The Fairness Doctrine and the Middle East

By Mitchell Kaidy

Once a little known Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation, the Fairness Doctrine has become the center of a tug-of-war between the administration and Congress over the doctrine's continued existence. The contretemps started last spring when the Reagan-appointed FCC decided to rescind the doctrine.

Reacting swiftly, Congress passed a law restoring it, only to have President Reagan veto the law. Repudiation of the regulation, which underwrites citizen input into the broadcast media, reflects an administration mindset that seeks to narrow and shut off substantive discourse--including, of course, discussion of war and peace in the Middle East.

But there are less visible motivations as well. The broadcast industry has for years railed against the public affairs programming required under FCC regulations, including the Fairness Doctrine. The industry, and the sympathetic Reagan administration, have sought to substitute more rewarding advertising, including half-hour commercials dressed as news programs, for the unsponsored public affairs programming that preceding commissions have required since the Federal Communications Act was adopted in 1934.

Airwaves Required to "Serve the Public Interest"

Even before the Reaganites repudiated broadcast industry regulation, it had been difficult for proponents of US even-handedness in the Middle East to receive a fair hearing. Station licensees were well aware of the awesome power of American Zionists to play hardball with advertising and to employ other forms of coercion.

A long and honorable dedication to the public interest surrounds government regulation of the airwaves. Before the government stepped in to regulate the industry, broadcasters competing for available frequencies swamped the airwaves. It got to the point that the US Navy, uncertain where distress calls were coming from, was unable to respond to sinking ships at sea. It was Herbert Hoover, then secretary of commerce, who urged Congress to license rather than sell broadcast frequencies and to hold the licensees accountable to serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity."

The first enactment, the Radio Act of 1927, was followed by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. The latter still governs the industry. By enacting both laws, Congress recognized that there will always be more requests for broadcast access than there are frequencies available. Congress also recognized that there is a major difference between the print media, which enjoy freedom from regulation, and the broadcast media. The Supreme Court made that distinction in a unanimous 1969 ruling upholding such regulation.

Fairness Doctrine Requires Contrasting Views to be Heard

Probably the most significant regulation imposed by the FCC has been the Fairness Doctrine. Widely confused with the Equal Time Rule, the Fairness Doctrine is different and more significant in several respects. It requires on "controversial issues of public importance" that broadcast outlets provide an opportunity for contrasting views to be presented to the public.

Equal Time, applicable to candidates covered by the Federal Elections Law, mandates that Candidate B must be offered the same time spot, duration, and other considerations as Candidate A, except in relation to news coverage. Considerably more flexible than Equal Time, the Fairness Doctrine requires balance in overall programming, but not the mirror-image type of programming due under Equal Time. Because Equal Time complicates presidential candidate programming, broadcasters want to modify it as well.

The campaign to abolish most government regulation has been championed by the broadcast industry and Mark Fowler, a former FCC chairman appointed by President Reagan. Casing the issue in an ideological mold, Fowler once told an industry group that the trusteeship of the airwaves, as urged by Herbert Hoover, "is a stick that can beat your editorial freedom to a mealy pulp and run you out of business."

In fact, many more applicants are running to obtain broadcast licenses than are running out of business. Congress itself spurred speculation by a backdoor amendment which extended license periods to seven years for radio stations and five years for television. The periods had for many decades been three years, affording local activists more opportunities to challenge relicensing of stations which shut out the public.

Middle East peace activists should have no difficulty discerning their stake in this controversy. With the Fairness Doctrine apparently repealed, all minority viewpoints may suffer. More than that, critical comments on any Israeli policy are considered controversial, and therefore lacking in advocates.

By themselves, the longer license periods were not necessarily anti-public. They became so, however, in tandem with the attacks on the Fairness Doctrine and regulation. Speculators, bereft of training or responsibility, realized that the longer license periods, as well as FCC reluctance to enforce its public affairs regulations, shielded them from challenge no matter how poorly they performed. Unqualified investors made acquisitions and substituted profitable advertising for largely unpaid public affairs programming.

The FCC action rescinding the Fairness Doctrine clearly was not the intention of the US Supreme Court, which has not only upheld the constitutionality of government regulation, but issued a ringing definition of the public's rights. As Justice Byron White has written: "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial...That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or the FCC."

Middle East Activists Hurt by Loss of Fairness Doctrine

Critics of the Supreme Court ruling of 1969 contend it has been outdated by new technology--cable television, for instance. In some places, they say, the broadcast media outnumber the print media. But dealing in numbers is more deceptive and theoretical than real. Access to the print media by desktop publishing or writing a letter is still much easier and cheaper than producing or participating in a television or radio program. To get on radio or television, a citizen must find a station with a suitable program and cooperative staff.

But since the advent of deregulation, public affairs programming has been rapidly disappearing. Costs may attend sponsoring a program that go far beyond the typical cost of publication.

Middle East peace activists should have no difficulty discerning their stake in this controversy. With the Fairness Doctrine apparently repealed (barring either a Supreme Court review or an attitude change by the president), all minority viewpoints may suffer. More than most, critical comments on any Israeli policies are considered controversial, and lacking in advocates.

Congressional leaders indicate they may try to attach the Fairness Doctrine as a rider to legislation that President Reagan is unlikely to veto. So there are two reasons for Middle East peace activists to contact members of Congress. One, to create momentum for the Fairness Doctrine bill now languishing in committee, and two, to solicit votes to override any veto that may be in the offing.

Without the doctrine, and re-regulation of the broadcast industry, one can easily anticipate even more difficulty in achieving balance or fairness on the issues of war and peace in the Middle East, with further negative implications for war and peace in the world.

Mitchell Kaidy has been both a print and broadcast journalist for over 20 years.