The Fairness Doctrine/Media Deregulation

[bryant69]

Is anybody following this closely? My understanding is that the FCC relaxed rules that allowed media companies to own different organizations within the same town. So that they could dominate the viewpoints presented. The FCC passed the rule; but several congress people including both liberals and more traditional conservatives have promised to pass legislation overturning the new rule.

Well all of a sudden the right has counterattacked. Apparently Congressperson Maurice Hinchey (who I don't know) has suggested bringing back the fairness doctrine (which, let's face it, is a deeply flawed doctrine, albeit one based on noble principles). The Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh have painted these two issues as one, and are attacking. Rush Limbaugh assumes that the fairness doctrine would knock him off the air. (for Rush's commentary --> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091203/content/truth_detector.guest.html )

As near as I can tell they are pulling some slight of hand; suggesting that not allowing Fox to own ever news source in, say, Pittsburgh will somehow lead to Rush being "silenced." Does anybody know anything additional on this issue?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Q]

1. Perhaps you could start by explaining why the fairness doctrine...

...is 'flawed'?

- Many laws/rules/guidelines are flawed...but they're better than none at all.

[bryant69]

5. The Fairness Doctrine

Requires a station to represent all points of view on a controversial issue. On Radio that would, no doubt, favor liberals; We'd force radio stations to either provide us with air time to present our views or they'd have to take conservative shows off the air. But there'd be hearing after hearing on the "liberal media."

Plus who decides if a viewpoint deserves representation? I mean we are dividing this into liberal/conservative, but there are certainly a lot of other view points around.

Finally there are clearly areas where no laws/rules/guidelines are appropriate and it's best to let situations play out without governmental interference.

[bearfartinthewoods]

2. would the fairness docrine apply to the web?

would we have to accept freepers here?

[Q]

3. Fairness Doctrine

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC . In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report , asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

-Val E. Limburg

FURTHER READING

Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest." Journal of Communication (New York), Summer, 1990.

Benjamin, Louise M. "Broadcast Campaign Precedents From the 1924 Presidential Election." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1987.

Brennan, Timothy A. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1989.

Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents, 1989.

Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California), October, 1994.

Donahue, Hugh Carter. "The Fairness Doctrine Is Shackling Broadcasting." Technology Review (Cambridge, Massachusetts), November-December, 1986.

Hazlett, Thomas W. "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment." Public Interest (New York), Summer, 1989.

Krueger, Elizabeth. "Broadcasters' Understanding of Political Broadcast Regulation." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991.

Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.

Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978.

Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.

 http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

[Q]

4. Relevant excerpt:

"This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate."

[cthrumatrix]

6. it's like throwing water on "limpbaugh"..... he would melt in a debate

he's nothing but propaganda and infotainment.

[Prodemsouth]

8. Note that this is post war. 1949

Hitler used broadcasting to his advantage. Even Hoover saw the dangers of media monopoly and was a early advocate of the Fairness doctrine.

[kentuck]

7. good question bearfart!

Would there be the right to respond to attacks or stated falsehoods, if requested by the injured party?

The Fairness Doctrine helped to maintain civility when it was in effect. It was, in a way, a form of campaign finance reform. Naturally Rush Limbaugh and the Repubs would not like it. In its prior form, if a politician used your name in a statement or an attack, the station would have to give the injured party equal time upon request. Can you imagine the "equal time" it would take to respond to Limbaugh's propaganda?

I could never understand why the Democrats did not put the Fairness Doctrine back into effect when Clinton was President and we had control of the Senate and the House? If they do not re-install the Fairness Doctrine, we have no choice but to attack at every opportunity, otherwise we will be unilaterally disarming for Limbaugh and the right-wingers. The Repubs are complaining that the Dems hate Bush and personally attack him. They cannot understand. But we must understand that they have to feel the heat before they will change anything.

[Q]

9. The "Hush Rush" Hoax

November/December 1994

The "Hush Rush" Hoax:

Limbaugh on the Fairness Doctrine
By Jeff Cohen

"I, Rush Limbaugh, the poster boy of free speech, am being gang muzzled."

The broadcaster was crying censorship (Limbaugh Letter, 10/93) over congressional efforts in 1993 to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine -- which he labeled "The Hush Rush Bill," "The Get Limbaugh Act" and "The Rush Elimination Act of 1993." Limbaugh's daily on-air crusade generated thousands of calls to Washington, and helped derail congressional action. As usual, Limbaugh's followers were mobilized through misinformation and deception.

The Fairness Doctrine -- in operation from 1949 until abolished in 1987 by Ronald Reagan's deregulation-oriented Federal Communications Commission -- calls on broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover some controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views.

Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine can hardly be a "Hush Rush" plan aimed at silencing him, since it was broadly and actively supported on Capitol Hill well before anyone in Washington had ever heard of Limbaugh. In 1987 (when he was still the host of a local show in Sacramento), a bill to inscribe the Fairness Doctrine in federal law passed the House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Voting for the bill were such "commie-libs" as Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).

In 1989 (when Limbaugh was just emerging as a national host), the Fairness Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again held on the doctrine, but interest waned due to Bush's ongoing veto threat. Yet when the same Fairness Doctrine emerged in 1993, with a new president who might sign it, Limbaugh egotistically portrayed it as nothing but a "Hush Rush Law." And his followers believed him.

- Note: don't have a direct link...but this article is from "FAIR".

[norrinr]

11. Fair and Balanced

this may be thread hijacking but I'm not allowed to start a new thread. Please accept my apologies.

I'm a confused Brit (aren't we all?).

Recently my satellite company have included the TV station Foxnews.

Here's my confusion :
After watching it over a couple of weeks it is clearly a republican propaganda vehicle. However, the station advertises itself as "Fair and Balanced".

In the UK we have consumer protection laws - in particular we have something called "The Trade Description Act" which makes it illegal to mislead consumers as to a product's content.

Don't americans have an equivalent?
And if so - why hasn't Foxnews been taken to court for misleading the public as to its content.

Regards

[Iverson]

12. reply

Hello, norrinr, and welcome to DU.
One answer to your query is that we live in an insane world. The other day I saw a quote somewhere to the effect that we live in a Newtonian world governed by Einsteinian physics and Frankenstein logic.

Another answer is that "fair and balanced" is a slogan, and slogans may say very nearly anything. "Things go better with Coke," may also be false more than 50% of the time, but it is not fundamentally misleading, and so Fox gets the same benefit when the do mislead. Maybe for a more familiar example to you, "Like the Murphy's, we're not bitter" (sorry if I misquoted) can also be a lie, but is not necessarily so.

Another answer is that "fair and balanced" is a simple adjective phrase and not a complete thought, so legally it says nothing.

Personally, I go first to the insane world idea. Cheers.

[norrinr]

13. fair and balanced

hmmm

I still reckon that "Fair and Balanced News" or "Fair and Balanced Channel" is misleading enough to warrant a complaint.

This is of course a false stereotype but americans have the reputation of suing people as a national pastime - usually just to gain money - but in a case like this I can't see anyone walking away from the courts with a sackful of money even if they should win.

Perhaps that's the real reason it's not being done.

In a different but parallel situation, in May, Foxnews was investigated by the UK's ITC - Independent Television Commission - for extreme bias during the most recent war - apparently nothing came of it - some have hinted that Murdoch has too much power for the ITC to take on.
Sounds familiar.

[billyskank]

20. I don't understand

why Fox News channel would be investigated by the ITC. Fox News is indeed as you say available in the UK on the Sky satellite platform, but I'm almost certain that the ITC's remit covers only TV stations based in Britain. Murdoch's main British news channel is of course Sky News, which would be just like Fox News if it weren't that Britain has laws on television news impartiality, rather like the old US fairness doctrine.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi norrinr!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[billyskank]

19. "Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach"

Advertisers seem to be allowed quite a lot leeway when it comes to slogans.

May I also extend my greetings to a fellow Brit evil-Du'er.

[Prodemsouth]

10. Not likely, easy to access and for an individual to publish his/her

views. Web sites would proably be looked at like a newspapers, and be covered by the first amendment.
Edit add:
Broadcasters are licensed by the government.
As a strong advocate of applying this law to Bradcasting and extending it to cabel, I would be dead set against it applying to the web. The web already enjoys great democracy, it does not need anymore regulation.

[number6]

14. would the freepers have to accept DUers...there

would be interesting.....no

[lebkuchen]

16. Rushbo was ushered in after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine

So was a cavalcade of others of his ilk.

I'd love to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

[whirlygigspin]

17. I'd vote for any candidate

who could re-enact the fairness doctrine.

[Clete]

18. About Rush Limbaugh.

I think if another show followed or even preceeded his show that was by a liberal talk show host, for the same length of time, wouldn't that meet the fairness doctrine? They wouldn't have to debate each other would they?