11 ms·

The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. It was created during an era where virtually all Americans had only the big three television stations as news sources.

The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. It was created during an era where virtually all Americans had only the big three television stations as news sources. Given the relative diversity of sources available today, serious questions exist as to whether it's reimplementation would even be constitutional.

naravara 7y ago
It wouldn't need to apply to ALL media, just whatever uses communal resources, like radio spectrum. Even if there is BS out there, having sources that are regarded as "sources of record" can help with establishing an authoritative account of where things are.
airstrike 7y ago
> The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. Thanks, I misread the date upon quickly glancing the article on Wikipedia (and not American / quite old enough to remember it happening in 1987...) > Given the relative diversity of sources available today My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. I'm arguing in favor of more moderation, not less plurality. You're presenting false dichotomy by suggesting that showing both sides of an issue gets in the way of a diversity of sources. Now for more subtle and perhaps subjective criticism: what good is a plurality of sources if all of those are simply pushing their biased agenda hard down people's throats? From society's standpoint, there seems to be consensus that the state of news media today is worse than it was a few decades ago as far as partisanship, sensationalism, clickbaiting and alarmism go.
- will4274 7y ago
  >> Given the relative diversity of sources available today > My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. It's not a straw man, it's history/law. The US Supreme Court was asked to rule on the fairness doctrine in the 60s and ruled that the government has a legitimate interest in promoting a variety views that could supersede the broadcaster's right to free speech only when a limited number of sources were available (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC). If there is a diversity of sources, then people's right to free speech trumps the government's interest in favor of more moderation.
  - airstrike 7y ago
    > It's not a straw man, it's history/law. It's not, at least based on the evidence provided by you thus far. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the availability of sources today, so your argument can't be really considered historical. At best you may claim that based on past ruling, the SCOTUS is likely to rule that reviving the rule would infringe on the right to free speech. Even then, I'd argue precisely for the opposite, again based on the evidence you presented, i.e. Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC. I refer you to https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/367.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/367.html (emphasis mine): > The FCC's statutory mandate to see that broadcasters operate in the public interest and Congress' reaffirmation, in the [395 U.S. 367, 368] 1959 amendment to 315 of the Communications Act, of the FCC's view that the fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard, support the conclusion that the doctrine and its component personal attack and political editorializing regulations are a legitimate exercise of congressionally delegated authority. Pp. 379-386. > 2. The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 386-401. > (a) The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. Pp. 386-390. > (b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others. Pp. 390-392. > (...) > (e) It has not been shown that the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, which impelled governmental regulation, is entirely a thing of the past, as new uses for the frequency spectrum have kept pace with improved technology and more efficient utilization of that spectrum. Pp. 396-400. And last but certainly not least: > Believing that the specific application of the fairness doctrine in Red Lion, and the promulgation of the regulations in RTNDA, are both authorized by Congress and enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment I don't see from that how one may conclude that "promoting a variety views that could supersede the broadcaster's right to free speech only when a limited number of sources [is] available", but I'm also not really familiar with case law to argue fervently one way or another.

naravara 7y ago

It wouldn't need to apply to ALL media, just whatever uses communal resources, like radio spectrum. Even if there is BS out there, having sources that are regarded as "sources of record" can help with establishing an authoritative account of where things are.

airstrike 7y ago

> The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. Thanks, I misread the date upon quickly glancing the article on Wikipedia (and not American / quite old enough to remember it happening in 1987...) > Given the relative diversity of sources available today My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. I'm arguing in favor of more moderation, not less plurality. You're presenting false dichotomy by suggesting that showing both sides of an issue gets in the way of a diversity of sources. Now for more subtle and perhaps subjective criticism: what good is a plurality of sources if all of those are simply pushing their biased agenda hard down people's throats? From society's standpoint, there seems to be consensus that the state of news media today is worse than it was a few decades ago as far as partisanship, sensationalism, clickbaiting and alarmism go.

will4274 7y ago
>> Given the relative diversity of sources available today > My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. It's not a straw man, it's history/law. The US Supreme Court was asked to rule on the fairness doctrine in the 60s and ruled that the government has a legitimate interest in promoting a variety views that could supersede the broadcaster's right to free speech only when a limited number of sources were available (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC). If there is a diversity of sources, then people's right to free speech trumps the government's interest in favor of more moderation.
- airstrike 7y ago
  > It's not a straw man, it's history/law. It's not, at least based on the evidence provided by you thus far. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the availability of sources today, so your argument can't be really considered historical. At best you may claim that based on past ruling, the SCOTUS is likely to rule that reviving the rule would infringe on the right to free speech. Even then, I'd argue precisely for the opposite, again based on the evidence you presented, i.e. Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC. I refer you to https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/367.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/367.html (emphasis mine): > The FCC's statutory mandate to see that broadcasters operate in the public interest and Congress' reaffirmation, in the [395 U.S. 367, 368] 1959 amendment to 315 of the Communications Act, of the FCC's view that the fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard, support the conclusion that the doctrine and its component personal attack and political editorializing regulations are a legitimate exercise of congressionally delegated authority. Pp. 379-386. > 2. The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 386-401. > (a) The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. Pp. 386-390. > (b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others. Pp. 390-392. > (...) > (e) It has not been shown that the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, which impelled governmental regulation, is entirely a thing of the past, as new uses for the frequency spectrum have kept pace with improved technology and more efficient utilization of that spectrum. Pp. 396-400. And last but certainly not least: > Believing that the specific application of the fairness doctrine in Red Lion, and the promulgation of the regulations in RTNDA, are both authorized by Congress and enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment I don't see from that how one may conclude that "promoting a variety views that could supersede the broadcaster's right to free speech only when a limited number of sources [is] available", but I'm also not really familiar with case law to argue fervently one way or another.