Democrats in Congress are pushing to revive the fairness doctrine, the repealed Federal Communications Commission policy that television and radio stations had to allow contrasting points of view.

We dont think they should. The arguments for a fairness doctrine havent really changed, but technology has.

The FCC adopted the fairness doctrine in 1949. Licensed stations were viewed as public trusts and were responsible for not limiting discussion of policy issues to just one side. In 1967, the doctrine grew to add two corollaries. One was a public editorial rule if a station editorialized in favor or against a candidate for office the unsupported candidate would get a chance to respond. There was also a personal attack rule if a persons character was sullied by a broadcast on an issue, the person should be given a reasonable time to respond.

The fairness doctrine and its two corollaries were never laws. They were just FCC policies. Broadcasters didnt particularly like them because the initial doctrine makes it unclear what makes a story fair. Some journalists felt the policies infringed on freedom of speech. And some argued that the policies curbed coverage of controversial issues because of concern that the FCC would punish a station for not being fair enough.

Congress passed legislation to enshrine the fairness doctrine into law, but President Reagan vetoed it. The FCC got rid of the doctrine and later, in 2000, repealed the doctrines two corollaries.

Democratic Sen . Dianne Feinstein, of California, frequently in the cross hairs of conservative talk radio, and Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democrats No. 2 in the Senate, have come out for bringing the doctrine back. Feinstein said recently on Fox News that conservative talk radio is prodding people to extreme views without a lot of information.

Conservatives have won the talk radio war, so far. And they do know how to sting. Efforts to create a tide of liberal talk radio have created only ripples. But reviving the fairness doctrine for that reason just looks like: If we cant beat them, shut them up.

A better argument is that there is a scarce spectrum of public broadcast airwaves, so the government should ensure that they are used well. After all, the government has a strong interest in seeing that the media informs citizens with news and opinion.

But there are no longer just a few radio and television stations. In fact, if you get cable, there are probably more stations than you want. The Internet has led to an explosion of additional opinion content and even added more news content. Opposing views are not squeezed down and squeezed out. They are mushrooming.

How does it improve things if the government is interfering in how the information is presented? That would mean more regulation, not necessarily more fairness. Is it better to have FCC regulators running around deciding what coverage is fair and what is not? That could chill free speech, instead of growing it. Congress should let the fairness doctrine rest in peace.