Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.What is the threat here?
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3]
The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[4] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[5]
In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission asserted that the United States Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had voluntarily complied with the spirit of the doctrine. It warned that "should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of voluntary compliance] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunityand the responsibilityfor such further reassessment and action as would be mandated." [6]
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[7]
Although similar laws had been called unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited spectrum of the public airwaves. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:
All I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes
He is a weak kneed version of Mr. Rogers without the charm.
All I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes
That made me spew chunks.
Wait, Colmes never got equal billing.
but if you want fairness, thats exactly what you needAll I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes
That made me spew chunks.
Wait, Colmes never got equal billing.
Personally so long as it's equally enforced, there's nothing wrong with it as a idea. I can see folks like NPR for example, really hating it.
The core objection to it is, for fair-minded people anyway, more government interference in the free marketplace.
NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are going to hate the Fairness Doctrine.
reverse thatif it were me i want to see:
olberman oreily
hannity maddow
NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are going to hate the Fairness Doctrine.
You fail to understand, it will only be enforced with talk radio. And then only conservative talk radio. None of the Liberal bias will be effected at all.
NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are going to hate the Fairness Doctrine.
You fail to understand, it will only be enforced with talk radio. And then only conservative talk radio. None of the Liberal bias will be effected at all.
that is beacause there is no liberal bias......please do try to keep up.....
RGS, you need your sarcasm detector adjustedYou fail to understand, it will only be enforced with talk radio. And then only conservative talk radio. None of the Liberal bias will be effected at all.
that is beacause there is no liberal bias......please do try to keep up.....
Ya and if you find the end of the Rainbow you will get a pot of gold. Sure thing.
I merely said the same thing in a different way.Personally so long as it's equally enforced, there's nothing wrong with it as a idea. I can see folks like NPR for example, really hating it.
The core objection to it is, for fair-minded people anyway, more government interference in the free marketplace.
I have to disagree here. I don't think the federal government should dictate to a private business what it can and cannot sell...
RGS, you need your sarcasm detector adjustedthat is beacause there is no liberal bias......please do try to keep up.....
Ya and if you find the end of the Rainbow you will get a pot of gold. Sure thing.
Please read up on what the Fairness Doctrine really is.
The part about lefty radio not making money has been proven wrong in multiple markets.
