The Fairness Doctrine versus the Equal-time Rule

[Cerridwen]

I went looking for the text of the "Fairness Doctrine" and tripped over the "Equal-time Rule" in the process.

As can usually be expected, those against "an informed populace" took the two and conflated them into one that vaguely resembles neither. Their common source is US Code, specifically the Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent case law. They were rules formally adopted by the FCC.

That ruling dubbed The Fairness Doctrine (.pdf image doc) is titled, "Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 1949." Beginning the bottom of page 13 continuing to 14 is this summary statement of the Commission's Report:

21. To recapitulate, the Commission believes that under the American system of broadcasting the individual licensees of radio stations have the responsibility for determining the specific program material to be broadcast over their stations. This choice, however, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic policy of the Congress that radio be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general public as a whole rather than as an outlet for the purely personal or private interests of the licensee. This requires that licensees devote a reasonable percentage of their broadcasting time to the discussion of public issues of interest in the community served by their stations and that such programs be designed so that the public has a reasonable opportunity to hear different opposing positions on the public issues of interest and importance in the community. The particular format best suited for the presentation of such programs in a manner consistent with the public interest must be determined by the licensee in the light of the facts of each individual situation. Such presentation may include the identified expression of the licensee's personal viewpoint as part of the more general presentation of views or comments on the various issues, but the opportunity of licensees to present such views as they may have on matters of controversy may not be utilized to achieve a partisan or one-sided presentation of issues. Licensee editorialization is but one aspect of freedom of expression by means of radio. Only insofar as it is exercised in conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints on particular issues can such editorialization be considered to be consistent with the licensee's duty to operate in the public interest. For the licensee is a trustee impressed with the duty of preserving for the public generally radio as a medium of free expression and fair presentation.

The Equal-time Rule is codified in US Code § 315(a):

(a) Equal opportunities requirement; censorship prohibition; allowance of station use; news appearances exception; public interest; public issues discussion opportunities

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any —

(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),

shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

Equal-time presents a "minute for minute" type of rule to be used when presenting candidates running for election. The Fairness Doctrine asserts the "paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints on particular issues" and "the licensee's duty to operate in the public interest."

In short, the Fairness Doctrine "errs" on the side of public versus private/business interests.

No wonder the r/w spewing gapping maws (and their enablers) are so against it.

"We, the People." Hrumph! Whoever heard of such "stuff and nonsense?"

[Oregone]

1. Good post. Many people don't understand this...

All the fairness doctrine does is essentially prevent media-owner censorship, as a means to ensure the population is informed.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Certainly the people

who listen to right wing don't understand it and that's just the way those on the air want it. They do their damndest to equate the fairness doctrine with the first amendment and when your listeners are dumbasses that is very easy to do.

[Cerridwen]

4. I "didn't understand it" either. At least not completely and not

clearly. 'Tis why I went looking. I knew the Fairness Doctrine was a good rule, but I'd never bothered to read specifically why.

Now I know. :)

edit to add: however, I'm not comfortable being ignorant; unlike those you mentioned.

[BOSSHOG]

9. Those I mentioned

don't have to do any research. They just tune in every day to their local rush radio for all the "facts" they will ever need. Research is for sissy liberals like you and me.

[Cerridwen]

10. LOL

Damn, BOSS, I am in good company.

:D

[Cerridwen]

3. Thanks, Oregone.

I didn't understand there were two rules being discussed as one. I figured if it was "news to me," it might be "news" to others. :)

[Greyhound]

5. K&R, excellent post.

It's amazing how clear things were before this "age of lies" enveloped us.

Politicians have always lied, so I think the difference must be that people used to know things and had a desire to gain knowledge, and now not so much.

[Cerridwen]

6. Thanks.

Though I think I should present more controversy to get flamey threads. LOL

Or, I could just keep posting and kicking.

:kick:

edit: I should also run spell check BEFORE posting.

[Peace Patriot]

7. These words bear repeating and underlining...

The boldface paragraph from the OP:

"To recapitulate, the Commission believes that under the American system of broadcasting the individual licensees of radio stations have the responsibility for determining the specific program material to be broadcast over their stations. This choice, however, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic policy of the Congress that radio be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general public as a whole rather than as an outlet for the purely personal or private interests of the licensee. This requires that licensees devote a reasonable percentage of their broadcasting time to the discussion of public issues of interest in the community served by their stations and that such programs be designed so that the public has a reasonable opportunity to hear different opposing positions on the public issues of interest and importance in the community. The particular format best suited for the presentation of such programs in a manner consistent with the public interest must be determined by the licensee in the light of the facts of each individual situation. Such presentation may include the identified expression of the licensee's personal viewpoint as part of the more general presentation of views or comments on the various issues, but the opportunity of licensees to present such views as they may have on matters of controversy may not be utilized to achieve a partisan or one-sided presentation of issues. Licensee editorialization is but one aspect of freedom of expression by means of radio. Only insofar as it is exercised in conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints on particular issues can such editorialization be considered to be consistent with the licensee's duty to operate in the public interest. For the licensee is a trustee impressed with the duty of preserving for the public generally radio as a medium of free expression and fair presentation."

[Cerridwen]

8. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

:hi:

I agree. 100%.

[Cerridwen]

11. kick n/t

[Cerridwen]

12. Kick for the evening crowd. n/t

[Cerridwen]

13. kick

Not ready to let it fall off the radar yet.

:kick:

[Cerridwen]

14. One more time.

:kick:

[Stinky The Clown]

15. I think these are just pecking around the edges.

These rules are not bad, and I don't oppose this sort of thing (in the context you postulate). But what I think we seriously need is a return to the media ownership rules and a way to unconsolidate media ownership.

[Cerridwen]

16. I'll take both.

Yep, I'm greedy.

I'll take these and the break up of media monopolies.

Some good old fashioned trust busting would be fun to watch; were it not for the fact so many laws make it possible for trusts to re-invent themselves. *sigh*

[Gregorian]

19. How do we unconsolidate media ownership?

I've been thinking about this for quite some time. It means that people like Murdock have to get rid of much of their business. And I can't figure out how that would happen. It would have to be done in a way that is as little disruptive to them as possible. I mean it would have to have incentive. Yeah, I'd like to kick them in the arse. But that's not how it can work, I think.

There has to be some way to make this happen so that it actually happens. In other words, smoothly. These are immensely powerful groups. Fox noise probably has armies of lawyers.

What a nightmare. We own these air waves. As if.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. I said this about publically financed elections: Where there's a will, there's a way

I, too, have no idea how to accomplish it.

[tkmorris]

17. I'll give ya a kick and a rec

It is important to understand the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine, especially if we are going to have a meaningful conversation about it. We need to, the media does not serve the public anymore, if indeed it ever did. I will point out though that the Fairness Doctrine was operative during a period when the vast majority of news and related entertainment were delivered "over the air", on ostensibly publicly owned airwaves. Things have changed rather dramatically since 1987, when the FD was abolished, and a simple reinstatement would have little effect IMHO. There are ways to deal with entities like cable channels but we would certainly need to re-examine how to approach the problem given the proliferation of MSM sources that do not use publicly owned airwaves.

Anyway, :kick:

[Cerridwen]

22. Thank you. Your post just connected a couple more dots for me.

My brain had been dancing around it a bit but hadn't really made the connection.

Off to do more research.

Thanks.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Those Rules No Longer Apply...

For all intents and purposes there are no rules governing what a radio station can program or who has access to the airwaves. The concept of "public interest" which the 1949 article was a long-running debate that would lead to both court cases and the Fairness Doctrine in the 60's.

Note that this focuses on news and public affairs...it didn't take into account talk radio that was classified as entertainment. This was the loophole that Rushbo has used and opened the flood gates on hate radio. Also the term "reasonable" has a lot of wiggle room in it, that I saw used on many occasions.

The Fairness Doctrine was meant to give access as opposed to balance. Access is subjective...tangible, balance is not.

[Cerridwen]

21. Yes, I know.

I was pointing out what they *were* to note what *is* being argued against.

[KharmaTrain]

27. No Problem...

I see a lot of misinformation thrown around about the "Fairness Doctrine"...and how it was applied. The problem isn't balance, it's access. It's "deregulation" that allowed most of the radio dial to be concentrated in a few inept hands. It led to the downscaling, outsourcing and destruction of the medium. If people want to "reclaim the airwaves", the first step is to reregulate and encourage local ownership.

Cheers...

[loudsue]

23. Thanks Cerridwen! I've never seen this type of language

posted before, and it's time that the public knew what the law was supposed to be.

K & R

:kick:

[Cerridwen]

26. You're welcome.

I hadn't read it either. It was weird to look up and suddenly realize I didn't know the wording nor had I ever read it.

My "common knowledge" had a gap in knowledge. I hate when that happens. :)

[1]

24. vee vill have the free speech, as dictated by law! failure to do so vill result in punishment!

*clicks heels together*

ja wohl!

[Cerridwen]

25. You mean like the Constitution? That kind of law that dictates

free speech?

[1]

30. no, this "equal time" bullshit. did i miss that in the constitution?

do you understand the implications of any law that would mandate that? and what problems that would allow?

clue for you: who decides? think about that...

[Cerridwen]

31. It is currently codified in the US Code. Not stringently enforced,

but it is still part of the law.

It is the "price" of doing business using the common resources of the People.

As to the rest, what tkmorris said; so much nicer than I would have.

[tkmorris]

29. Don't be ridiculous

Left to it's own devices the dissemination of information via news broadcasts and other sources would quickly deteriorate into a barrage of propaganda reflecting the myopic views of the rich few who owned the media which delivered it. Such a thing is not "free speech", nor is opposing it in any way reflective of Nazi Germany.

[defendandprotect]

28. Interesting information . . . .

At some point, maybe in the 1970s/?, I recall the "Equal Time" rules being used --

so I thought they were something fairly recent. But, in looking at info on it,

they go back to '27, '34 ...

However, I do remember that Jim Garrison, JFK investigator, got some time after NBC

viciousuly attacked him. And that for a period of time, we'd have odd people popping

in response to some program or comment. It was good.

[Cerridwen]

32. First, I like your sig line.

:D

I have some vague memories of similar broadcasts. Not those particular people, but the occurrences of granting equal air time to opposing views.

No wonder I can't go near a "news" program any more.