The 'Not so Fair' Doctrine
Chad Newton
Staff Writer
The Federal Communications Commission introduced the Fairness Doctrine introduced in the United States in 1949. The FCC designed the Fairness Doctrine to:
- devote airtime discussing controversial issues of public interest
- provide equal time in contrasting views regarding controversial matters
The doctrine during that time remained the law of the land when it came to broadcasting. The case between Red Lion Broadcasting and the FCC challenged the Fairness Doctrine in 1969.
A Philadelphia radio station licensed by Red Lion aired a “Christian Crusade” program. Conservative evangelist, Billy James Hargin, attacked author Fred J. Cook. Cook was offended and wanted to respond by going on Red Lion. Red Lion refused.
Cook sued Red Lion, arguing that in the FCC doctrine he was entitled to free airtime to respond to the attacks. Red Lion challenged the doctrine; the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled unanimously the fairness doctrine was constitutional. Cook was entitled to airtime.
FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, appointed by President Regan, wanted to repeal portions of the fairness doctrine. In 1985, Fowler protested that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment of the constitution.
In Jun. 1987, Congress attempted to keep the doctrine in place, but President Regan vetoed the legislation. Congress lost the battle due to lack of congressional support.
After all the legal hassles in August 1987, the FCC decided to abolish the fairness doctrine due to so many issues involving First Amendment rights violations.
Another attempt to revive the doctrine occured in 1991. President George H.W. Bush stopped the attempt in its tracks.
Two controversial rules of the doctrine involved “personal attack” and “political editorial” rules. When a radio host personally attacks a person or a group of persons, stations had to notify the persons involved as well send transcripts of what was said and offer the to respond on air.
In political editorial rule, a station broadcast endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, the broadcast must notify the opposed candidate and allow them the opportunity to respond.
In favor for the doctrine are left wing loonies that are feeling the pinch in the success of conservative talk radio. Sen. Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (evil, wicked woman of the Senate) wholeheartedly supports the fairness doctrine.
Several other leftist clowns support the fairness doctrine. President-elect Barack Hussein Obama opposes the doctrine (that is a surprise). Obama’s press secretary stated that Obama believes everyone has a different viewpoint and the airwaves should have many diverse viewpoints as possible.
The attack of reviving the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with being fair and nice; it has to do with liberals bottlenecking conservative talk radio. Conservative talk radio receives a lot of listeners which means advertisers are doing business with conservative talk radio.
Liberal talk radio has not paired well against conservative talk radio. Who wants to listen to boring, old tired liberals discuss and whine about the same crap but different toilet politics?
At times, conservative talk radio can get controversial with talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Don Imus and especially Michael Savage. These men allow us to think, even though these men use different methods of pointing out the topic.
Some use yelling and screaming, others use satire and comedy to bring the point out to the viewers. We may not like what talk radio hosts have to say, but they do have a right to express their opinions.
I do not believe in sharing radio time with someone who wants to respond. Go to another radio station that is willing to put up with you. Why should Rush Limbaugh share his time with you just because he attacked you?
Why should Bill O’Reilly share his time to allow you to respond? Why should Don Imus make you his guest because you felt insulted? Why should Michael Savage take time out to address you because your feelings are hurt?
They do not have to. If everyone got a chance to respond to the attacks on the same radio station, the advertising time would be disastrous. There are other media outlets that will be happy to have you on so you can cry a river nationwide.
If a media outlet politics is conservative, why force that media outlet to have liberals to make it fair and balanced? Vice versa goes for liberal media outlets.
If the fairness doctrine is revised, people do not understand the consequences of the negative effect it will have on all formats of media. This (in my opinion) can possibly happen if revised:
- Media outlets Viacom, Disney, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. will be compromised with both sides of the coin policy.
- Christian media networks will be forced to allow opponents of Christianity to have a voice on their networks.
- Sports networks will be forced to run non-sports related shows and broadcast.
- Porn channels will have to show non-porn related shows.
- Children shows will be forced to show non-child related shows.
Supporters for the fairness doctrine must understand this if they did not get anything out of life when they expire, “life is not fair.”
Have a comment? Please e-mail us.
©The Voice 2008
