Far-reaching questions concerning the Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine and its applicability to environmental issues have arisen in recent months, at least some of which are likely to be adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Friends of the Earth v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 24,556, 1 ELR Dig. [168], (D.C. Cir., filed Aug. 17, 1970), where petitioners have asked the court to apply the doctrine to certain commercials for large automobiles and leaded gasolines that were shown over WNBC-TV, New York. On August 5, 1970, the Commission refused to extend the doctrine to automobile and gasoline commercials, distinguishing their treatment from the "simplistic" approach it had taken with cigarette advertising where the underlying issue—to smoke or not to somke—purportedly was more clearcut. See Applicability of the Airness Doctrine to Cigarette Advertising, 9 F.C.C. 2d 921 (1967), aff'd sub nom. Banzhaf v. Federal Communications Commission, 405 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 842 (1969). A similar result, solely with respect to gasoline commercials, was reached by the FCC in In re Complaint by Alan L. Neckritz et al., Concerning Standard Oil of California's F-310 Gasoline Adversing, 1 ELR 30036 (decision letter dated May 12, 1971). The premises underlying both decisions are shortly to be reviewed by the Commission, which on June 11, 1971, announced its intention to conduct a full inquiry into the Fairness Doctrine itself.

The Fairness Doctrine grew out of the need to protect the public from arbitrariness or bias on the part of broadcasters who enjoy the exclusive right to use designated frequencies owned by the public itself. Prior to passage of the Radio Act of 1927, such frequencies were used in rather indiscriminate fashion by broadcasters, with listeners often subjected to a jumble of competing voices. From almost the very beginning of regulation, the FCC determined that the airways were held in trust for the public by the licensees, and that the "public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and that the principle applies . . . to all discussions of issues of importance to the public." Great Lakes Broadcasting Co. 3 F.R.C. Ann. Rep. 32, 33 (1929). The Supreme Court has held that the duty to air opposing viewpoints does not impinge on the first amendment rights of licensees. "It is the right of the viewers and listeners rather than the right of the broadcaster which is paramount." Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969).