|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 3, 2021 21:57:50 GMT
CONSERVATISM'S (Reagan, GOP) repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was the ULTIMATE expression of CANCEL CULTURE. When a RepubliCONservative spouts on and on and on about the Left's so called Cancel Culture remind them of the single greatest expression of the term and WHO brought it on. THEY DID! Now that they are getting a taste of THEIR OWN MEDICINE they don't like it and are once again PLAYING THE VICTIM.FCC fairness doctrineFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Not to be confused with the Feres Doctrine of sovereign immunity from Feres v. United States.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
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.[2][3]
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, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court 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.
The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule, which is still in place. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 3, 2021 22:00:38 GMT
 Fred Lundgren
,
Contributor
Fred is the CEO of KCAA Radio. He’s a “Libertarian Democrat” with roots in Austin politics.
Did The Demise Of The Fairness Doctrine Lead To Trump’s Election?
02/26/2017 04:12 pm ET Updated Feb 28, 2017
Let’s review the facts.
America is divided against itself and anger has become the new normal. Ideological divisions are destroying the civility of public discourse. The hostility between those of opposing world views is more pervasive than at any time since the Vietnam War. The 2016 Republican presidential campaign reached a new low. It was an embarrassment that damaged America’s reputation around the world.
Since the general election, many families have settled into camps of Trump and Hillary voters. Members of each group strongly believe that members of the other group have taken leave of their senses. They either avoid the subject at family gatherings or avoid each other completely. Even spousal relationships are breaking down and businesses are getting boycotted along political and ideological lines.
A growing number of Americans across the political spectrum are so angry and frustrated that they want Congress to form a circular firing squad.
All the while, President Trump, who took the 2016 Presidential race into the gutter, continues to make matters worse by pouring gasoline on the flames of discord he created instead of speaking words of reason, calm and unity.
President Trump’s ongoing contributions to the verbal chaos are substantial but a number of policies paved the way to the current breakdown of national comity.
There is a growing consensus that the elimination of “The Fairness Doctrine” is the single largest contributor to the manifestation of nationwide verbal hostility, and if so, it’s the product of several decades of media deregulation.
The Fairness Doctrine was a 1949 FCC rule that required station owners to broadcast “honest, equitable, and balanced programming”. This replaced a 1941 rule called “The Mayflower Doctrine” which required broadcasters to “provide full and equal opportunity for the presentation to the public of all sides of public issues.”
The Mayflower Doctrine and The Fairness Doctrine prevented the rise of ideological talk radio because, under those rules, a station that aired half truths and “alternative facts” could be found liable and be subject to FCC fines and even license revocation.
Over the following 50 years, a large number of successful challenges to the Fairness Doctrine would eventually eliminate it. These challenges came in the form of Congressional mandates, Supreme Court decisions and FCC deregulation initiatives. Each time, the sanctity of the First Amendment was upheld.
The Fairness Doctrine was finally abolished in 1987 which gave rise to right wing talk radio.
Here are some highlights from pivotal decisions made by all three branches of government that opened the door to untethered, biased, and fact free bloviation on the public airwaves.
In 1974, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate”.
In 1985, the FCC released a report stating that the Fairness 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 June of 1987, Congress attempted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan.
On August 4th, 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.
On August 1st, 1988, with restrictions eliminated, Rush Limbaugh launched his nationally syndicated talk show which paved the path for hundreds of talkers to follow.
In February 1989, the FCC concluded that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the Fairness Doctrine had been unconstitutional because it “restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters”.
In 1991, another attempt was made by Congress to revive the doctrine but it was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.
In the year 2000, The US Court of Appeals in D.C asked the FCC to justify rules that prohibited on air personal attacks and rules that prevented broadcasters from endorsing political candidates, but since the Fairness Doctrine had been eliminated, these corollary rules could not be enforced.
Since then, several more attempts have been made by Democratic Members of Congress to revive the Fairness Doctrine and all have failed.
In 2009, Mark Fowler, who chaired the FCC during President Reagan’s first term said this... “I believe the press that uses air and electrons must be as free from Government control as the press that uses paper and ink”.
When asked about the Fairness Doctrine, Bill Clinton said, “Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows”
On August 22, 2011, the FCC formally voted to repeal and remove ALL the language that had implemented and enforced the Fairness Doctrine, along with 88 other regulations, thus declaring “Anything Goes” regarding political speech on the public airwaves.
In my view, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine is the single largest contributor to the spread of a new and virulent strain of toxic discourse that has seated itself in the public’s consciousness. Should we bring back the Fairness Doctrine? My answer is not only “NO” but “Hell No”.
So, what can progressives do to bridge the ideological divide and quiet the storm of discordant rhetoric?
Stay tuned for my next article and a possible answer.
Special note, In the late 1970s, Mark Fowler was the legal Counsel for a company I co-founded that eventually received a license for Radio Station KELG 1440 AM in Elgin, Texas which served Austin.
During the application process, I made several trips to D.C. I remember a conversation with Mark at the Hawk ‘n’ Dove where we debated the future of AM radio.
Mark proffered that Ronald Reagan would become the next President and he was determined to become Chairman of the FCC when it happened. His goal was to break up all the big AM clear channel stations and open the spectrum to many new broadcasters and most importantly, to end the Fairness Doctrine.
After listening to Mark’s plans, I remember thinking... “Yea sure Mark”
Fred can be contacted through KCAA Radio. Email ceo@kcaaradio.com or call (281) 599-9800 |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 3, 2021 22:05:51 GMT
NBC Warns Against Removing Fairness Doctrine (March 18th, 1987)
Sovereign Rebellion
1.14K subscribers
In this Congressional footage from 1987 we see a testimony given by the President of the National Association of Broadcasters Television Station Group, NBC Westinghouse Thomas Goodgame and why he feels removing the Fairness Doctrine will endanger fair and equal access to media. Towards the end you see Robert L. Shayon, Professor of Annenberg School For Communication.
Full Hearing: www.c-span.org/video/?171860-1/fairness-broadcasting-act-1987#! |
|
