Conservative talkers dominate the AM radio dial.

Even conservative local broadcasters concede that point.

But, to some special interest groups and members of Congress, the dominance of conservative talk on the public airwaves is a "problem" they believe needs to be fixed.

Their remedy – a revival of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission regulation requiring all views broadcast on the airwaves must be carefully, quantifiably balanced.

That means that by law Rush Limbaugh's three hours would have to be balanced with three hours of a liberal talk show, even if the left-wing talk show had few listeners and little advertising appeal - as was the case with liberal radio broadcast Air America. The doctrine was on the books from 1949 to 1987, when it fell victim to President Ronald Reagan’s crusade against excessive regulation.

Democrats in 2004 and 2005 introduced legislation that would have re-implemented the doctrine, but the bills never advanced. Still, some in Congress, including U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said they favor a revival of the doctrine as a means to balance information provided by broadcast media outlets.

Other lawmakers strongly disagree, and one, Republican Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, this year introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill that would forbid the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. The bill is stalled in committee, but Pence is seeking sufficient signatures to force an up-or-down vote on the measure. Not a single Democrat has provided a signature.

In the meantime, the topic has become fodder for broadcasters who would be affected by a revival of the doctrine.

Two local radio talk show hosts, veteran Mike Shanin and relative newcomer Kris Kobach, a law professor who also chairs the state GOP, say they oppose its re-implementation. So does the non-partisan Kansas Association of Broadcasters.

Rather than opening up the airwaves to different points of view, Kobach, Shanin and Kent Cornish, president of the Kansas Association of Broadcasters said they believed a revival of the Fairness Doctrine could have a chilling effect on free speech.

“I worked in broadcasting when the Fairness Doctrine was on the books, and I think it defeated the purpose for which it was created,” Shanin said. “The intention of the doctrine was to encourage the airing of diverse points of view. But the practical effect was that stations just chose to avoid topics that were in any way controversial and in that sense, the public actually suffered.”

Kobach agreed: “The reason it was done away with was the chilling affect it had on free speech.”

Shanin and Kobach said they believed it was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine that saved the AM radio dial when it was losing listeners to the FM band. And, since its repeal, AM stations, many featuring syndicated programs like the Rush Limbaugh Show, have proliferated.

In fact, Shanin credits Limbaugh, who signed a $400 million contract last week, with helping create a format that distinguished AM radio from FM.

Shanin, who worked with Limbaugh when he was in the Kansas City market, said he was “amazed and excited” about Limbaugh’s success.

“I don’t think anyone thought he would pull it off,” Shanin said. “When he went national, he defied a lot of things that were taken for granted in the radio industry. He proved that even during a noon to 3 time slot (11 a.m. to 2 p.m. CST), you could draw an enormous audience. And he proved that syndicated national programs would compete against local programming.

“A lot of people credit Rush with saving AM radio, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for its revival,” Shanin added.

Shanin and Kobach, both conservatives, agree that like-minded broadcasters dominate the AM band.

“I agree that talk radio is tilted to the right, but I would argue that’s because the American public is tilted to the right,” Kobach said, echoing one common view. Another reason often given for the political slant on talk radio is the perception that the rest of the media is dominated by hard-core liberals.

Shanin said the dominance of conservative talk wasn’t a reflection of the political ideology of station owners.

“If a radio station had a liberal personality they could put on the air and get ratings and make money, they would be put on the air immediately,” he said. He added that many attempts to introduce national radio programming with a liberal bent, including Air America, have failed to generate the profits that would attract additional radio stations.

Shanin and Kobach said they believed it would be particularly ironic, in the so-called information age, to re-introduce a doctrine whose purported purpose would be to promote diversity in media.

“We’ve got radio, both terrestrial and satellite, we have all these cable TV outlets, and you have the Internet and all the websites and blogs where you can see any point of view expressed in great detail on just about any topic you can think of,” Shanin said.

Cornish agreed that a revival of the Fairness Doctrine is unneeded with so many sources of information available.

“I don’t think there’s any shortage of discourse,” Cornish said.

Shanin said he believed, in the end, public opinion would defeat any effort to revive the Fairness Doctrine, but Kobach is not so sure.

“I’m afraid if Sen. Obama wins the White House and Democrats retain control of the House and Senate, there’s a real possibility the Fairness Doctrine could return.”