The editorial '' 'Fairness' by Government Order'' {Nov. 23} misread the op-ed article I wrote with David Danner {''The Need for Fairness,'' Nov. 23} by stating that we believe ''the government should boot out any broadcaster who doesn't serve up some unspecified amount of news and public service programming or any licensee who says no to a certain advocate of a certain angle of a given issue.'' Nowhere in our article did we either say or imply that revocation of a broadcaster's license should be the sanction for a violation of the fairness doctrine.

Since The Post raised the issue of sanctions, The Post should have noted that we referred to the Federal Communication Commission's rare and only sanction in the past 40 years, which is to issue a directive to the violative station to provide more coverage about controversial issues of public importance.

Obviously, should a station repeatedly and blatantly display religious, racial or other bigotry without allowing any response or any other viewpoint year after year, a nonrenewal of its license would be in order. It was sporadic bigotry that spawned the fairness doctrine in the first place. In these circumstances, such an FCC sanction, I believe, would be accepted even by The Washington Post.

RALPH NADER Washington