I am one of those "Americans who believe that broadcast journalism should be responsive as well as responsible -- and not controlled by government specifications of what the news of the day is to include." In support of this belief, the Fairness Doctrine is intended to guarantee that all responsible sides of a public policy issue be presented. However, it seems that The Post is misguided in its interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine {"Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die," editorial, June 24}. The doctrine is not intended to be "a chilling attempt to compel some undefined 'balance' of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include."

Like it or not, the media are gatekeepers of information. If they do not broadcast or print all sides of an issue, people without inside information will not be able to make a fully informed choice. The Fairness Doctrine merely guarantees that if a journalist opens the gate to one side of an issue, it must be opened to other sides as well. The intention here is that issues be covered comprehensively, not that the media be restricted in the valid and important pursuit of providing information to the public.

While I support "free, independent, sound and responsive journalism," I deplore the child-like tantrums the media throw whenever anyone suggests they cannot do as they damn well please.

MARK P. MURRAY Kensington