The Fairness Doctrine has once again been making headlines, leading conservatives to decry what they characterize as a ‘government gag order’. In case you haven’t been watching a lot of Fox News lately, the “doctrine” is an aging federal communication policy created by the FCC back in the forties that obliged radio stations to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” Although it has been over two decades since it was dismantled, neither pundits nor politicians are letting the idea of the policy die, choosing to instead preserve it as a deflated political football.

Opponents of the policy have long considered it a targeted attack on hugely popular conservative radio talk shows, while its supporters attempt to explain it as a necessary measure to ensure fair and balanced dispersal of information. The implications of the policy, if actually reinstated instead of used as rhetorical leverage, are troubling, and not just for conservatives. When it was originally instituted in 1949, policy makers were “worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and [therefore] tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment public unrest,” Jon Sinton wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal. Back then, it was a logical move: broadcasting space was limited and licensed, particularly outside of the major cities. But by the mid-eighties, it became clear that such regulatory measures over content were certainly unnecessary and perhaps unconstitutional. The legislation was overturned and eliminated in 1987 by the Reagan administration-appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thus beginning the conservative versus liberal battle over the policy. A bill introduced the same year to revive it was vetoed by Reagan.

Under the 102nd and 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress, the policy was legitimately re-introduced in 1993 to the House by legislation called the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act.” The attempt to re-instate the policy put conservative radio shows in a tizzy, particularly Rush Limbaugh, who erroneously dubbed it the ‘hush Rush’ bill, a name that continues currently. The bill was thwarted as Republicans gained power, and eventually took over, in the 104th Congress.

Hailing to the pattern, the current Democrat-dominated congress is once again talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and conservatives are once again rallying against it. In the last months of 2008, high-profile politicians like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA.) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), publicly supported its renewal. Schumer even provided the discussion with its most popular sound bite when he said, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

On the other side, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation in 2007 to permanently ban the policy. Republicans have speculated that with total Democratic control from White House to both congressional houses, such a bill does not stand a chance. They may not be far off with such a prediction, considering that no Democrats have signed the bill.  It is important to note that Barack Obama flatly does not support it, as his campaign press secretary stated in an e-mail sent to the industry journal Broadcasting & Cable.

Despite all this talk, no bill attempting to officially reinstate the policy has been introduced. So will the Fairness Doctrine, under that name or another, actually make it into legislation? One hopes not. Not only would the Fairness Doctrine: Act II be a really bad idea, it’s a markedly unnecessary one. The way we consume media has vastly changed since the policy was crafted in 1949. There’s a veritable buffet of media consumption options out there: thousands of radio stations–public-supported, advertiser-supported and subscription-based–dozens of news television stations; thousands (though the number is dwindling) of newspapers and print sources; and then there’s the infinitesimal space of the internet, a forum which allows anyone with an IP address the ability to hear and engage in controversial discussion.

The whole concept of the policy is based on the fact that people have scant resources for hearing about and understanding issues of public importance, which is simply no longer true. Both conservatives and liberals who consume media through a one-sided source do so because they want to, not because they have to. The Fairness Doctrine would therefore limit freedom for broadcasters.  And freedom should be protected, no matter who is championing the cause.