If the UK can do it....why the hell can't we?

[onenote]

285. The fairness doctrine did not require "equal time" to "the other side" of the story.

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2022, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)

It is a common misperception, but all the fairness doctrine required was that broadcast stations devote some time to the coverage of controversial issues of public importance and to air contrasting views on the subject. But it didn't require that the amount of time devoted to one side or another be the same.

Another misperception about the fairness doctrine: that it would be a magic bullet. It was repealed in 1987. It didn't stop Richard Nixon from being elected in 1964 and reelected in 1968. It didn't stop Ronald Reagan from being elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984. It didn't stop the repubs from capturing the Senate in 1980.

I've practiced communications law for over four decades and from my experience, the fairness doctrine was largely a non-factor. Complaints, when filed, rarely resulted in any meaningful action against the station.