When did the FCC discard the Fairness Doctrine quizlet?

When did the FCC discard the Fairness Doctrine quizlet?

What happened when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1987? The purpose of the fairness doctrine was to provide an opportunity for equal time for different points of view on issues of public importance. Before the repeal of the fairness doctrine, most radio and television stations provided this opportunity by airing contrasting views on controversial subjects. Since the repeal, fewer broadcasters have been required to offer such coverage. Instead, the FCC requires that extensive research be done on issues before they are discussed on air.

In addition to the fair discussion requirement, the fairness doctrine also called for equal time to be given to different sides of an issue. For example, if a station covered a political rally, the broadcaster would have to give an equal amount of time to other candidates running for office. The goal was to promote diversity of opinion on radio and television so that listeners and viewers could make informed decisions as they voted in elections or took part in other public processes.

The fairness doctrine was created by the FCC in 1949 under President Harry S. Truman. The policy was designed to ensure that all viewpoints were represented on radio and television. Broadcasters were expected to provide opportunities for different perspectives on issues before them, such as politics or current events.

What did the Fairness Doctrine require of TV stations?

The fairness concept of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), enacted in 1949, was a regulation that required broadcast license holders to convey difficult subjects of public concern in an honest, equitable, and balanced way. The commission ruled that broadcasters had an obligation to present different points of view on such issues as race relations, politics, religion, and the environment.

Broadcasters were expected to provide equal time for candidates for public office. They also needed to give airtime to issues before them in Congress, like the censure motion against Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954. The fairness doctrine was designed to ensure that other views than those presented by radio or television are heard by their audience.

Stations were required to provide an opportunity for qualified candidates to be considered by voters for public office. This included candidates for federal, state, and local offices as well as candidates for religious, charitable, educational, civic, political, and trade union organizations. "Gentleman's agreements" among stations not to criticize each other's candidates on the air were common during this period. Such agreements helped prevent the so-called "exodus of listeners" or "exodus of viewers" that might result if all stations aired negative ads about candidates from the same party.

Is the fairness doctrine still in place?

The FCC maintained the FCC's broad authority to implement the fairness concept where channels were limited. The fairness concept is not the same as the still-in-effect equal-time regulation. The fairness concept governs the debate of contentious matters, whereas the equal-time norm governs solely political candidates. In 1987, Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act, which created a system of public television and radio stations that receive federal funding. That same year, the FCC decided Pacifica Foundation v. California Commission on Fair Employment & Housing, which found that the agency had the authority to regulate campaign speech by broadcasters.

In 1998, Congress passed the Radio Communication Improvement Act, which repealed the portion of the Communications Act of 1934 that provided the government with the power to regulate radio. However, the act left the fairness doctrine intact. The act also eliminated the requirement that radio stations serve the community where they are licensed, so long as they are granted an exemption for local service. As a result, most commercial radio stations do not have any obligation to reflect all points of view on issues of public interest. Instead, they can choose what topics are relevant to their audience and focus on those items. There are two types of exemptions: full service and limited service. A station that falls under a full service license is required by law to provide reasonable access to controversial issues of public importance. Stations that fall under a limited service license are not required to offer any specific programs or services.

In which case did the Court uphold the fairness doctrine?

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the United States Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in the context of an on-air personal attack, in response to claims that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court noted that the fairness doctrine was designed to provide "equal time" for views opposing those expressed by a radio station itself.

The Court's decision was not surprising given that the majority of the justices had previously voted to extend constitutional protection to television and radio stations in Miami Valley Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 284 F. 2d 117 (1960). In that case, the court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcast licensees to air controversial issues of public importance even if they do so against their will. The court based its ruling on the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press.

Justice Hugo L. Black wrote the opinion of the Court in Red Lion. He first discussed the history of newspaper publishing freedoms, noting that before the advent of radio and television, newspapers were the only means by which most Americans could get news from around the world. With the rise of commercial radio and television, many feared that these new mediums would dominate American life to the exclusion of print journalism. However, Justice Black noted that under the fairness doctrine, broadcasters are required to give equal time to other points of view on issues of public interest.

Is the fairness doctrine related to talk shows?

In reality, the FCC has never issued a judgment addressing talk shows under the Fairness Doctrine. While the philosophy was in effect, the talkshow format was born and prospered. Now that it is no longer in effect, similar formats continue to appear.

The concept of the fairness doctrine was that broadcasters should be required to give "equal time" to opposing views on issues of public interest. The idea was popularized by the United States Congress during the Cold War era when it was believed that radio was being used as a tool for spreading communism. The government agency now responsible for enforcing this policy is the Federal Communications Commission.

Broadcasters were opposed to the concept because it was believed that they could not produce content that was unbiased about issues like politics or culture. Talkshows were especially vulnerable to attack because they were seen as simple performance art rather than news reporting. However, many talk show hosts did take political positions on issues before they were aware that doing so would cost them money under the doctrine. Some stations canceled their most successful shows after they were accused of taking a position on an issue before determining whether it was in their financial interests to do so.

The doctrine was repealed in 1987 after several years of debate within Congress and objections from the broadcasting industry.

About Article Author

Thad Eason

Thad Eason has been a journalist for over 20 years. He's covered everything from crime to the environment. He loves finding creative ways to tell stories that aren't already being covered by the mainstream media.

Related posts