What happened to the fairness doctrine?

[TeenageRepublican]

Hey, I remember that crappy idea about "equal radio" where Liberals would have one hour of broadcasting time, and Conservatives would have one one hour broadcasting time after the libs.
I know they're just upset because we are successful in radio, and their ratings are so damn low. So, I just wanted to ask this. What happened to the fairness doctrine?:question:

[Rhino]

It was never law. It was just an FCC policy started back in the 40s during the anti-communist craze. In 1969, it was incorporated into FCC rules, but it was still never authorized by law. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the FCC did not have to enforce it, and the FCC dropped it completely in 1987. The dems have tried to reinstate it twice with legislation, but boths attempts failed, first with a veto by Reagan, and then with a threatened veto by Bush 1. No serious attempts have been launched since, but it has been mentioned from time to time.

Many people confuse the Fairness Doctrine with the FEC rules about equal time for candidates, but they are not the same thing.

[TeenageRepublican]

It was never law. It was just an FCC policy started back in the 40s during the anti-communist craze. In 1969, it was incorporated into FCC rules, but it was still never authorized by law. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the FCC did not have to enforce it, and the FCC dropped it completely in 1987. The dems have tried to reinstate it twice with legislation, but boths attempts failed, first with a veto by Reagan, and then with a threatened veto by Bush 1. No serious attempts have been launched since, but it has been mentioned from time to time.

Many people confuse the Fairness Doctrine with the FEC rules about equal time for candidates, but they are not the same thing.

Really, I've never heard of that.

[DoctorDoom]

Fairness Doctrine (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm)

Equal Time Rule (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm)

Remember this: to a liberal, "fair" means that they have total domination of the media. ANY opposing viewpoint constitutes unfairness, and they demand "balance"—read: silence the opposing Pov by making it impossible for it to survive. LibeRATs are contemptble fascist bastards who lust to resurrect the "fairness" that was maintained in the Soviet Union by their idols.

[Maggie_T]

What the Doc said.

The American left is desperate to crush the right in this country. Europe is pretty much in the grip of socialism. Latin America is totally in the claws of communism. America is lagging behind. That reflects badly on American lefties' capacity for total brainwashing.

They must do something. Anything.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It was never law. It was just an FCC policy started back in the 40s during the anti-communist craze. In 1969, it was incorporated into FCC rules, but it was still never authorized by law. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the FCC did not have to enforce it, and the FCC dropped it completely in 1987. The dems have tried to reinstate it twice with legislation, but boths attempts failed, first with a veto by Reagan, and then with a threatened veto by Bush 1. No serious attempts have been launched since, but it has been mentioned from time to time.
Just a minor quibble: There was a 3rd attempt to reinstate the fairness doctrine - the "Hush Rush" Bill - that occurred 1993 after Rush exposed the truth about Hillarycare, but as I remember it was never voted on.

[aquapub]

Hey, I remember that crappy idea about "equal radio" where Liberals would have one hour of broadcasting time, and Conservatives would have one one hour broadcasting time after the libs.
I know they're just upset because we are successful in radio, and their ratings are so damn low. So, I just wanted to ask this. What happened to the fairness doctrine?:question:
If something isn't done before the next Democrat President takes office, the culture of hostility towards free speech routinely demonstrated in workplaces and on campuses across the nation by the self-proclaimed champions of free spech will become official FCC policy by Executive Order.

Here's a petition I just started urging a once-and-for-all Congressional ban:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/congress-ban-the-fairness-doctrine-now

[Rhino]

Just a minor quibble: There was a 3rd attempt to reinstate the fairness doctrine - the "Hush Rush" Bill - that occurred 1993 after Rush exposed the truth about Hillarycare, but as I remember it was never voted on.Exactly, never voted on. That's part of what I meant by no serious attempts.

[JOHN D]

Hey, I remember that crappy idea about "equal radio" where Liberals would have one hour of broadcasting time, and Conservatives would have one one hour broadcasting time after the libs.
I know they're just upset because we are successful in radio, and their ratings are so damn low. So, I just wanted to ask this. What happened to the fairness doctrine?:question:

They're not just upset ... they're hysterical, but it's not about success. Libs hate the exposure of their unpatriotic, destructive, conduct, by conservative talk radio, and want the truth of their actions, silenced. Unfortunately, many Americans are not participating, or are already brainwashed with modern liberalism. The left believes, only they, have the right of free speech. This idea, the fairness doctrine, is simply unamerican, so falls right in line with leftist thinking.

[Rhino]

Another little known factoid. The Fairness Doctrine never mandated equal time, nor was the concept of equal time ever stated in the policy. It merely prohibited a nonstop, continual slant in one direction without the possibility of an opposing viewpoint.

However, if the Fainess Doctrine were ever to be reinstated, you can bet your house, your firstborn child and your grandma's dentures that the libs would find some activist judges to rule that equal time was indeed required.

[Maggie_T]

However, if the Fainess Doctrine were ever to be reinstated, you can bet your house, your firstborn child and your grandma's dentures that the libs would find some activist judges to rule that equal time was indeed required.

And by equal time, liberals mean 80% of the time for their lies and slanders, and the rest to be equally divided into conservative views, the news, and commercials. :rolleyes:

[Bold_Fighter]

I have heard a lot of libs are backing off, and trying to move their efforts to taking over the soon to be open lo fi stations. Another plot is to coerce church folks to channel their money away from the tithing and give to their groups under the auspices of "community betterment" or something, which I think we all know what that means!!!!

[hdmundt]

What about the black Israeli custodians for Buddha? Or the Lepers-by-the-sea accountants league? Or the Committee Against Political Action? When do they get their say?????

[TeenageRepublican]

Well, they always were losers in the radio world... and they always will be.:shoot:There is no reason for this smilie on this reply, I just think it's cool.

[Tazeeyore]

A bill has been introduced in the house to ban the ban on free speech and all 202 Republicans co-sponsered the bill. The bill would make the Fairness Doctrine, (democrat control of the airwaves), only enacted by decree of congress. That will preclude any president from using the FCC to enact law without the approval of congress. We may not be so lucky in the Senate with weak knee RINO's cowering to pressure from the left.

[DoctorDoom]

Well, the Senate caved to the loudly-expressed will of an enraged electorate re shamnesty ...

[Maggie_T]

There was a 'pub congressman who actually introduced a bill by which the (Un)Fairness Doctrine would be considered unconstitutional (as it is). Damn! I can't remember his name. And I even sent an e-mail thanking him and congratulating him for that! Man, ageing does a number on you. :sulk:

[CTConservative]

Fairness Doctrine (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm)

Equal Time Rule (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm)

Remember this: to a liberal, "fair" means that they have total domination of the media. ANY opposing viewpoint constitutes unfairness, and they demand "balance"—read: silence the opposing Pov by making it impossible for it to survive. LibeRATs are contemptble fascist bastards who lust to resurrect the "fairness" that was maintained in the Soviet Union by their idols.

:claps:Couldn't agree more Doc. My partner and I listen to conservative radio while we're on duty, but every now and then switch over to a liberal station for laughs. It's amazing how they have NPR, but demand equal air time on networks that air conservative shows.

Frankly, I consider liberals to be a modern Nazi Party. Total domination of the media, thought, and the educational system so they can brainwash our children. Some of the educational changes/new ideas these people push remind me of the Hitler Youth in Germany. Didn't we fight a war against that kind of dictatorship?

I have seen conservatives express contempt against the left, even anger. But I still have yet to see a conservative show the unabashed hatred the left shows us every day.

[DeclinetoState]

A pro-"Fairness Doctrine" site:


The Fairness Doctrine is gone.

Most people don't even know for sure what the Fairness Doctrine was, much less that it has been repealed, or why they should care. It's easier than you might expect to strip away democratic rights from the public without even raising a fuss.

The Fairness Doctrine is best explained by telling a few stories of its use.

In 1976 when Congress was debating legislation on strip mine reclamation, radio station WHAR in Clarksburg, West Virginia, refused to carry any coverage of the issue. The station's owner said the subject was too controversial. Citizens used the Fairness Doctrine to force the station to air the debate -- both sides of it.

Oklahoma Gas and Electric launched a major campaign in 1976 to promote its request for a rate increase. The Oklahoma Coalition for Older People approached radio and TV stations asking for a balanced presentation as required by the Fairness Doctrine. One station then scheduled two half-hour public affairs programs on the rate hike. Others aired spot announcements opposing the hike.

The Fairness Doctrine was an ingenious device, because it empowered the public, not the government, to monitor the fairness of the airwaves. Citizens who felt that a public issue was not being fairly discussed brought complaints directly to broadcasters. Most of those complaints were settled then and there, usually by the simple provision of time for another point of view. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came into a case only rarely, when the broadcaster and the citizens could not agree. Even then, the FCC did not impose fines or dictate how the station should respond; it only directed the station to come up with more balanced coverage.

One of the times when the FCC did get involved was the case that killed the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1982 WTVH-TV in Syracuse, New York, ran ads promoting the Nine Mile II nuclear power plant as a "sound investment for New York's future." The Syracuse Peace Council asked for time to point out that the plant, originally budgeted at $400 million, had by then cost $5.1 billion and was far from a sound investment. The station appealed to the FCC, which ruled that WTVH must air the opposing point of view.

But the owners of WTVH appealed that ruling. The case was brought to the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, with Judge Robert Bork, of all people, on the bench, along with then Judge Antonin Scalia. The Court reached far beyond the limits of the particular case and asked the FCC to determine whether the Fairness Doctrine restricts the right of free speech of broadcasters.

The Reagan Administration, which has always opposed the Fairness Doctrine, was waiting for this opportunity. In August 1987 the FCC repealed the Doctrine, claiming that it was unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously in 1969 that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional but essential to democracy.

Source (http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article=vn209fairnessed)

This Webpage is actually older than the Internet, since it talks about the Reagan administration in the present tense. There's no date on it, however.

I believe the arguments it puts forth would be similar to those advanced by present-day supporters of the Doctrine.