30 yrs ago today: FCC rescinds the Fairness Doctrine

[Dennis Donovan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_4
1987 – The Federal Communications Commission rescinds the Fairness Doctrine which had required radio and television stations to present controversial issues "fairly".

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, 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. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. The FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine, in August 2011.

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. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the equal-time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

<snip>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Revocation

Revocation

Basic doctrine
In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In 1986, the 99th Congress directed the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[17] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
“The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of
(the Fairness Doctrine) restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits
the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the
degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,
“We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print
media have enjoyed since our country's inception.”

Sitting commissioners at the time of the vote were:

Dennis R. Patrick, Chairman, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1983)

Mimi Weyforth Dawson, Republican
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)

Patricia Diaz Dennis, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)

James H. Quello, Democrat
(Named a FCC commissioner by Richard M. Nixon in 1974)

The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical.".[21] The decision drew political fire and tangling, where cooperation with Congress was at issue.[22] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[23] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:

“The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they
would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!”

Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.

And here we are, 30 yrs later, still reeling from the effects of it.

[Initech]

1. Worst mistake we've ever made.

And now we have a traitor president who is the product of a fucking news network with hostile intentions running the free world.

[colsohlibgal]

2. Downhill Since

That mistake directly led to an idiot ascending to the White House.....30 years of pure propoganda and outright lies changed the clear thinking of too many pliable minds.

[octoberlib]

3. Extremely damaging to our democracy. The end result is sitting in the WH.

[melm00se]

4. a couple of pieces of commentary

1) If the Fairness Doctrine had continued post-1987 would the FCC have any control over networks like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, al-Jezeera and other cable networks?

No, because the FCC does not license any networks/stations that are not broadcast over the air. the networks listed above are all cable networks outside of the FCC purview.

2) Had the media landscape changed since the inception of the Fairness Doctrine thus minimizing the need of close content regulation when the number of media outlets was significantly fewer?

Absolutely. The number of media outlets had grown rather significantly between 1949 and 1987 and has grown even more so since 1987.

[Dennis Donovan]

5. Sinclair Broadcasting is almost exclusively OTA...

...and here's a sample of the shit they've been shoving into their local station broadcasts:

For more info about SBC:

[melm00se]

6. that is not be a Fairness Doctrine

issue but rather one driven by the ownership rules. the 7-7-7 rule (7 television licenses, 7 AM radio licenses, and 7 FM radio licenses) which morphed into 1985's 12-12-12 rule (12 television licenses, 12 AM radio licenses, and 12 FM radio licenses) which morphed into 1992's 12-18-18 which was eliminated in under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The likelihood of legislating the Fairness Doctrine is low but rolling back ownership rules would be far easier as the former could run afoul of the 1st Amendment (see Justice Burger's opinion in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo while not directly on point addresses exercise of editorial judgement as a protected First Amendment activity) but the latter would not.

[Dennis Donovan]

7. No, their content would've been moderated by the fairness doctrine...