How exactly would/did the Fairness Doctrine work?

[BushOut06]

I'm too young to really remember how the Fairness Doctrine worked when it was in place. I know how it works, as far as stations being required to give equal airtime to opposing viewpoints. Could anyone call up a local radio station and demand equal airtime to counter a talk show host? I'm just curious about the overall process, and how it presented itself on the air.

Also, could this be used against us? Here in Orlando, we have an FM talker (Jim Philips) who is pretty progressive on most issues. He has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq war from the very beginning, and has been quite vocal almost every day about it. Could some rethug idiots call up and demand equal time to tell us how everything is going just peachy in Iraq?

[Bluzmann57]

1. Well, that's the idea

Personally, I don't mind if some wingnut says they support the war in Iraq as long as there is fair and equal time for opposition. Fairness is what it's supposed to be about. But the wingnuts can't deal with fairness since they've been basically unopposed for around 20 years.

[BushOut06]

3. What was the process? That's what I'm really curious about

If anyone remembers the days of the Fairness Doctrine, maybe they could help out. Did the station announcer break into programming with something like "And now for an opposing view, here's so-and-so"?

Was it done solely at the local level? Or could someone demand equal time on Rush Limbaugh's show nationwide, in all of his markets?

[papau]

2. The French requires the exact same number of seconds - we required a reasonable

amount of time to simply state the opposing view -

But the French rule is I believe only around elections - while the old US rule was all the time, plus any "controversy" was covered and could be a FCC problem if you did not comply.

time to argue that view was not required.

In 87 Reagan veto'd the law to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

[mcscajun]

4. Not just anyone could demand equal airtime, but representatives

from legitimate political, civic, charitable organizations would request and frequently receive airtime exposure to rebut station editorial policy on important and controversial local, regional, and national issues. So no, not just any bozo could demand equal airtime to rebut your Jim Philips, unless Jim was offering the station's editorial viewpoint.

More info:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html

Then there's the "Equal Time" issue during political campaigns:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

[Balbus]

5. If I remember correctly,

it was primarily in regards to political candidates. If a station editorialized against a person running for public office, the station was obligated to notify that candidate within a certain amount of time and give that candidate time on their station in order to reply to whatever was editorialized against him/her.

Also, if a station insulted or spoke ill about the candidate's integrity they were also obligated to notify the candidate and offer them air time in order to respond to the allegations or insults.

I don't ever recall it was about controversial topics, however. For example, if a radio station's host was going on and on about the evils of minimum wage (without naming a candidate or inferring a candidate), I don't believe the station was obligated to give equal time to a "pro-minimum wage" group. I could be wrong, though. Just going on memory.

[Bitwit1234]

6. One thing

rush, coulter, ingram and the fox pigpen can't spew the stuff they do. If they told something as outrageous as they now do, they could be fined or even have their license revoked if they could not back up the information.

[MissWaverly]

7. the problem is that they have turned Fairness Doctrine around

They now usually have "an opposing viewpoint" usually a loyal Bushie everytime they want to cover something like global warming
or torture. When this person gets the mike, he/she will go into this long spiel about why torture, global warming, etc. is a good
idea, and the person with the fact based report is drowned out. It's like Hannity and Colmes, but it's not supposed to be that
way. It's supposed to be objective presentation using facts to support what you say. And not something like immigrants bring
leprosy to the US, which is some made up fear fact.