History of the Fairness Doctrine

[The Straight Story]

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 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 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.

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

[Peacetrain]

1. Thank you for that.. I was just going to do some digging.. if I remember correctly the republicans

were all for the fairness doctrine till the 80's

[Peace Patriot]

2. The other part of the Fairness Doctrine is the anti-monopoly part,

as I understood it at the time (I lived through the era when the FD was in force). This may be by far the most important part of the FD. If some fatcat billionaire or corporation can monopolize all the TV/radio airwaves and print media in a region or big swaths of it in a country, they can control the political dialogue, and, if they work in cahoots with other corpo/fascists, they can do things like they tried in Venezuela, where the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies colluded with a violent rightwing/military coup--or, as they did here, in 2000 and again in 2004, colluding in stolen elections.

'News' monopolies are not just bad for democracy. They can be lethal to democracy.

The most important change for the better, in law or FCC action--for immediate impact--would be to bust up every 'news'/opinion/entertainment monopoly in the country. The government should then actively encourage SMALL businesses, worker coops and non-profits to seek broadcast licenses, and should also provide indirect help to small business print media and other news/opinion venues, to broaden the political discussion, and maximize citizen participation in it.

The first part of the FD--requiring fairness and public service--can be addressed in many ways, including the "equal time" provision of the 1950s-1970s. The "equal time" and public service provisions had a profound, positive impact on journalism, far exceeding its actual requirements, by setting a tone of objectivity, that helped to protect journalists of all kinds (TV, radio, print) from the commercial self-interest of their bosses, and put print media in competition with broadcast media for good investigative journalism. Thus, you had amazingly truthful coverage of the Vietnam War and protests, the civil rights struggle in the south, and other subjects of vital interest to the public and to voters. You had the NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers in defiance of the Nixon government. You had the Washington Post pursuing the Watergate story. You had exposes of many kinds, with journalists committed to the public's right to know what its government was doing.

In fact, it was probably these sorts of news stories and the climate of objective journalism that the FD (in all its aspects) created, that prompted the Reagan fascists to shut it down, as part of their long term agenda of undoing the "New Deal" and hijacking our military for corporate resource wars.

But, however you do it--however you seek to promote a public service ethic in journalism, and fairness (promoting a wide spectrum of views and citizen access), it absolutely needs to be done, in combination with busting the monopolies.

Instead of the "equal time" provision, for instance, you could require 4 to 6 weeks of TV/radio air time, prior to every election, for candidate access to voters and issue discussion, as a requirement for the license to use the public airwaves. We could combine that with a ban on political campaign ads on TV/radio, and thus totally transform our political system for the better. You really don't have a democracy if someone has to have a million dollars to even think about running for Congress. And where does most of that money go? Into the pockets of the six billionaires who control all 'news'/opinion in the country! It is a frigging sick system. Ban the ads, and require broadcasters to give up some prime time profits as their public service, and then poor and middle class people, and non-bought-and-paid-for people can run for office again.

We, the people, have a RIGHT to impose requirements for use of our public airwaves, and we have a right to, and a fundamental need for, a wide variety of opinion and citizen access in our public debate. Limiting the speech of billionaires by providing everyone else more opportunity for speech does not violate the First Amendment; it enhances it.

[blueclown]

3. The FCC was stacked with Reagan appointes by 1985.

Of course they were going to say the Fairness Doctrine had a "chilling effect". They didn't have access to a medium that they could pilfer, loot and rape for profits. What did you expect them to say?

[snowbear]

4. That's exactly what I was thinking. And I think when some DU'ers vote "no" on these polls here....

.
.

-

That maybe ---- just maybe they don't know everything there is to know about the Fairness Doctrine.

For example:

- Did they know there was a Republic Party president in 1985?

- Who were these "disturbed journalists"? Were they members of both political parties, or where they Republic Party members?

- If the Fairness Doctrine is such a bad thing, why is Congressman Dennis Kucinich in such favor of it?


I think that we often vote on polls here by what "we've heard" (sometimes without researching who it was who said it) and because of assumptions and not facts.

I can't vote on that DU poll because it doesn't give the option of: Other/I need to do more research before making a determination.

~~~~~


-

[blueclown]

5. The RW talking points about the Fairness Doctrine have gotten into the heads...

... of many good liberals here.

And that's a shame.

[Doremus]

6. Why do Democrats haul water for Reagan?

The Fairness Doctrine served this country well for most of the 20th century.

The (baseless) fears that somehow free speech would be stymied come straight from Repuke talking points.

I've lived most of my life while the Fairness Doctrine was in force. In the 20+ years since its demise, the news media (I use that term loosely) has turned into a veritable cesspool. The highly-vaunted "free market" has done NOTHING to self-regulate. Are we surprised? Or are we just patiently waiting for the parade of liberal talk stations just around the bend to appear and come take over? How many more years shall we wait? How many more generations of Americans walking around thinking lies are truth?

Maybe we just like to bitch about the hate jocks and Faux foamers?? :banghead:

I've had it up to here with the fallacious first amendment argument. Common-sense regulations are as necessary for the media as they are for finance, oil, or any other industry. Probably MORE important for our Fourth Estate, because our very Democracy depends on a citizenry that is aware of the FACTS, not lies repeated so often that they become defacto reality.

The silly expectation that, once we break up media monopolies, liberal stations will suddenly spring up and gain market share is more than naive. In over 20 years what do we have? Air America (in how many markets? - none here in deep blue Cleveland btw) and MSNBC, ranked last of the 3 main cable networks. Big f'ing deal. Even if they do break up the monopolies, who do you think is going to buy local stations? Clue: who owns most of the wealth in this country?

[blueclown]

7. It's a shame, isn't it?

The Limbaugh talking points are reaching critical mass and influencing good progressives.