Is The Fairness Doctrine As Unfair As Conservatives Fear?

We will have a chance to find out on May 7, when the first meeting is held by the re-chartered   “Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age.” The committee will be chaired by Henry Rivera, general counsel of the Benton Foundation.   According to the Media Research Center, Rivera was a Reagan-era supporter of the Fairness Doctrine. This committee will discuss minority ownership and involvement in radio ownership and influence, and undoubtedly will become part of the “backdoor” Fairness Doctrine that Rep. Mike Pence and other conservatives saw coming after talk radio created the grassroots movement that shut down the 2007 immigration reform bill.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress came out with the liberal blueprint for policy designed to diminish the hold conservatives have on talk radio; and while the report decries the Fairness Doctrine, it pushes for localism regulations, including limits on how many stations may be owned by one corporation in a particular area. That same year, the Federal Communications Commission also endorsed localism, and recommended that the regulations be diversity-based as well. Essentially, the argument is that what the majority of listeners want (also known as the target market for advertisers, which keep radio stations open and profitable) is not important — politically correct radio is.

The fact is that localism regulations are simply impractical. Rules such as main studio, which requires one person in the station 24 hours a day, seven days a week while the radio station is on the air; the 25-mile radius rule, which requires that “a station’s main studio is located either within 25 miles from its community of license reference coordinates, or within the principal community contour of any station, of any broadcast service, licensed to the same community” if the radio station’s transmitter for multiple stations is located under one roof; and ownership limits regarding corporate cross-ownership in local media areas are far too expensive for small radio companies to follow and still be in business.

Local diversity boards will also be expensive, as radios will lose market share due to being required to play what a minority of listeners want to hear. After all, if the majority of a particular market ignore what the minority wants and listen to what they want anyway, a station that listens to minority opinions on local boards will be out of business in a very short time. Localism rules are limiting — not liberating — for small companies and consumer choice. They also provide a key opening for conglomerates to grow, as they can afford to lose money in small, localized stations.

Last fall, during my internship in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, I conducted a case study in which I examined how localism regulations would affect a small and/or rural market.   For my study, I chose Littleton, New Hampshire — a town of 5,845 according to the 2000 census, and the town next to where I grew up.

First, there are more radio stations now than ever before nationally, and according to the CATO Institute, the numbers have been growing since 1970 and the beginning of the era of deregulation. Also, as the Internet, cable TV, phone lines, and cellular phones become more accessible to more rural areas than ever before, information can be gathered more effectively, quickly, and thoroughly than those trying to pass localism regulations realize. Concerns — even in small/rural markets — that conglomerate monopolization will dominate are unfounded. While such business practices DO take place, by and large it is mostly medium and small businesses that are present in small towns. Lastly, should a conglomerate monopolize a region and bring a product — in this case, listening material — different than what is preferred by the target market, consumers will be able to force their will through use of Blackberries, computers, televisions, etc. This is very true even in Littleton.

To make a long story short, localism regulations will have exactly the opposite of their intended effect — instead of diversifying radio station ownership and listening options across the country, they will provide opportunities for conglomerations to buy what once were profitable radio stations and create fewer options for consumers. Furthermore, they will create an environment where the minority will have say over the majority in business strategies, crushing an area where the free market and consumer choice still have great power. Democrats claim they want to help the little guy- let’s make sure we hold them to that claim.

This piece is adapted from a longer study.