The Fairness Doctrine...

[Upthevibe]

In another thread on DU, reinstating The Fairness Doctrine was mentioned. Who here on DU knows what's involved? I've wondered for quite some time why some of our Billionaires haven't bought some of these stations that spew such hatred that Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. have been engaging in for years.

Thanks for anyone's input....

[11 Bravo]

1. Ratings.

Progressives are out trying to improve things in this country.
Cons are hunkered down beside their radios, waiting to hear who to blame for whatever they feel went wrong in their lives.

[Wicked Blue]

2. As far as I recall, broadcasters were required to

allow candidates of opposing parties to present rebuttals to the views of a given candidate on the air.

This was a condition of retaining their broadcasting licenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[Under The Radar]

4. That's correct which is why we have the tradition...

Of having the opposing party of the president give a rebuttal to the State of the Union address.
If an opinion is given over the “US airwaves”, equal time and space (newspaper space) must be given to the opposing side or view.

[onenote]

10. That is not correct.

You are confusing the Fairness Doctrine and the "equal opportunities" (often called the "equal time&quot rule. The former was repealed in 1987. The latter is still in effect. And neither rule had (or in the case of the equal opportunities rule, has) anything at all to do with newspaper coverage of news or opinion.

[Under The Radar]

3. The original fairness doctrine stated ...

That a company could not own more than one news media source (newspaper, radio or TV station) in a single media market. In theory this limited the influence of a single company in a media market. Where there were more than 1,500 such companies in 1980, those companies have consolidated and owned by 10 corporations nationwide.
It would be a major antitrust undertaking to break those companies up to limit their influence as it was before the fairness doctrine was repealed.
...if I remember it all correctly

[onenote]

5. That isn't the fairness doctrine

And neither your description of the ownership rules and the number of companies that own media (tv,radio, cable, satellite, newspaper, etc also is wrong.

[Under The Radar]

7. In the original Federal Communications Act of 1939,

It was part of the initial purpose

during the early 1940s, the Roosevelt administration pushed for a ban on newspaper ownership of radio stations, ostensibly because of the public’s interest in preventing cross-media consolidation, but also to prevent anti-New Deal newspaper owners from having a radio platform from which to criticize the President’s policies. The FCC during Richard Nixon’s administration would use a similar rule to try and pressure the Washington Post into abandoning its investigation of the Watergate scandal.

[link:https://www.cato.org/blog/internet-regulation-fairness|

[onenote]

9. As someone who has worked for or practiced before the FCC for over 40 years, some information:

First, there is no Communications Act of 1939 -- It is the Communications Act of 1934.

Second, the fairness doctrine is not the same as the broadcast (radio and/or tv) multiple and cross ownership rules that have existed, in various forms, and at various times, over the years.

The FCC adopted the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1949, in a proceeding captioned “In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees." The FD was not codified as a "rule" but rather was articulated as a "policy" which generally has been described as follows: coverage of issues of public importance must be "adequate" and must "fairly reflect differing viewpoints."

That policy was not intended to be particularly restrictive. As the FCC said, "there can be no one all embracing formula which licensees can hope to apply to insure the fair and balanced presentation of all public issues. Different issues will inevitably require different techniques of presentation and production. The licensee will in each instance be called upon to exercise his best judgment and good sense in determining what subjects should be considered, the particular format of the programs to be devoted to each subject, the different shades of opinion to be presented, and the spokesmen for each point of view.

The FCC and/or Congress also adopted several other rules that sometimes are lumped together with the FD: the personal attack rule; the editorializing rule; and the equal opportunities (often referred to as the "equal time&quot rule.

These rules are distinct from rules that have, at various times, allowed, prohibited or limited the ownership of a radio/tv station combination in a market, the ownership of more than one radio and/or tv station in a market, the cross ownership of a newspaper and tv or radio station, the cross-ownership of a cable system and a tv station, etc.

[PufPuf23]

6. There should be a cabinet position created

Secretary of Anti-Trust Enforcement.

AntiTrust is applicable in just about every sector of the economy not just media.

[Grins]

8. And who killed it? A shit named Scalia, and another named Bork.

A year later Limbaugh was on the air, and not too long after him came Fox. Not a coincidence.

[onenote]

11. It was repealed by the FCC in 1987. With no involvement by Scalia or Bork.

Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2020, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)

The path to its repeal can be traced to the 1984 Supreme Court decision in CPB v League of Women Voters, where the liberal wing of the Court reached a 5-4 decision that one of the corollary rules of the Fairness Doctrine, which prohibited noncommercial stations from "editorializing" violated the First Amendment. Justice Brennan's opinion noted that "Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine '[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case."

That led to the FCC studying the Fairness Doctrine and, in 1985, issuing a report concluding that the doctrine no longer served the public interest and was constitutionally suspect. It was not until 1987, however, that the FCC decided to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. That decision was upheld by a three judge panel of the DC Circuit: Judges Williams, Starr and (concurring in part/dissenting in part) Wald. Neither Bork nor Scalia were involved in the case or the FCC decision to repeal.

[dware]

13. Thank you for all this information.

[dware]

12. Fox would probably come about anyways

because the Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to cable or satellite, and the FCC has no authority over those venues.
Hell, you don't even need a license to broadcast on cable, satellite or the internet.

[Caliman73]

14. Some of our billionaires?

So, two things. The Fairness Doctrine was a rule issued by the FCC in 1949 that stated that broadcasters had to present controversial topics in the public interest. They also had to present those issues in a fair and equitable way. So basically they had to provide information about say, civil rights, and do so in a way that was not sensational or leaned to one particular side or another.

That is the Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell. It was also limited to broadcasting when there was limited band with. There were 3 major broadcasters in the 50's and they controlled television. Radio stations were also fairly limited. Once cable came onto the scene and FM expanded the dial for radio, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't super influential.

What you seem to be talking about is the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which deregulated the media markets allowing buyers to pluck up media outlets without regards to anti-monopoly laws. That is the law that allowed right wing outfits to saturate the markets.


To the title of my response... To which billionaire do you refer? We know some of the players on the right, The Koch's, The Mercers, Adelson, and the Corporations. Who are the liberal Billionaires who would finance "left radio and TV"? George Soros? Bloomberg? (he's a center right guy), Buffet? Steyer? While they tend to support more liberal or moderate policies and are against the type of fascism being pushed by the Republicans now, they are not going to fund, to their financial demise, media that works against their interests.

Right wing billionaires pour money into right wing media even though it is a money loser because they want to create voters who will support policy that pays them MORE than they invest. The Mercers invest 100 million into radio, but get tax cuts of 3 and 4 billion dollars. Buffet is going to put money in to radio that promotes raising his taxes another 100 million dollars? Maybe, but his billions won't last too long with that strategy.