Fairness Doctrine

Re "Talk radio in the balance," Opinion, March 3 Brian C. Anderson fails to mention three basic facts. First, the airwaves are owned by the public and not the broadcasters. Second, radio stations have a no-fee lease from our government that allows exclusive use of a particular broadcast spectrum. And finally, in return for this exclusive free use of public property, broadcasters are required to serve the public interest. Talk-radio hosts who mislead, take stuff out of context, ignore significant facts and just plain lie are not serving the public interest.

Re "Brain dead," Opinion, June 14 Marc Cooper gets it exactly right about Newt Gingrich, the "zombie politician." But he forgot to mention the reason Newt still walks among us: the Fox "News" Channel. Every time I'm surfing channels and I happen by mistake to land there, I have to watch a commentary by Gingrich or former Vice President Dick Cheney. That channel makes me long for the days of the Fairness Doctrine. Seth Hill Topanga :: With all the hateful political rancor displayed by the elite media lately, it was refreshing to read Cooper's article.

One of the favorite rallying cries on conservative radio these days is that the president-elect might face demands from his crazed lefty pals to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" to muzzle Rush, Sean and their allies on the right end of the radio dial. Commentators like Larry Elder of KABC here in Los Angeles have been sounding the warning about the possible imminent return of federal rules mandating that broadcasters balance out political views on radio and television.

It was the decision that launched a thousand lips. In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped requiring broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues, a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.

The demise of immigration reform legislation in the Senate has led some congressional Democrats to strike back at conservative talk-radio stations, which stoked public opposition by labeling the bill "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. Their anger at the talkers' demagoguery is justified, but their response isn't. They want to revive the Fairness Doctrine -- a Cold War-era federal rule designed to promote balanced coverage of important issues on the public airwaves.

Re "It's not fairness," editorial, July 24 It's amazing that, out of all the conceivable arguments to make against restoring the Fairness Doctrine, your editorial picked the worst: "No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available today to express it -- maybe not a radio or TV station but certainly a website, a video blog, a podcast or an e-mail newsletter."

So the Democrats want to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine because corporations rushed in after deregulation and, alas, talk radio is dominated by conservatives ["Speaking Up for Freedom of Speech," by Tim Rutten, Oct. 6]. It is a ludicrous argument made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others that Congress needs to get involved in this. Believe me, if radio stations could make money with liberal talk shows, they would put them on the air tomorrow. Why is Air America such a big flop?

Fair is fair. This a philosophical statement that many people and institutions live by. Throughout my 31 years as an educator, I displayed those words on a sign in my classroom and office. I used it as a guide when interacting with parents, students, colleagues and public agencies. Today it hangs on the file cabinet in my computer room. Now that we are in a legal morass with respect to the presidential election, I hope that our next president and his cabinet will reflect that philosophy.

Candidates running for local office are banned from a city-run cable television program on municipal politics until a dispute about equal time is resolved, officials said. All candidates seeking public office in the March election are being denied access to the show "City Beat," which appears on cable station KPAS-TV, until the city attorney advises officials on whether some appearances violate the city's fairness regulation.