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

(10,158 posts)
42. The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine may well have been the single most consequential political act of the last
Mon Sep 15, 2025, 10:50 AM
Sep 2025

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 4–0 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 Limbaugh—then working at a little-known Sacramento station—to 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.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This [View all] dcmfox Sep 2025 OP
Expand SCOTUS to thirteen justices. yellow dahlia Sep 2025 #1
That's a GREAT idea! calimary Sep 2025 #3
Each district is overseen by a Justice. yellow dahlia Sep 2025 #5
Makes perfect sense (at least to me). calimary Sep 2025 #6
And it doesn't take a constitutional amendment questionseverything Sep 2025 #30
In other words, Trump could do this while he still has a Repug Senate, ... JustABozoOnThisBus Sep 2025 #52
Have we tried turning it off and then turning it back on again? twodogsbarking Sep 2025 #2
Trump's working real hard at turning it off.... Sogo Sep 2025 #7
Have you tried forcing an unexpected reboot? progressoid Sep 2025 #20
Thanks. twodogsbarking Sep 2025 #40
Damn! Dark n Stormy Knight Sep 2025 #48
Great DU name. I couldn't think of one and both dogs started barking. So there. twodogsbarking Sep 2025 #49
Mine's the first line of a book I loved Dark n Stormy Knight Sep 2025 #50
restore all cuts that the rs have made in the last 30 years . AllaN01Bear Sep 2025 #4
Everything listed LilElf70 Sep 2025 #8
Generally, I am for all of this; however, some just are not feasible. Capt. America Sep 2025 #9
You can have different salaries. I'm pretty sure that would incentivize live love laugh Sep 2025 #10
The states to make the Congressional maps soldierant Sep 2025 #14
The old paradigm is dead -- we can do whatever we set out to do Ponietz Sep 2025 #19
And we can do it just using Executive Orders, right? llmart Sep 2025 #39
Unrealized gains Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #21
I inherited a small IRA account from a relative. Delmette2.0 Sep 2025 #44
IRA withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income. lastlib Sep 2025 #53
Ban anyone who commits a crime against the united states from holding office. Reform the pardon process. chowder66 Sep 2025 #11
Remove any justice or cabinet member... returnee Sep 2025 #32
How about just using the mechanisms that are in place to remove someone! chowder66 Sep 2025 #45
Bravissimo !!!! You know what makes this uniusual? Bluetus Sep 2025 #12
Actually, many Democrats have explicitly run on many of these issues Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #23
Have they? I mean actually RUN on this. Bluetus Sep 2025 #25
Then you haven't been paying attention. Joe Biden ran on some version of most of these policies in 2020 Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #26
Thank you. Democrats know this. betsuni Sep 2025 #27
No he didn't. he TALKED about some of those things from time to time. Bluetus Sep 2025 #36
LEt me translate your post Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #41
No, that's not the message Bluetus Sep 2025 #46
That's a lot of assertions. Torchlight Sep 2025 #51
K&R ReRe Sep 2025 #13
Add one: lastlib Sep 2025 #15
Absolutely. But when people say things like that, Dems instinctively shit on it Bluetus Sep 2025 #37
Remove new hires and appointees since Jan. 20, 2025 Buddyzbuddy Sep 2025 #16
I would add a few more where minorities and women are concerned. slightlv Sep 2025 #18
I like the way you think. DiverDave Sep 2025 #22
Thank you Buddyzbuddy Sep 2025 #31
Project 2028! markie Sep 2025 #17
Reinstate USAID Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #24
Couple things. moondust Sep 2025 #28
What we can and can't do Bluetus Sep 2025 #38
The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine may well have been the single most consequential political act of the last Wiz Imp Sep 2025 #42
The billionaires, MAGA, our enemies have taken total control of our country. Irish_Dem Sep 2025 #29
Then, they will leave us with the ruins. OldBaldy1701E Sep 2025 #33
Yes. We pay them to destroy our country, then we will have to pay for the rebuild. Irish_Dem Sep 2025 #34
Great list! One more thing...., Escape Sep 2025 #35
Should have been Project 1928, but whatever........ joanbarnes Sep 2025 #43
"Fairness Doctrine" is the least of it; snot Sep 2025 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This»Reply #42