Sinclair Broadcasting Move: Time to Re-institute the Fairness Doctrine?

Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog says that Sinclair Broadcasting's decision to order its stations to show an anti-Kerry documentary, while inciting controversy, is not illegal:

[F]rom the point of view of federal election law (as opposed to, say, federal communications law---this is really no different from the New York Times endorsing a candidate for president (or running an oped supporting or opposing such a candidate).

The crucial distinction under communications law is the fact that Sinclair is a broadcast organization, while the New York Times is print. Because of the physical limits of the broadcast spectrum, the Federal Communications Commission ruled in 1949 that broadcasters had an obligation to provide equal time for a range of political views. That ruling, which became known as the Fairness Doctrine, was reversted during the Reagan administration. Since then, there have been ongoing arguments for and against its reinstatement.

What makes this debate especially contentious is that we are confronted with more than differences in policy. There are deep differences in worldview in this counry, which leads to differng notions about what is true, moral, or even important. That, I think is one of the primary reasons why political arguments have become almost irreconcilably shrill. Increasingly, a political debate is an argument with fundamentalist theologies, both sacred and secular. Disagreement, whether informed or ignorant, is apostasy.

It remains to be seen how this deterioration of poltical discourse will affect our democracy. For the moment, the only solution is for citizens to take the initiative to inform themselves, and to make an effort to understand those whose views they may not share.