Fairness doctrine Version 2.

What exactly was "the Fairness Doctrine"?

I'll allow Wikipedia to explain.

"The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Communist sentiment in the US in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that it violated the First Amendment. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks."


In essence the fairness doctrine forced broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. The end result is that listeners and viewers got both sides of the story. On the positive side, the public got the information needed to make informed choices. On the negative side, broadcasters had to give time to people with views diametrically opposed to their own.

The Fairness doctrine was voted out of use by the FCC under Reagan in 1987. Congress attempted to bypass that by codifying it into law but were thrwarted by a Regan veto in 1987 and again by a threatened Bush veto in 1991.

"Two corollary rules of the doctrine, i.e., the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond."

In 2000 the FCC allowed both rules to lapse freeing media to practice character assasinations under the misleading banner of "news".

And that ladies and gentlemen is the origin of Fox News.:)


Joking aside, I think that the repeal of that act has lead to the heated division that exists between red and blue Americans. Newscasters used to hold the delivery of the news as a near holy act. Great pains were made to report the news in a non-stilted manner. When the media attacked politicians, they did it because the politicians were doing un-American or illegal things, not because they had different political views.

It is clear that the media (fox being the worst offenders by far) no longer thinks this way. However they continue to present their broadcasts are unbiased. That is a huge disservice to the American people.

There is a movement to attempt to restore the old fairness doctrine. I think that is a mistake as even if you could get the doctrine reinstated, as originally conceived, is likely to be immediately struck down by the 5-4 Conservative Supreme Court. Instead of wasting time attempting to restore the old fairness doctrine under Bush, I think a new fairness doctrine should be submitted to the next president of the U.S.

If I wrote it, it would be fairly simple.

"We belive that American News stations have a responsibility to attempt to provide news in an unbiased fashion. This law is designed to ensure the news is always reported in an even handed manner.

For any TV or radio station to promote themselves as a news station,news stories have to be handled in an unbiased fashion without stated or implied opinions. Additionally, equal coverage and time has to be given to liberal and conservative viewpoints on these stations.

Any station that does not comply may not use the term "news" in discribing their content in their advertising, name, or daily broadcasts. They will instead have to identify themselves as either a "Provider of conservative content" or a "Provider of liberal content". Any media passes given to news stations will not neccessarily have to be provided to those networks.

Finally, multiple instances of news stories involving U.S. Politics or issues politically contriversial in the US that are conspicuously buried on a station vs. their competitors can also result in a suspension of a network's ability to describe and or classify itself as a news network."


Now obviously that is a bit fuzzy in who evalutes multiple instances, but that can be worked out pretty quickly.

Stations like CNN and MSNBC will be able to comply with this in a matter of days if not hours. Fox News, on the other hand...


Are you ready for the "Fox Provider of Conservative Content Network"?