Pop quiz: How many radio stations are there in the U.S.? Answer: more than 10,000. From my perspective, that’s a pretty good selection of programming to choose from. You can find just about anything you want to listen to, any point of view. Not exactly what I’d call a scarcity. Still, there are apparently some in Congress who’d favor fixing what’s not broken, or, said another way, break what’s working just fine, by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Before it was deep-sixed by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987, this was an FCC rule that required broadcasters to provide for a diversity of viewpoints. The theory was that the number of radio frequencies was limited, so the rule was needed to keep broadcasters of a particular stripe from dominating the airwaves and stifling dissent.

Those in Congress who are talking about bringing the FD back from the rubbish heap seem to be most concerned about the proliferation of conservative talk radio, which has way more listeners, and, as a consequence, way more stations providing that point of view. People just don’t seem to want to listen to liberal talk radio. 

I don’t know why that should bother the liberals in Congress. Seems to me they’d be better off viewing it as an opportunity to tune in and find out what their constituents really think, especially since the Congressional approval rating is one of the few things that’s fallen faster – and farther – than the California housing market.

Besides, if they re-institute the FD, have they considered the potential unintended consequences? Think about the poor listeners. There are lots of viewpoints besides liberalism that just don’t appeal to lots of people. If you doubt it, stand on a street corner sometime and start talking about how important you think it is for us all to pay more taxes, or how much you wish the price of gas would go back up.

Or, think about the people who listen to Christian broadcasting. I don’t mean this to be in any way negative, but those folks tend to have a pretty one-sided point of view, you’ll have to admit, and the issues they are concerned about are often very controversial.

People tune in to Christian programming because it reflects a perspective they agree with and it’s what they want to hear. Almost certainly, they don’t want to hear the non-Christian point of view. And if they do, they know where to find it. So why should the station they listen to be forced to broadcast non-Christian programming?

Which brings me to another point. What is the non-Christian point of view? How many opposing – or differing - points of view are there in that instance? Could Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Zorastrians all demand to present their perspective on religious issues of the day? What about atheists and agnostics? How would the Fairness Police decide who would be heard and who wouldn’t, in this case or any other, for that matter? 

Here’s another example. Next time you’re listening to your favorite NPR program, made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, “steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting,” according to the CPB website, think about how that programming might change. So long Cokie Roberts. Hello Michael Savage.

If the people in Congress are smart, they’ll quit wasting their time with this Fairness Doctrine nonsense and follow the admonition of radio announcers since way back when: Don’t touch that dial.