Science & Arts

By Richard Zoglin

Readers with a beef against their local newspaper usually have little recourse other than writing an angry letter to the editor. But people with complaints about their local TV or radio station have a powerful ally in their corner: the Federal Government. Every broadcast station in the country must abide by the fairness doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial public issues. A station that runs an editorial opposing nuclear power, for instance, must give the pronuclear side a chance to express its views. If the station fails to do so, it risks FCC censure; at worst, it could lose its license.

The ideal of fairness is one that few Americans would quarrel with. A tougher constitutional question, however, is whether such fairness ought to be mandated by the Government or whether that violates a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. In early June the House and Senate, by wide margins, passed a measure that would codify the fairness doctrine into statute law. But the bill was vetoed by President Reagan, who called the doctrine "antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment." Efforts to override the veto were abandoned last week, and the deregulation-minded FCC may soon be free to repeal the rule.

First enunciated in 1949, the fairness doctrine marked a recognition by the FCC that broadcasters have special obligations. Because stations are licensed by the Government and use a scarce public resource -- the electromagnetic spectrum -- the Government, it was reasoned, has the power to require that they use that resource in the public interest. Other such obligations include the equal-time rule (which ensures the same treatment for all candidates running for public office) and the personal-attack rule (which guarantees that people attacked on the air have an opportunity to reply).

Broadcasters, along with some First Amendment scholars, have long objected to these rules, pointing out that newspapers are bound by no such restrictions. "The notion that fairness is something that can be determined by a group of Government-appointed bureaucrats is offensive to any good journalist," says former CBS News President Richard Salant. The Supreme Court upheld the fairness doctrine in 1969, citing the scarcity of broadcast outlets and the need to enhance the expression of diverse opinions, but opponents argue that the situation has changed since then. With some 12,000 radio stations, 1,110 TV stations and a plethora of new cable outlets, the scarcity shoe is on the other foot. A typical large city now has dozens of radio and TV outlets but usually just one or two daily newspapers.

The fairness doctrine, critics add, may actually inhibit the free flow of ideas by inducing stations to avoid controversial topics that might stir complaints. Yet it has a diverse corps of defenders, including Conservative Phyllis Schlafly and Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader, as well as most members of Congress. The rule, they argue, is a crucial way of giving ordinary citizens access to the electronic media: broadcast outlets, though more plentiful < today, are still sought-after and expensive properties available to only a few. Nor, they contend has the doctrine had the chilling effect that some claim. Between 1984 and 1986, the FCC received 19,565 fairness complaints. But it pursued only 18 of them with the station involved, and ruled that there was a violation in just one case. Andrew Schwartzman, executive director of the Washington-based Media Access Project, points out that the fairness doctrine does not require "equal time," only that "reasonable" coverage be given to different views. "It is an incentive to do more, not less," he says.

Unless Congress circumvents Reagan's veto (possibly by attaching the fairness-doctrine measure to another piece of legislation), the issue will once again rest with the FCC, which has been steadily eliminating or easing many Government restrictions on broadcasters. Among them: limitations on the number of stations one company can own and minimum requirements on news and public-affairs programming. Dennis Patrick, the new FCC chairman, vows to continue the trend. "The electronic media," he says, "should enjoy the same First Amendment freedom as the print media." If his view prevails, fairness may no longer be a Government call; like their colleagues in the print media, broadcasters will just have to be fair on their own.

With reporting by Jay Peterzell/Washington