Effort to Revive Broadcasting’s Fairness Doctrine Raises Static

The Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine regulating broadcasters six years ago, but the debate that dogged it for four decades continues today, and its advocates are pushing to have the doctrine written into law.

Created by the FCC in 1949, the two-part doctrine decreed that radio and television stations have a responsibility to air issues of public importance, and in doing so must provide a “reasonable opportunity” for discussion of contrasting viewpoints.

The doctrine’s foundation rested on the argument of scarcity. There was greater demand for radio licenses than available frequencies, the argument went, so the government was justified in imposing regulations on broadcasters that would be considered unconstitutional infringements on freedom of speech if applied to the press.

That view was never popular with broadcasters or with those who view the doctrine as an intrusion on rights of free speech.

In 1987, as part of a government push to deregulate industry, the FCC abolished the doctrine, declaring that it “chills speech . . . contravenes the First Amendment” and “disserves the public interest.”

But the issue did not die. Proponents, including consumer and environmental groups, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and many members of Congress, call the doctrine essential to assure a measure of balance in dealing with controversial issues.

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a prime sponsor of Senate legislation reintroduced last February, said repeal “has not resulted in more coverage of controversial issues--in fact, there has been more emphasis on entertainment programming to increase profitability.”

As for scarcity, proponents say there are still far more people who want licenses than there are frequencies.

The doctrine even has some support among broadcast figures. “Why should anyone be upset about being fair? “ CNN’s Larry King said. “It forced us to deal with community issues and began out of a great need, when for a long time black issues weren’t brought up in Montgomery, Ala.; Catholic parishes in New Orleans never (heard) a show in which someone (favored) birth control.”

Until recently, revival of the doctrine seemed likely. But then opposition arose from a chorus of strange bedfellows that included conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and New York’s liberal Democratic Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.

Limbaugh derided the doctrine as “political correctness.” Congress was deluged with messages opposing the doctrine from Limbaugh’s “ditto heads,” as he calls his fans. The Wall Street Journal charged that the movement was meant to “Hush Rush.”

Cuomo said, “I don’t think you can get at bad taste and destructive communication through regulation. That’s just substituting one evil for another.”

Opponents contend that with more than 11,000 radio stations, 1,500 TV stations and a soon-to-be 500-channel cable system, the old scarcity argument has become ludicrous.

Congress has tried several times to write the doctrine into law. In 1987, shortly before the FCC pulled the plug, Congress approved such legislation but it was vetoed by then-President Ronald Reagan. The House has passed it three times since the veto, but former President George Bush also threatened to veto it and the legislation never reached a vote in the Senate.

This time, its prospects in the House have dimmed, although a leading staff member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said that “that may change. We may be able to come up with some strategy.”

In the Senate, a spokesman for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation said the doctrine has “fairly broad bipartisan support.” But Hollings cautioned that he will drop the bill unless it is approved by the House.