I would like to propose that Congress reinstate the Fairness Doctrine within the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine is something that I've heard of now and then, but I didn't realize that it was repealed under the Reagan Administration in 1987. It's one of those things I learn as an NPR-listening commuter.
I had heard now and again about the "equal time rule" or that news coverage needed to be "fair and balanced" and that is what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to guarantee. Yet the Fairness Doctrine is a thing of the past. It was abandoned with the proliferation of cable, leaving broadcasters little incentive to present fair coverage.
When Sinclair Broadcasting removed its offensive documentary during the 2004 election cycle, it wasn't because of the Fairness Doctrine, which no longer existed, but because its stock was tanking due to public outcry.
What was the Fairness Doctrine? Why was it repealed? Should it be reinstated? If so, why?
What was it?
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It was established to acknowledge the fact that there are more people with opinions than there are broadcast licenses, and public access needs to be fair and balanced.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. How this was to be done was at the discretion of the station. This FCC rule held forth from 1949 until 1987.
Citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine to expand speech and debate by allowing input from both sides for ballot measures and it had the support of grassroots groups across the political spectrum. If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime, response time would be allowed. It was up to listeners to notice imbalance but its existence encouraged their participation, as they had some recourse. Without the Fairness Doctrine, there is less of an organized route to get action when an issue is presented primarily by one side.
Years before the onset of the Fairness Doctrine, some realized the need for fair and balanced coverage.
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927
It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
Why was it repealed?
The FCC insisted the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.
After it was repealed, Congress attempted twice to restore the Fairness Doctrine but this was vetoed first by President Reagan and President H.W. Bush threatened a veto when resurrection was attempted again.
The "personal attack" rule remained in place until 200. Under this rule, stations were required to notify persons or small groups that were attacked within a week of the attack and send transcripts of what was said on the air, with opportunity to respond on the air.
The "political editorial" rule applied when editorials endorsing a candidate were broadcast. The candidates not endorsed were informed of the broadcast and invited to respond.
Should It Be Reinstated?
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) as well as Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) support legislation which would restore the Fairness Doctrine. Cable news, along with political talk radio, in their current state, are part of a growing trend to use the public airways as a megaphone, without an answering perspective.
Conservatives oppose restoration of the Fairness Doctrine as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or cutting their airtime in half. Many claim that liberals already dominate Hollywood, academia and mainstream media. Mainstream media would not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine.
When the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine back in 1969, the decision said:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
Do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be reapplied?
The Fairness Doctrine did not require that each program be balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. It didn’t require that a station’s program lineup be 50/50.
Rush Limbaugh has claimed that the Fairness Doctrine limits talk show hosts, yet the Fairness Doctrine never concerned itself with talk shows. The talk show format was created when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. No talk show hosts were muzzled.
Years before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed (and was upheld after being challenged), Supreme Court Justice Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.”
Under Reagan, the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairnesss Doctrine well before they formally repealed it. This allowed a high volume of unanswered conservative opinion and today virtually all of the leading political talk show hosts are rightwingers - Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, North, Liddy, O'Reilly, Reagan etc.
According to ThinkProgress.org (Wednesday 20 June 2007):
A new report entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio
revealed that in 2007, 91% of political talk radio was conservative. There was ten times as much conservative as progressive talk. 76% of news/talk radio in the Top Ten markets is conservative, while 24% is progressive.
Further reading: (Information reported above comes from NPR, Center for American Progress, FAIR and Common Dreams)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
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.
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.
Recent Comments