Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This [View all]Wiz Imp
(8,019 posts)42. The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine may well have been the single most consequential political act of the last
half century. it led IMMEDIATELY to the proliferation of right wing talk radio, which has been and continues to be more more destructive to American society than even most people here acknowledge. Far more people listen to right wing talk radio on a daily basis than ever watch Fox News.
From Wikipedia:
While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by both the Kennedy and later the Johnson administration to combat political opponents operating on talk radio. 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. 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 court did not see how the fairness doctrine went against the First Amendment's goal of creating an informed public. The fairness doctrine required that those who were talked about be given chance to respond to the statements made by broadcasters. The court believed that this helped create a more informed public. Justice White explained that, without this doctrine, station owners would only have people on the air who agreed with their opinions. Throughout his opinion, Justice White argued that radio frequencies, and by extension, television stations, should be used to educate listeners, or viewers, about controversial issues in a way that is fair and non-biased so that they can create their own opinions. In 1969, the court "ruled unanimously that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional, but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues."
On August 4, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 40 vote. The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical". The decision drew political fire, and cooperation with Congress was one issue. In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the fairness doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. In 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine was stopped when President George H. W. Bush threatened another veto.
The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered", divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed Rush Limbaughthen working at a little-known Sacramento stationto a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers." According to The Washington Post, "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness", e.g., "feminazis". Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.
Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the fairness doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement, with funding from fines given to public broadcasting.
The court did not see how the fairness doctrine went against the First Amendment's goal of creating an informed public. The fairness doctrine required that those who were talked about be given chance to respond to the statements made by broadcasters. The court believed that this helped create a more informed public. Justice White explained that, without this doctrine, station owners would only have people on the air who agreed with their opinions. Throughout his opinion, Justice White argued that radio frequencies, and by extension, television stations, should be used to educate listeners, or viewers, about controversial issues in a way that is fair and non-biased so that they can create their own opinions. In 1969, the court "ruled unanimously that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional, but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues."
On August 4, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 40 vote. The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical". The decision drew political fire, and cooperation with Congress was one issue. In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the fairness doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. In 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine was stopped when President George H. W. Bush threatened another veto.
The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered", divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed Rush Limbaughthen working at a little-known Sacramento stationto a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers." According to The Washington Post, "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness", e.g., "feminazis". Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.
Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the fairness doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement, with funding from fines given to public broadcasting.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In other words, Trump could do this while he still has a Repug Senate, ...
JustABozoOnThisBus
Sep 15
#52
Great DU name. I couldn't think of one and both dogs started barking. So there.
twodogsbarking
Sep 15
#49
Ban anyone who commits a crime against the united states from holding office. Reform the pardon process.
chowder66
Sep 14
#11
Then you haven't been paying attention. Joe Biden ran on some version of most of these policies in 2020
Wiz Imp
Sep 14
#26
The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine may well have been the single most consequential political act of the last
Wiz Imp
Sep 15
#42
Yes. We pay them to destroy our country, then we will have to pay for the rebuild.
Irish_Dem
Sep 15
#34