It was a policy that required federally-licensed radio and television stations to “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitally important controversial issues.”

Those licensed stations were using the public airwaves, after all, and so it seemed awfully reasonable that a good government would want to encourage a media landscape that at least has to try to give viewers all sides of the important issues of the day.

At least, that seems reasonable to me.

And apparently U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman thinks so too.

Late last year, New Mexico’s senior senator told one of the conservative hosts among the near-total lineup of conservative hosts at 770 AM KKOB how he’d “want this station and all stations” to include more than, well, just the conservative perspective.

“I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view instead of hammering away at one side.”

For many years, he added, “we operated under a fairness doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served.”

Later, his spokeswoman went on to clarify his remarks, saying, “His opinion is that these are the public airwaves and that they should be used for the greater good. That remains his position. People may disagree with him, and that’s fine.”

Turns out a lot of people disagree with Bingaman. And especially  among conservative radio types, the senator with the thoughtful, mild-mannered reputation has become a whipping boy for those who fear the  revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Brian Jennings, author of the book Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio (check out my interview with Jennings above), argues that in a world with many, many news outlets — TV, radio, online — that reflect pretty much the whole spectrum of viewpoints, reviving the Fairness Doctrine would really amount to an attack on free speech.

That’s because commercially successful conservative talk radio stations, like KKOB,  could be forced to add a few liberal hosts. Jennings claims that would cause a death spiral for the radio station — you don’t mix country music with jazz on the same radio station, he analogizes.

Jennings, the former national vice president of talk programming for Citadel Broadcasting, also attacks the so-called “localism” policy now wending its way through the FCC rule-making process. The proposal, introduced in 2007, would require stations to create “permanent advisory boards,” including members of “underserved community segments” to inform management about local concerns.

To me, that sounds harmless. Maybe even useful. But not to Jennings.

Because the “agitators” tend to be “very liberal,” such a “localism” policy could also force conservative talk radio stations to embrace a multi-perspective format — or shut down.

Sounds a bit conspiratorial to me, but then again I haven’t toiled in conservative talk radio for years like Jennings, watching it grow rapidly since President Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

Also on this weekend’s New Mexico In Focus, NMI columnist Tracy Dingmann and local progressive radio programmer Suzanne Prescott argue the other side. (Be sure to check out that interview too.)

Along the way, Dingmann reflects on New Mexico’s new media landscape — and it’s recent growth. That’s something she’s well positioned to do given her status as an ex-Albuquerque Journal reporter turned new media maven for the Center for Civic Policy.

Meanwhile, Prescott, producer of Insight New Mexico, the show that covers the New Mexico Legislature from a progressive perch, gives a detailed critique of conservative talk radio.

Jennings, Dingmann also part ways on what strikes me as the big picture issue here: Whether the rise of media that approaches news from an ideological position is really in the best interest of truly informed citizens.

Jennings gives an unequivocal yes. Dingmann says she’s not so sure.

While many countries have a long, proud history of news with a point of view — papers that are pro-government, for example, and papers that are pro-opposition — American journalism seems to have favored an approach for years that at least strived for fairness and balance.

And it’s that approach that, Bingaman seemed to be saying, served us well.

When the new FCC eventually gets around to considering a new “localism” policy for broadcasters that use the public airwaves, here’s hoping for a wide-ranging national debate that includes balanced perspectives and many different points of view.

Now wouldn’t that be quaint!