Whatever happened to the Fairness Doctrine? A Primer.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

The first link is a great, comprehensive piece on the history of the Fairness Doctrine. Very absorbing reading and not too long.

Here are the last four paragraphs of it:

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

Me again. I think I'd have to disagree with the last paragraph. What we are seeing now, in my mind, demands some kind of Fairness Doctrine again. It might take a different form than the old one, but obviously something is needed.

Here is an article I found arguing for the return of the Fairness Doctrine and that it be put into federal law (did you know it was always just a part of the FCC and was never federal law? Congress did try to make it law in the 80s, but Reagan vetoed it and when they tried again, Bush the First threatened to veto it enough to stymie the passage of the bill....)

Link and a sample from the article: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html

Since these attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, media ownership has passed into fewer and fewer hands. Mark Crispin Miller, professor of Film and Media Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, has written extensively on the media and the increasing concentration of ownership of media companies in the United States. Miller has created charts that trace the holdings of four major conglomerates: Time Warner, Disney/Cap Cities, General Electric, and Westinghouse. Each of these conglomerates owns a news network, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, respectively. And not only do they own news networks, but also radio stations, magazines, cable TV, motion pictures, music, and newspapers. Furthermore, the (non-media) holdings of these conglomerates create "alarming conflicts of interests" says Miller.

Lastly, diverse opposing voices are virtually excluded from major TV networks. Among these are prominent speakers such as former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the prolific writer Noam Chomsky, the militant National Alliance, and Muslims who by the year 2000 will constitute America's second largest religion -- Islam.


Me again. Especially in light of this Sinclair Broadcasting mess, I would think there is a good case towards the FCC being more proactive in ensuring fairness in coverage.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

1. I found another good article

supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Very good points in it.

http://www.savagestupidity.com/fairness-doctrine.html

[JPZenger]

2. Bork and Scalia

It should be mentioned that the two U.S. Appeals Court judges who helped kill the Fairness Doctrine were Scalia and Bork.