Liberals Want End of 'Right-Wing Radio', page 8

From Wikipedia:

Originally posted by grover
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

The doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine.

This proposed legislation has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half. Conservatives also claim that liberals already dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media, which would not be subject to the regulations required by The Fairness Doctrine.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who might request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same to another.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983 political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.

This rule was originally created by the Federal Communications Commission in 1927, in the Radio Act. It was later superseded by the Communications Act, where the Equal Time Rule lies under Section 315.

A related provision of Section 315 requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser". Another provision prohibits stations from censoring campaign ads.

The rule was created because FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections.

The Equal-time rule is sometimes confused with the fairness doctrine.

So the question remains... would it restrict conservatives air time by increasing liberal air time OR would its impact be neutral... of course the conservatives say it would, BUT considering their predominance on air and in print, for me anyway their complaint rings hollow and suggests that they are more concerned about limiting exposure to liberal ideas.

BTW I was wrong about Reagan's involvement. I remembered that he had had something to do with the end of the fairness doctrine, but I was wrong about what. I was also unaware of the nature of the debate concerning it in the 80's but I still think that the more divers voices, liberal, conservative, what not, that we as voters are exposed to the more informed an electorate we are.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by grover]