The Fairness Doctrine: A Brief History and Perspective

Townhall.com ^ | August 23, 2007 | Stuart Epperson

[Delacon]

 The First Amendment states:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This was worked out in Colonial and Revolutionary times with the correct assumption that the government would almost never be neutral.

Freedom of Speech has always meant… Absence of Government Control.

The Fairness Doctrine Defined – Government requirement that when a certain position on a controversial issue of public importance is broadcast, the broadcast licensee is required to present the other side of the issue.

Fairness Doctrine History

The Radio Act of 1927 created the Radio Commission (later becoming the Federal Communication Commission or FCC) and its successor the 1934 Communications Act created a government system of granting licenses for publicly owned broadcast frequencies.  The major condition attached was to "operate with public interest."  The FCC was charged with enforcement.

Starting in 1929, the "public interest" condition was interpreted as requiring that a licensee provide "ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views on all discussions of issues of importance to the public."

Over the years this developed into the Fairness Doctrine and became an integral part of FCC mandate.

In 1949, the FCC issued two requirements regarding Editorials on Radio… "Broadcasters must give adequate coverage to public issues and this coverage must accurately reflect opposing views on the issue."

In 1959, Congress amended Sec. 315 of the Communication Act with the Equal Time Provision…  "The licensee that allows one candidate to use the broadcast station shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office."  It also stated that nothing in the amended Section 315 relieves Broadcasters of the "obligation" to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

From 1959 to 1981, The FCC consistently interpreted the 1959 Amendment to Sec. 315 as codifying the Fairness Doctrine.  In fact, in the landmark 1969 Red Lion Case the Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court.  The Court cited "scarcity of stations and codification of the Fairness Doctrine" as the primary reason for the decision.  The Court also stated "the decision could change if it was demonstrated that the Doctrine reduced rather than encouraged discussion of public issues."

Interestingly in 1974, a law imposing an obligation of fairness on newspaper editorials was declared invalid as applied to print media in Miami Herald vs. Tonilla.  Print media has no Fairness Doctrine.

In 1981 the FCC, perceiving changes in the conditions cited by the Supreme Court in Red Lion, asked Congress to repeal the Fairness Doctrine.  No action was taken. 

1985 – The FCC determined the Fairness Doctrine was not codified in 1959. 

In 1986, the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the FCC by ruling that the 1959 Amendment did not codify the Fairness Doctrine.

1987 – The FCC formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine on grounds that:

1. It did not serving public interest
2. The scarcity of media issue had disappeared
3. It violated The First Amendment

Since 1987, Broadcasters have operated without the Fairness Doctrine and Talk Radio has flourished.  During this time there have been many calls by public figures for reinstatement and bills have been repeatedly introduced in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine… all with huge public negative reaction.

In 1988, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by President Reagan.

In 1991, with massive grass roots support President Bush threatened to veto a similar bill, thus stifling a second attempt on Congress's part to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.

1993 – The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had acted in a reasonable manner in abolishing the Fairness Doctrine.

Since the 2006 elections, the almost daily cries from legislators to bring back the Fairness Doctrine has reached high fever pitch… as if something as significant as the 2008 election outcome depended on it.  No doubt this will intensify.
There are two ways the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back:

1. The FCC simply reinstates it.
2. Congress codifies it

If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, history indicates these things (and more) will happen:

1. The First Amendment, which these days seems to be the number one target, will again be significantly depreciated, further eroding our Freedom of Speech.
2. The political party in power will use the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics as was well documented during the Kennedy and Nixon administrations.
3. Many leading Broadcast Licensees will see their licenses at risk and will play it safe by imposing strict speech control.
4. The national and local robust town hall meetings known as Talk Radio will quickly become mundane, dull and milk-toast-like and mostly disappear.
5. Religious speech will be threatened by new government guidelines regarding what constitutes controversial and public issues… issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.
6. The overwhelming majority of the time the public will hear only the Liberal viewpoint presented as "fair and balanced" by the three major TV Networks, the vast majority of newspapers and the major magazines.  Déjà vu!

Media Scarcity:
Media access has dramatically changed since the 1969 Supreme Court Red Lion case.  Today there are many more radio stations, even in small communities, satellite radio, internet radio and the internet itself, plus an abundance of FM stations which were few in 1969.  Everyone agrees scarcity is no longer an issue.

Conclusion:
The Fairness Doctrine's frontal assault on Freedom of Speech not only trashes a vital part of our Constitution but does great harm to our country, nationally and locally by stopping a healthy public debate that is essential in our common search for TRUTH.

Preventing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is... A HILL TO DIE ON!

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[Delacon]

 

The “Fairness Doctrine” is The Censorship Doctrine

Media Research Center's Free Speech Alliance is a fast-growing coalition of organizations and individuals, who, like you, cherish free speech and who have proactively joined to ensure the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” never returns to silence the conservative voice in America.

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media.

In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so.

As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.



Join the hundreds of thousands of citizens taking action now through MRC’s Free Speech Alliance, and our national petition opposing the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance goal is to mobilize 500,000 citizens to forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine and other attacks on Free Speech. Click on this link.
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182

 

Ping me if you want to join or leave this fairness doctrine ping list. Advocators and detractors are welcome.

 

 

 

[Delacon]

I’m giving it my best shot.

[Hardastarboard]

Please see my tag line for my opinion on this subject.

[JulienBenda]

If they go after our right to free speech, then they will have picked a fight which they will, eventually, lose.

[Vozda]

I would love to sign the petition, but do petitions actually work---or are they more symbolic? And I cannot believe that this law is even on the table. It so blatantly violates the First Amendment. I may be crazy here, but isn't there a branch of government whose job it is to make sure that no law passes that violated the Constitution (the real one, not the living one)?
And would you please put me on fairness doctrine ping list? Thank you!

[henkster]

The conservative talk radio hosts have money; they can hire the lawyers necessary to fight. The broadcast stations will help; they know that if they lose conservative talk radio, they will lose listeners, and revenue.

Ultimately this issue will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. That makes reinstatement of this doctrine a matter of timing. The doctrine will be reinstated only when 0bama has replaced one of the current somewhat conservative justices.

[ken21]

if reinstalled,

it should include tv 2.

[goodnesswins]

I believe it won’t be passed BECAUSE they will be challenged on the TV inclusion....

[WilliamofCarmichael]

"You might also think that they would recall the notorious Fairness Doctrine, which was used to 'harass and intimidate' right-wing radio broadcasts, in the words of one unabashed Kennedy-Johnson operative. When that censorious policy was ended in 1987 by former broadcaster Ronald Reagan, there was an explosion of talk formats that gave voice to popular concerns (for a while, Rush Limbaugh even billed himself as equal time)."

"As reported by Fred Friendly in his book appropriately entitled The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, this was part of a "massive strategy . . . to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited, and decide it was too expensive to continue." This strategy was said to have been successful in almost all respects."

[neverdem]

thanks, bfl

[Chickensoup]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172649/posts

it is important not to let leftists frame the argument. ask the mod to put “censorship doctrine” in parentheses next to the title.