Alex Potts
FCC and the Fairness Doctrine 
(Information For the Public Good)
The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 and it required the holders of the broadcast licenses  to present different sides of controversial issues of public importance and to do so in honest, equitable and balanced ways. But the fairness doctrine raised several constitutional and practical questions. For some the very existence of such a doctrine was a violation of the First Amendment since it regulates Freedom of Speech. There is also the problem of how to define what is honest, equitable and balanced.
Scholars such as Timothy J. Brennan and Donald P. Mullally point out that the incorporation of the Fairness Doctrine was the most important event to change the perception of FCC and its policy makingrole.  The Doctrine heralded a new effort by the FCC to protect the average person's rights to freedom of speech, but from the critics point of view it at the same time violated the freedom of others .  Translating the Fairness Doctrine into practice proved to be highly controversial, complex and full of constitutional and moral dilemmas. The Doctrine was eventually deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Although we are no longer under the influence of the Fairness Doctrine, the question remains, is the Fairness Doctrine needed to create a more balanced coverage of important issues, or does it do more harm than good.  I have come to the belief that the idea and intent behind the Fairness Doctrine were good, but the design of it was poor.  The possibilities of different interpretations of the Doctrine were clearly not thought through, and as a result the FCC and the Courts had to decide issues on a case by case basis.  If the Doctrine had been more specific in how the rules worked then I believe that there is a good chance that it would still be in practice today.  My proposition is to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, but with a clear cut outline that is easily understood by both the people and the broadcasters.  With the specifics in place, the Doctrine could work as intended, and would help to bring about an era where people can have sources of information that allows them to think for themselves, rather than having a media company do the thinking for you.
Alex Potts
Professor Haq
Draft I
Was the Fairness Doctrine Implemented by the FCC Constitutional or Was it a Violation of the Rights of the Media?
The Fairness Doctrine was implemented by the FCC in 1949 with its intent being to obligate licensees (primarily in television) to represent a variety of opinions in their public affairs programming.  There were two specific requirements to the Doctrine.  The first was that each station was under an obligation to cover controversial issues of public importance.  The second was a requirement that if a broadcaster only covered one side of an issue, differing points of view would somehow have to be aired.  Although it looks fairly simple at a glance, the Fairness Doctrine was anything but, and part of this complexity led to its abandonment in 1987 even though two sections of the doctrine that were added later remained after it was abandoned.  Although the main goal of the Fairness Doctrine was to provide the public with the right to speak and the right to hear, it's forms of distributive justice were often open to interpretation,  and it's effects on the marketplace were more of a hindrance than an asset. 
The parts of the doctrine that were upheld even after it was abolished are well covered in Robert W. Leweke's article titled "Rules Without A Home: FCC Enforcement Of The Personal Attack And Political Editorial Rules" he brings to light how even though the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, the personal attack rule, and the political editorial rules were enforced through the 1990's.  According to Leweke, "The personal attack rule evolved into a remedy from personal attacks that resulted from broadcaster compliance with the fairness doctrine" (559) (expand the quote or paraphrase further because otherwise it is not very clear The good thing with the rule was that unlike the Fairness Doctrine, it offered specific guidelines for broadcaster compliance, and contained certain exemptions such as political figures, or foreign groups.  The political editorial rule was slightly different.  "Whereas the personal attack rule was intended to protect anyone attacked on the air, the editorial rule applied to editorials supporting or opposing candidates for office" (561)
As Donald P. Mullally explains in his article "The Fairness Doctrine: Benefits and Costs.":
.  "The commission up until it adopted the fairness rules had few remedies.  It could for example, direct compliance; it could grant short term renewals only; finally, it could revoke the stations license on the grounds that it was not operating in the public interest.  With the adoption of the new fairness rules and their sanction by the U.S. Supreme Court, the FCC can now impose "forfeitures" or fines on stations that violate the rules" (580).  With the rules firmly in place, the FCC now had a firmer source of authority and a clearer guideline for both the people to understand, and the broadcasters to follow, but the doctrine itself was still very vague, and the people and broadcasters were still correct in complaining that one or the other's rights were being violated.
The right to speak and hear a variety of views is one of the pillars of the Fairness Doctrine so argues Timothy J. Brennan and other scholars.  Brennan points out that the station owner has no inalienable right to provide whatever programming that they desire under the doctrine because they have a responsibility to the public (424).  The owners only rights stem from their rights as a person or citizens.  The station owners potential desires are put aside in the argument for the inalienable right to freedom of expression by the greater public.  Brennan cites three arguments by Lichtenburg to back his claim: Lichtenburg (1987) traces the association of freedom of expression with the need for individuals to think for themselves in order to be fully human, Scanlon (1979) argues that a legitimate government would have to be one founded by agreement among rational, autonomous individuals, and that such individuals would not set up a government that prevented them from making up their own minds about political issues, the third argument derived from Mill, and then offered by Rawls (1971), is that freedom of speech is necessary if "political affairs are to be conducted in a rationale fashion," with citizens "in a position to assess how proposals affect their well being and which policies advance their conception of good" (424)  Although this idea is correct, it is also greatly flawed as Donald P. Mullaly points out.
In an article called "The Fairness Doctrine, Benefits and Costs," Mullally asks "Does the fairness doctrine restrict the constitutional rights of broadcasters freedom of speech?"  His article accurately sums up the double edged sword that is the fairness doctrine, and although he recognizes that it is beyond the scope of his article to examine the amendment issues regarding the electronic media, he does go on to say "We are restricting the freedom of the broadcaster when we burden him with an obligation triggered by his statement or the statement he allows to be broadcast, but if we do not place this burden upon him, we allow the broadcaster himself to restrict the freedom of others to express their opinions" (582).  Although it wasn't officially worded this way, the FCC sided in the favor of the greater public, sacrificing the rights of the broadcaster for the majority, but so many claims began to arise of unfair coverage that the FCC had to lay down specific guidelines for a complaint to be valid. 
One of the problems outlined is that since now that the people were clearly favored over the broadcaster when it came to individual rights, there were very few specific guidelines to explain what qualified as a violation and what the broadcasters could still have protection in doing.  In an article by the Harvard Law Review titled "The Fairness Doctrine And Claims Of Systematic Imbalance In Television News Broadcasting" the unlisted author address a specific case where guidelines were clearly set by the courts.  The case was The American Security Council Education Foundation v. The FCC, and what the case produced was a 6-3 split decision by the District of Columbia Board of Appeals.  Judge Tamm who wrote the report for the court noted the delicate balance between the rights of the broadcaster, and the rights of the public to be informed.  He went on to say "A key element of this balance is the requirement that the complainant present prima facie evidence of a fairness violation before the broadcaster will be required to respond."  He agreed with the FCC that the fairness doctrine is issue oriented, and therefore a complaint had to focus on a particular and well defined issue on which the coverage was allegedly imbalanced.  He went on to clarify that ordering broadcaster response to complaints based on amorphous issues would "unduly burden broadcasters without a countervailing benefit to the publics right to be informed." (1032)  This case clarified that if the fairness doctrine was to be subject to "umbrella issues," then there would have to be a clear connection between the component parts.  An umbrella issue is  containsdistinct and identifiable sub-issues.  The basis of the complaint against ASCEF's was that they had grouped issues such as the SALT I Treaty (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty,) detente with the Soviet Union, the Vietnam War, and President Nixon's 1972 rapprochement with China all under the heading of "National Security."  Because there was no clear cut connection between these issues, they lost their appeal, and the Fairness Doctrine now had a better definition of what counted as a valid complaint.  Although the area of regular broadcasts was becoming more clear in it's guidelines and regulations, there was a rising possibility of the Fairness Doctrine spreading to the realm of advertising. 
In a California Law Review article titled "And Now A Word Against Our Sponsor: Extending The FCC's Fairness Doctrine To Advertising," the author/author's (unknown) explain the FCC's debate on whether or not to spread the authority of the Fairness Doctrine to include the realm of advertising.  The review recognizes that although the FCC rarely considered the content of commercial messages in determining whether licensees were meeting their obligation to present balanced coverage of conflicting views, a number of recent complaints and court decisions have forced the FCC to reconsider its position on commercial messages.  Although the FCC contemplated the thought of imposing the doctrine on broadcasters, they decided against it due to the ramifications that it would have on the market for both licensees and advertisers, as well as the foreseeable difficulties in regulating yet another sector of media (1418).  Advocacy groups in favor of the doctrine appealed the decision, but the FCC stood firm.  In rulings like this there is often confusion over the exact methodology of distributive justice, that is, how do courts decide what is right when there is no clear cut definition in the first amendment, and one groups rights will be violated no matter which path is taken?
One clear problem in distributive justice was pointed out in a California Law Review titled "The Problem of Issue in the Administration of the Fairness Doctrine" is FCC’s reliance on complaints made by consumers. t "Rather than screen television and radio broadcasting itself to assure compliance, the FCC relies on complaints from the public about a particular licensees broadcasts (547)  The article goes on to examine the difficulties of both the public and the FCC to define what qualifies as an issue, when a complaint is brought to the attention of the commission.  Because there are no clear guidelines, far too many cases are brought up.  "Almost all of this increased activity has concerned the second part of the doctrine, requiring a licensee who has aired views on one side of an issue to air contrasting views.  Resolution of these complaints has centered on two key questions:  What issues have been raised in a broadcast?  Are these issues controversial and of public importance? (548)  The law review points out that what one person considers fair and equal coverage may be viewed as extremely biased from another just as one could consider something controversial while another might not, so the rulings by the FCC are open to interpretation, and far from concrete. 
In a 1981 article in the California Review written by authors unknown, there is again a recognition that the doctrine allows for a level of government intrusion that is seen as impermissible by many.  On the other hand though, the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum (the invisible broadcast waves over which transmissions are sent) limits the number of speakers who can exercise their right to free speech over the airwaves.  The article examines the double edged sword that is the fairness doctrine in regards to distributive justice when it lays out the ramifications for the doctrines abolishment.  "If Congress does abolish the fairness doctrine, an individual or group that favors government regulations of broadcast content would be likely to bring an action requesting judicial reimposition of such regulation.  This lawsuit would be predicated on an asserted right of the public to obtain diverse viewpoints over the airwaves on controversial issues of public importance, a right asserted to prevail over the general constitutional mandate against content-based regulation of speech." (557)  The Law Review points out that such a suit could come from either part of the fairness doctrine.  An individual or group could demand that a station provide programming on an issue that they either ignored or inadequately covered.  This stems from the first part of the amendment that broadcasters cover issues of public importance.  The second possibility is that after a broadcaster has presented one side of an issue, the individual or group demand that they present the other side of the issue as well.  This stems from the second part of the doctrine that requires broadcasters to air both sides of an issue.  If the broadcaster refused either of these scenarios, then the individual or group could sue the broadcaster to compel it to meet the demand, saying that access over the airwaves to information and viewpoints on important public issues is mandated by the first amendment.   One of the problems is that the right to speak and the right to hear which are embodied in the first amendment may not be applicable to such a situation for two reasons.  The first is that in this situation  the government would have to require a substitution of one speaker for another where as the true purpose in the first amendment is as a prohibition of government interference with communication.  This kind of substitution wouldn't work because it would deny the original speaker their right to free speech.  Secondly if the right to hear section of the doctrine were applied to broadcasted content regulation would weaken the role of "free press.".  Such a thing would run the risk of promoting government abuse by giving states the authority to determine what is fair and what isn't fair, and to mandate a certain kind of coverage by the press (558)  Rather than protecting the rights of the people who had no access, the government could then easily become too intrusive in both what the media can cover and what people might hear.   Thus there appears to be a a virtual stalemate between broadcasters or individuals and groups rights.  Brennan offers a different solution for achieving distributive justice.  Brennan says that we shouldn't debate the specific measures of distributive justice from an equality standpoint, but that we should look at the simpler question of whether the doctrine creates a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, income, or resources.  Brennan states that "A requirement to present opinions on public issues held by groups otherwise unable to pay broadcasters to carry their messages may result in a broader acceptance of public policies that favor those groups" (427).  He uses the scenario of a poor neighborhood about to be leveled to put in a new highway as an example of where the doctrine would benefit those who otherwise would not have a voice.  If the doctrine were not in place, and the wealthy had control of the airwaves, then they could control the flow of information and thus make it impossible for the poor or the working class to get their point of view presented to the public. What Brennan suggests to help level the playing field a little bit is an auction of the spectrum rather than to give it away.  He believed that if the government would auction the spectrum (which is worth billions) rather than just giving it away, then they could use that money in redistributive programming, and educational shows.  Brennan raises a valid point that "When compared to the funds that could be raised through auctions, the distributive effects of the Fairness Doctrine seem to pale as they stand" (426).  One of the strongest objections to proposed government control comes from the broadcasters themselves who desire freedom from government oversight, but as Jay Blumler argues, we can not give this to them.  In "The Role of Public Policy in the New Marketplace," Blumler argues "There is a continuing role for public policy in the electronic media marketplace" (9)  He warns that our society is too important and too reliant on the electronic media for us to see it as "just another business" (14)  Patricia Aufderheide however questions the need for the continuation of the doctrine.
She points out how the changing of the times has affected the marketplace and made old arguments irrelevant.  "Primary is the question of whether public interest regulation of broadcasting continues to be necessary.  Public interest regulation is grounded in the notion that broadcasters hold in trust a scarce public resource and must perform some public service and observe certain standards of responsible behavior in exchange for using it for their own benefit.  Opponents of continued public interest regulation, who have taken up the Fairness Doctrine as the wedge in their campaign argue that increased outlets for opinion not only over the air but also on cable and in videocassette-form make the scarcity argument irrelevant" (47)
The Chilling Effect
Among the cries for the end of the doctrine there are also valid arguments that the doctrine has negative effects on the marketplace because of the fear that it causes, thus creating a Chilling Effect on freedom of press.  Thomas Hazlett gives his argument in favor of the existence of the chilling effect titled: "The danger has been seen on the U.S. Supreme Court, The FCC, and elsewhere, that there exists a potentially unconstitutional "chilling effect": the prospect of having to award equal (unpaid) time to dissenting points of view constitutes a tax on controversial speech.  Philip M. Napoli goes into more detail regarding the chilling effect, and it's consequences. 
In an article titled "The Unique Nature of Communications Regulation: Evidence and Implications for Communications Policy Analysis," Napoli explains that according to the findings of the FCC, "The burden of meeting fairness doctrine requirements compelled broadcasters to present fewer discussions of controversial public issues.  If the policy did have such an effect, then there was a potential ripple effect on the political knowledge, public opinion, and voting behavior of the television audience, which would be receiving less controversial public issues than before" (14).  Brennan perhaps gives the best explanation of the chilling effect.
He defines the argument for the chilling effect is that the obligation to cover opposing views creates a marginal disincentive to cover initial points of view, which therefore reduces the station owners willingness to cover controversy in the first place. (431).  Although many other scholars address the potential for the chilling effect, Brennan is the only one who offers possible solutions to try and solve the problem without getting rid of the doctrine.  One such solution is "Suppose station owners were obligated to cover opposing sides of significant public issues regardless of their own journalistic, or programming decisions.  Then there would be no marginal disincentive to the provision of investigative journalism, documentaries on public matters and the like" (431).  By offering this solution, Brennan avoids creating any additional coverage obligation under the doctrine because the obligation would be whether or not the station covered one side of a controversy.  Another possible remedy that Brennan takes from Henry Geller is that fairness doctrine compliance be reviewed only at the time of license renewals rather than a case by case basis brought to the attention of the FCC.  The risk that this runs as Geller points out is that it could still create a chilling effect for fear of a license revocation, and can lead to governmental bias at the time of license renewal (431).  Brennan then goes on to recognize that his solution for the chilling effect is also flawed because "A matter may become a public controversy only because of a television stations journalism" (432)  His solution to this problem is that a station should be obligated to carry opposing viewpoints on matters that could not be attributed to its own investigative efforts.  Brennan states "Since there are other sources of news, the likelihood that a matter is newsworthy only because of the efforts of a television station is likely to be small.  While the doctrine may very well seem to be an enormous hindrance on the broadcasting companies due to the sheer amount of complaints that can occur, the FCC attempts to lessen this burden by making the doctrine applicable to groups and not individuals.   As Adrian outlines: "If all individual complaints were heard then the doctrine would be a disaster, so the FCC specified that the doctrine could only apply to groups (24).  While this made many people unhappy it also made sense because if each individual was given what they want then the system would be impossible to manage.  Brennan follows "When we turned to the rights of all individuals, including but not limited to station owners, we found that there are important arguments for an inalienable right of speech, which can be translated into a right of access.  Such a right however cannot be exercised on behalf of individuals through a Fairness Doctrine, since there is insufficient spectrum to provide individual speech" (426).  In essence the doctrine does what it can to assure rights to speak and hear, but it simply cannot please everyone because of the reality that the supply of the spectrum is much smaller than the demand for access. 
When the fairness doctrine was in practice it was received both with resistance and open arms by liberal democrats who worry about the power of the corporate media in controlling information.  At the same time it was rejected by the , broadcaster who feared that they were now under loosely interpreted codes of conduct.  As stated by Mullally "We are either restricting the rights of the broadcaster when we burden him with this obligation, but if we do not place this burden on him, then we allow the broadcaster to restrict the access of others to express their opinions" (582).  Brennan reminds us that "station owners have no inalienable rights because that is overruled by the responsibility for the public good" (436).  The arguments against the doctrine eventually won over the Supreme Court and the FCC, as addressed in Brennan's conclusion where he states "The strongest argument against the Fairness Doctrine is that the viewing public is best served if broadcasters are allowed to determine program and advertising content as they see fit, in response to marketplace forces.  Scarcity is less significant than commonly supposed, and the Fairness Doctrine is more likely to reduce audiences in a counterproductive manner than to ameliorate output reductions caused by limited competition among broadcasters" (437)  Following this, Mullally concludes by stating "Limitations on the expected ability to enforce a Fairness Doctrine fairly and effectively may outweigh all of the policy arguments that might be made in favor of the Fairness Doctrine" (582).  What the doctrine comes down to is a decision of morality for each person.  Can we live with violating the rights of a few to protect the rights of many?  Are our standards of programming going so far downhill that there needs to be some sort of mandated programming that serves the public good, or does the public have the right to watch whatever they want regardless of the social consequences?  These are complicated answers that can fall under the 1st Amendment and can be interpreted in multiple ways.  Depending upon one’s ideological disposition and position in society one would come to different conclusions about these complicated issues. 
 As I have argued from the standpoint of other authors, moral rights are a tricky subject regarding the fairness doctrine because there are multiple groups involved with different vested interests at stake.  On one side there are the broadcasters who feel that it is their right to air whatever they see fit according to market demands without government interference.  On the other side there are both individuals and groups who desire access to air their views over these media sources in order to be heard on a much larger scale than they otherwise would be able to.   This dilemma is a perfect example of why the Constitution must be seen as a living document in this debate.  The founding fathers wrote the Constitution with no means of knowing the rapid development of technology that would occur in the future.  They did not have telegraphs yet let alone a television and radio spectrum that allows for thousands of channels to be broadcast, and because of this it is impossible to literally interpret what their intention was.  Since we cannot very well go and ask them either, then we must bend the Constitution to fit the needs of the most people.  With the necessary path clear, we now must figure out who has the most claim: the broadcasters, or the individuals and groups without access. 
I believe that broadcasters are absolutely correct in arguing that the fairness doctrine restricts their right to freedom of speech.  By requiring them to air issues of public importance, and more specifically to require them to air them in a fair manner, we are putting very strict regulations on a system that is based on a competitive and free market.  Because of this conflict, it is no wonder that the doctrine caused so many problems.  With two different systems merged into one it is nearly impossible to have any sense of harmony.  As the media spectrum expanded, they then also had a claim of unfair treatment because only some stations were required to cover issues of public importance while others were unhindered in this regard.  An argument that Brennan brings up is that to ensure efficiency all of us ought to have the right to do as we please with the resources that we control, but the Supreme Court case of United States v. O'Brien sums up the counter argument.  According to this 1968 case, laws that limit speech may be valid "if they serve as a substantial government interest and are no more intrusive than necessary to serve that interest." (Quincy Cable TV Inc. V. FCC, 1985, p1445; Tribe 1985)  While cases such as Gitlow v. New York directly after WWI held very similar opinions, this case was important because it essentially cast aside the rights of the broadcaster for the greater good of the people.  Although open to scrutiny, this is a decision with a lot of logic to back it up.
When the Constitution was written all people were on a virtually equal footing because there were no sources of mass media.  The closest thing to it were news pamphlets that were distributed, but even these could only be printed off by the hundreds each day.  As such, there was no real danger of unequal access to media.  Now though, with a select few corporate entities controlling the majority of the spectrum, the argument that the common people do not have a voice is a legitimate one.  Whether we interpret the Constitution literally or if we translate its meaning to account for modern developments, I believe that the intent of freedom of speech and expression should apply to the greatest majority that it can serve. While it is true that some individuals are being cut out of their right to freedom of speech and expression, we have to recognize that it is simply impossible for the fairness doctrine or anything else to grant access to every individual that desires it. In order to avoid any claims to the contrary, it would be important for a new fairness doctrine to specifically state that it only applies to "political and social groups" unless in extreme circumstances.  An example of such a circumstance would be the case of Lampley v. KFI.
In this case, Bree Walker Lampley along with numerous disability rights organizations and individuals alleged that the radio station KFI(AM,) Los Angeles violated the commissions personal attack rule.  The allegations came when during a broadcast of a two hour talk-show hosted by Jane Norris, Noriss and call-in listeners discussed the "issue of whether or not it was fair for the Lampley's to knowingly pass along a deformity to their child.  Lampley and support groups stated that the broadcast personally attacked Los Angeles news anchor Bree Walker Lampley's integrity and character because she and her husband Jim Lampley, decided to conceive a child knowing that there was a 50% chance that their child would inherit her genetic condition called ectrodactylism.  The complaint stated that Lampley and those who share her disability were not allowed to air their views.  The complaints also alleged that the broadcast was biased against people with disabilities, and presented medical inaccuracies about Lampley and those who share her disability, and that they failed to operate in the public interest by harassing and discriminating against callers who attempted to express views contrary to those expressed by the station.  There was another instance regarding this issue when August 28, 1991 another two-hour broadcast hosted by Tom Leykis attacked the "morality of Lampley's pregnancy.  Accordingly, the station did not inform, or allow the Lampleys' or any other representative of the disability community to respond to either program.  The complainants asked that the Commission initiate an investigation, and they also requested a relief in the form of license revocation, a forfeiture, and an admonition on the basis that: "1. KFI failed to operate in the public interest by ignoring its obligation to present conflicting views on issues of public importance.  2. The KFI broadcast contained factual inaccuracies and medical misinformation.  3. The KFI broadcast contained personal attacks upon complainants in violation of Section 73.1920 of the Commission's rules." (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/da92-179.pdf)  The problem with these claims was that the doctrine had already been abandoned by that time, and although the personal attack rule was still enforced from time to time, it was not attached to any concrete policy of the FCC's and as such couldn't be held up in such a case.  I believe that if the doctrine had still been firmly in place, a ruling like this would not have happened, but if a new doctrine were to be written up, this is a specific case that could be used as a clear example of a violation of the personal attack rule.
Aside from occasional cases like Lampley v. KFI though, the right to access needs to be saved for social and political groups. One might also argue that this case could also be handled not as individual violation of rights but as a group rights of the disabled. This reality though will still cause uproars from countless individuals who fall outside of the "group" category, and because of this feel that their rights are not being addressed.  I believe that there is a solution to this problem, but it is a somewhat harsh one. 
A common occurrence in government policy making is that they are often flawed, and despite trying to make things better for people, it is simply impossible to address or please everybody.  The result of this is often an appeal to the courts by special interest groups who are either morally opposed, or feel that the doctrine is immoral.  
One of the biggest arguments for the fairness doctrine is that it helps to promote the ideas of small groups who otherwise would have no means of getting their message out.  The biggest danger of not allowing this is that it would then pave the way for the wealthy who own the stations to prevent the spread of information to the middle class that could help to distribute the wealth to the poor.  In essence they could distort or ignore information in order to keep the money in their own pockets.  Here lies another difficulty with the fairness doctrine.
Groups with more money "should" have more influence if we are following the rules of our capitalistic society, but we also live in a democratic society where our morals an beliefs, and those of our forefathers are a great part of our personal identity.  These two ideals can often work together, but in instances like this, they clash severely. Should money give so much power to certain groups that they are able to distort democracy by claiming virtual monopoly over information?
There are groups who have to scrap for every penny of advertising space and media time because their views are not commonly shared.  They work hard to stand up for what they believe in, and to try to draw more people to their cause, but they are often fighting a loosing battle. It is possible for those groups who lack resources to mobilize support by informing their fellow citizens about the importance of the issues but that will still require time, energy and even money to do so.  It is a classic American attitude to cheer for the little guy in the face of great odds.  In "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" we can't help but get tingles down our spine as a takes on the corruption of his state despite overwhelming odds.  When we watch a big sports game we want our particular team to win, but in instances of playoffs and championships we usually are cheering for the underdog because it would be a great feel good story.  It is important in this political system though to separate fantasy from reality.  In the television market it is a fact that money rules, and as such we sometimes have to sacrifice our desires.  Brennan's suggestion of auctioning the television spectrum rather than giving it away is a good example of this. 
As I quoted earlier, the television spectrum is currently given away to a select few according to Brennan.  I agree with his suggestion that the spectrum should instead be auctioned off, with the proceeds going to fund redistributive or educational programming.  Despite this being the best option, there are two problems that I can see that result from a auction.  One problem is that if the spectrum were to be auctioned, then the wealthy would still maintain control, but given the alternative of giving the spectrum away, auctioning it is still better.  The second problem is that if the proceedings from the auction were to go to some sort of redistributive or educational programming, it would still not solve the problem of the shortage of viewers. 
The main problem that I see with reintroducing the fairness doctrine is that we as viewers now have countless more options of what we can watch than when it was introduced in 1949.(It may be a problem but it can also be a solution too)  We have gone from three original broadcast channels to thousands of cable channels in addition to viewer subscribed stations such as HBO and Showtime.  Because of this enormous increase in the spectrum, if the doctrine is reintroduced, and stations are required to air issues of public importance, then people who are uninterested can just go and turn on a Seinfeld re-run.  This is where the efficiency of the doctrine needs to be addressed because it clearly cannot be brought back the way that it was and be expected to work effectively.
As I said already, one of the fairness doctrines biggest flaws was that it was open to interpretation.  In addition to this, government interference in a capitalistic market place caused a chilling effect which made the broadcasting companies less inclined to air issues of public importance.  Also by putting these responsibilities on only certain stations, the doctrine unfairly put a burden on a few rather than all of them.  If the new doctrine were to work, then these problems would have to be addressed. 
The new doctrine would have to have specific guidelines in order for it to work efficiently.  It would have to give clear examples of what counts as a violation of the personal attack rule, and what counts as unfair coverage.  These guidelines would state that complaints regarding a personal attack would have to be regarding an issue of public importance that would normally be covered in the media, and not an attack based on personal character which would be considered unworthy otherwise.  Again I cite Lampley v. KFI.  If KFI attacked Lampley's golf swing, then there would be no case.  While there is an argument that she was personally attacked without an opportunity to respond, the reality is that the system becomes too tangled if issues like this have to be processed all of the time.  Because they are criticizing her choice to have children despite a medical condition though, then the issue is one of public importance.  Debates regarding if people with medical conditions and disabilities should have children is an important debate because it brings questions of morality and equal rights to the table.  Regarding issues such as this, political figures and dignitaries must be addressed as well.
Politicians and foreign dignitaries should be exempt from the personal attack rule if they are being criticized for policy making decisions.  If they were to be given free air time whenever they were criticized for their job, then our television networks would never go near the subject.  This would have a very negative effect because one of the signs of a healthy government is discussion and even criticism of it's policy makers.  If an officials character outside of their office was challenged however, then that person should have a right to respond.  For example if Sarah Palin was criticized for her mothering skills of her disabled child while she was campaigning with Senator McCain, then she should have a right to respond because the attack was not of a political nature, despite it being said while she was a vice-presidential candidate.  In addition to specifying what qualifies as an attack vs. what is just a negative comment, we must also specify in what context something can be considered a personal attack.
  What I mean by this is that there is a difference between certain media techniques, and in what context they can be considered regarding personal attacks.  For example, if a news station had one of their crews following a political candidate on their campaign trail filming a documentary that showed the candidate in a negative light, this could not be seen as a personal attack.  Yes the network may have some political affiliation or bias, but as long as they just show the documentary and allow it to speak for itself, or to have a discussion group go over it, then it cannot be considered a personal attack.  I say discussion group because they are another factor in what qualifies as a personal attack.  During a discussion or debate panel there are usually participants from both major parties although what channel you watch depends on what the ratio of democrats vs. republicans is and vice versa.  These participants are sometimes employees of those networks, and are sometimes outside consultants or specialists who are brought on due to their expertise.  If these people say something during the debate that seems like a personal attack, neither they nor the network is liable for providing an opportunity for a response by the person under criticism.  The reason for this is that the person in the debate is expressing their right to freedom of speech and expression, and it does not represent the opinion of the network as a whole.  It would be illogical to expect networks to strictly censor their guest commentators so that they would not say anything that could offend anyone because at the end of the day that is what drives ratings up.  If a news anchor such as Wolf Blitzer were to say something that could be considered a personal attack though, then the network could be held responsible for providing response time.  This is because Blitzer is a permanent paid employee of the network and as such is supposed to represent their views.  There would probably be a counter-argument to this policy saying that it would place unfair restrictions on certain programs, but since all networks would be held to the same standards, the complainants would have no real ground to make their claim.  Issues regarding unfair or unequal coverage would have to be addressed similarly.
In order for a claim of unfair coverage to be made, the subject has to be considered an issue of public importance.  For example if Fox News ran a story on why invading Iraq was a good thing, then they would be presenting unfair coverage because they are not presenting the other side of the argument.  The tricky spot here is that a person or group couldn't file a complaint that Fox News provided unequal coverage of the Iraq War, the Jobs Bill, and Faulty Toyota Accelerators. Although there is no correlation between these three issues they are all of public importance, but unless they are connected, then they cannot be filed in the same complaint.  This may make for more paperwork true, but for simplicity sake it keeps the system better organized when dealing with complaints.  If the system were clearly outlined and organized in this way, then it could lead to a reversal of the chilling effect.
One of the reasons that the doctrine was abandoned is that it began having the opposite effect than it was supposed to.  Broadcasters were now less likely to cover issues of public importance because they were not protected by concrete guidelines for what they covered.  Even if the broadcasters thought that they did everything right and by the doctrines standards, somebody could file a complaint and would often win which led to fines.  With the rules basically up in the air, the broadcasters decided to play it safe, and just stop covering as many controversial issues.  With a new system of specific guidelines in place however, they would be free to cover issues just as long as they followed the rules.  Aside from avoiding fines, the broadcasters wouldn't have to worry about providing nearly as much response time to people or groups that they upset which would solve the other problem of the chilling effect where they loose advertising revenue by having to provide response time to groups that people are not interested in.  Although this almost solves the problem from the broadcasting perspective, the same problems for the people still lie with this doctrine as with the original.
Having a less specific doctrine was almost better for people without access because by filling complaints they could gain this access more easily.  If the broadcasters actually know how to avoid violating the rules though, then these groups cannot get free air time as easily.  To solve this problem I propose the most radical and likely controversial part of the new doctrine.
As I stated earlier, the spectrum has grown so large that even if we reintroduced the doctrine and broadcasters were once again mandated to air issues of public importance, people could simply just change the channel to watch something else if they were not interested.  With this in mind, and in order not to only place the requirement on some media outlets, I would propose that all media stations whether cable, subscribed, or otherwise be mandated to air issues at least twice a week for one hour both in the morning and the evening.  Since one of the most important intents of the Fairness doctrine was the public right to know about important public issues I will argue that mandating this kind of across the board coverage of public affairs is a simpler and less problematic on the grounds of the First Amendment.  By doing this, the market effects on the networks should be minimal while at the same time raising awareness among the public about issues that they might otherwise not be interested in.  This is a very radical idea to those who preach less government interference, but I would argue that our general public is on such a rapid decline in terms of general knowledge and understanding that it is time to intervene before the problem becomes too great.  There would be additional arguments such as the right to hear which could mean the right to hear without government interference, but since the proposed interference would only be for approximately four hours out of the week, the interference would be minimal.   It is also not as if the FCC and the government would be forcing people to watch the programming.  They could always choose to go outside, run errands, or do countless other things.  Also it is important to point out that in this system, the government would not be developing the programming to watch.  All networks would be able to choose for themselves what they wanted to cover.  MTV could cover the South by Southwest festival while TNT could cover a Senatorial race.  The content does not matter just so long as they are done together.  With this policy, there would also be a minimal affect on loss of revenue by the broadcasters.
Since they are all airing at the same time, it is likely that the normal demographic groups will stick with their preferred stations.  This will help to ensure that the advertisers who financially drive the advertising market do not jump ship during these hours and focus on another network where their targeted demographic has fled to.  As a result the market should stay stable during these hours, so instead of requiring only a select few stations to air these issues we now require them all to do so under the arguments of both fairness and national benefit.  If we stick to this plan, then the effects on both the character of individuals and of our country will be for the better.
  In a very short time span our media has gone from one of discretion for the sake of the greater good to one that investigates every tiny detail of the lives of people in public light, trying to find imperfections and hidden skeletons.  I do not even blame the media for this because they are simply responding to market demands which we feed.  It is us the people that watches and reads these things, which gives the stations and papers their ratings and value, which attracts the advertisers which keeps them in business.  If we are to blame somebody for allowing this decline in our character then we only need to look in the mirror to find the answer.  I do not mean to be nostalgic and preach how much better the old way was.  I only fear where our current path is taking us.
Yes there is an argument that we deserve to know what is going on behind the scenes of our public figures, especially in politics, but we have crossed a threshold.  We are spending too much time worrying about who our representatives are sleeping with rather what their policy's are regarding important issues.  It is time that we focus on what is truly important and then focus on the extra issues that play a small part of the overall picture.  We are at what appears to be an incredibly important part in our nation’s history in terms of gay rights, social security, the economy, healthcare, and much more.  We cannot afford to simply turn on our preferred news channel and to believe everything that is said to us.  We must be willing to investigate these issues for ourselves in order to develop our own opinions because there are no real restrictions on the "facts" and figures that are presented to us.  I say this to Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between, above, and below.  It is time for us to demand more of ourselves and of our media than what we currently do.  If all of the pieces that I and others much smarter than myself suggest are able to fall into place, I believe that we stand a real chance at making a change to better ourselves in the area of knowledge and understanding of both our own issues as well as those regarding the rest of the world.
In order to understand the argument it is important to summarize the points.  By looking at the issue of inalienable rights it is the most logical conclusion to admit that the rights of station owners and their freedom of speech is overshadowed by their duty to the public.  The rights of listeners to speak and hear on an equal footing while desirable is not realistic.  There is not enough of the supply (media and spectrum) to meet the demand.  Therefore the doctrine needs to apply to groups, and only on rare circumstances to individuals.  Politicians and other international figures will not benefit from the doctrine unless they are attacked on a personal rather than policy level.  The fairness doctrine will not be likely to have any serious effect on the redistribution of wealth because the money still goes from advertisers to broadcasters.  It does however give a better chance to the poorer groups to air their views whereas they would be unable to otherwise.  This in turn can help these groups gain support due to their large scale coverage, and could help turn them into a larger and more successful group.  One of the main arguments against the doctrine is that it interferes with what is supposed to be a free market place.  The doctrine is more likely to reduce audiences because they have to provide free air time to unpopular groups, and this places an unfair burden on only certain stations.  This can be countered by mandating all stations to cover issues in their own fashion regardless of their regular programming.  Finally it is not likely that we will loose our interest in the personal affairs of public figures, but our focus needs to be switched back to the issues that actually affect us first.  As interesting as the Tiger Woods scandal may be, or Bill Clinton exceeding his presidential duties in the oval office, thinking about the issues of health care and where we truly stand is much more important. 
While politicians such as former presidential candidate John Kerry wish to see the fairness doctrine re-instituted, the debate still has a very long way to go.  As I have said we cannot simply bring it back and expect it to work perfectly this time because our system is far different than when it was first instituted.  We have to think though if we are satisfied with where our path is leading if we do not bring the doctrine back, or at least something similar.  It is for each person to decide, but it is unlikely that many people will find that they are truly satisfied with their own level of knowledge and interest in the realm of public importance.            
Works Cited
"And Now A Word Against Our Sponsor: Extending The FCC's Fairness Doctrine To Advertising." California Law Review 60:1416 (1972): 1416-450. Print.
Aufderheide, Patricia.  "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest"  Questia Online Research.  Journal of Communication, Vol. 40, 1990
Blumler, Jay G.  "The Role of Public Policy in the Marketplace."  Education Resource Information Center ED322884 1989.
Brennan, Timothy J. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 33.4 (1989): 419-40. Print.
California Law Review-Author Unknown. "The Future of Content Regulation in Broadcasting." California Law Review 69.555. Print.
Eggerton, John. "Kerry Wants Fairness Doctrine Reimposed." BC: Broadcasting and Cable. Web. 1 Nov. 2009.
Harvard Law Review. "The Fairness Doctrine and Claims of Systematic Imbalance in Television News Broadcasting: American Security Council Education Foundation v. FCC." Rev. of American Security Council Education Foundation v. FCC. 1980: 1028-038. Academic Search premier. Web. 14 Jan. 2010.
Leweke, Robert W. "Rules Without A Home: FCC Enforcement of the Personal Attack and Political Editorial Rules." Journal of Communications and Politics (2001): 557-76. Print.
Mullally, Donald P. "The Fairness Doctrine Benefits and Costs." (2001): 577-82. Print.
Schauer, Frederick.  "Fear Risk and The First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect."  HeinOnline.  Rev. 1978 685-690
Simmons, Steven J. "The Problem of "Issue" in the Administration of the Fairness Doctrine." Rev. of California Law Review. Volume 65 No. 3 May 1977: 546-95. Print.
The Oyez Project, Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC , 395 U.S. 367 (1969) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_2_2)(last visited Monday, December 7, 2009).
Thomas W. Hazlett. (1998) Assigning Property Rights to Radio Spectrum Users: Why Did FCC License Auctions Take 67 Years?. The Journal of Law and Economics 41:s2, 529-576
Online publication date: 1-Oct-1998.