Posted on 08/27/2004 2:13:58 PM PDT by Askel5
| Telecommunications Act of 1996 Death of the Fairness Doctrine By Matthew Spitzer Posted to FACSNET July 2, 1999 / revised Feb. 3, 2000 The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance, and, when doing so, to provide reasonable opportunities for contrasting views on the controversial issue. Although the public justification for this two-part doctrine stood on the need to increase the quantity and quality of public affairs programming, the political purpose was likely to alter the tone of broadcast public affairs speech to be more centrist, and to blunt the force of trenchant political critique. In theory the second part of the fairness doctrine — requiring reasonable opportunities for all sides on any controversial issue covered — should inhibit public affairs speech by raising the cost of such programming, since all sides must be included, and reducing the demand for public affairs programs, since the end product is cumbersome and boring. The effect of the fairness doctrine did those two things, but in 1974 the FCC issued a report denying that the fairness doctrine inhibited public affairs speech. But the truth was otherwise, and by 1985 the fairness doctrine was subject to a withering critique by Thomas G. Krattenmaker and Lucas A. Powe. When the Republicans took the Presidency and Senate in 1981, the FCC found the political will to reexamine the fairness doctrine. The agency issued the 1985 Fairness Report, finding that the fairness doctrine reduced the quality and quantity of public affairs programming, did not serve the public interest, and probably offended the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the FCC refused to repeal the fairness doctrine. Instead, the Commission took the politically prudent path of suggesting that Congress do something. Almost immediately a pair of decisions from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals forced the Commission's hand. In response the FCC repealed the fairness doctrine on both public interest and constitutional grounds. Although the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's decision, the court did so in a way that left room for Congress to come back and pass the fairness doctrine again. There was at least one noteworthy attempt to pass the fairness doctrine into positive law in the late 1980s. On June 3, 1987, before the FCC had repealed the fairness doctrine, the House passed a bill codifying the fairness doctrine by 302-102. President Ronald Reagan then vetoed the bill, calling the fairness doctrine inconsistent with freedom of speech and the press. Congress did not challenge the veto. Years later, when the Supreme Court finally denied certiorari in the Meredith case — the DC Circuit case that had upheld the FCC's decision to repeal the fairness doctrine — Congress once again attempted to act. No bill was passed. The broadcasting market reacted immediately to the death of the fairness doctrine in 1987. The volume of public affairs programming began growing quickly. Much of this growth was in talk radio, and the most popular of the talk radio shows — particularly the Rush Limbaugh show — were conservative. This new style of conservative talk radio was not genteel and balanced. It was loud, opinionated, and highly rated. In addition, it was widely credited with helping to produce the Republican victories in the Senate and House in 1994. The political cat was now out of the bag. Congress was now populated by a lot of Republicans who liked the look of broadcasting without the fairness doctrine. |
Yep, you were right.
It's weird how the Republicans can't help shooting themselves the moment they pussyfoot politically.
Wonder why that is.
Fairness Doctrine, my a$$.
P.J. O'Rourke summed that one up pretty well. He said that Republicans run on the notion that government doesn't work - and then get elected and prove it.
I dunno ...
The reason it rang a bell with me is because Phyllis Schlafley seemed to be such a big fan of it and touted it during a Cardinal Mindzenty meeting I attended in St. Louis once.
But what does Phyllis Schlafley know.
Very funny ....
Save for the fact that their slip ends up showing (particularly on key "wedge" issues like abortion), I'd almost be tempted to agree.
Personally, I think they've got more in common with their Most Favored Chicom and former Soviet friends that not where operating from a Perceived weakness is concerned.
The reason the Fairness Doctrine collasped was becasue it was anything but fair. It allowed CBSNBCABC and their hair-dos to go about reporting the "news" as they saw fit. These liberal versions of events never come under scrutiny because it was journalism.
The only time a rebuttal was necessary to comply with the Fairness Doctrine was when a conservative disagreed with a liberal. That's the way it will be again if the democrats and other mentally ill people get in charge of congress.
=== That's the way it will be again if the democrats and other mentally ill people get in charge of congress.
Which is more "mentally ill" ... remaining true to those "personal beliefs" you hold, however illegitimate or illogical they may be, or managing to always "compromise" that which you maintain is the Objective Truth of the matter?
It needed killing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.