Democrats argue that the so-called "fairness doctrine" should be reinstituted. Here is an article in Politico.com that makes this point. The fairness doctrine required that for every hour of a station's radio or television airtime devoted to material that leans right politically, they must broadcast another, equally prime time hour, leaning left. Superficially, this sounds fair. In truth, it is not.
Today the market decides what is on air. Programs run if they can attract advertisers, advertisers demand proof of listeners. In most markets there are listeners for conservative talk radio but no listeners for liberal talk radio. However, in any market for which there is listener demand for liberal talk radio, it exists. For example, in the ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay market liberal talk radio exists. I know this because my Democratic in-laws listen to it.
Why is there much wider demand for conservative talk radio? Because in most markets liberals find their views echoed in the op-ed pages of their papers and the news programs of every television network except Fox. Conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Tom Sullivan and others because, in most markets, they don't find their views reflected in the mainstream media.
It is accurate to say that the existence of conservative talk radio balances the preponderance of liberal views in the mainstream media. It thereby creates a sort of rough fairness where fairness would otherwise not exist.
If the old fairness doctrine is reinstituted, political commentary will disappear from radio entirely. Radio stations cannot afford to devote hours to no-listener/no-advertiser liberal talk programs which would be required to balance the listener-rich/advertiser-rich conservative programs. Meanwhile the mainstream media would continue to exhibit the liberal bias for which they are now known. You can understand why this would be attractive to Dems.
