I can only speak back to the early-90s, which would have been post-repeal, so defer to your earlier memories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doct

I can only speak back to the early-90s, which would have been post-repeal, so defer to your earlier memories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Corollary_rules https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Coroll... Both of the post-fairness rules above that survived for a while seem reasonable to reimplement. Roughly, if either a person is attacked or a political candidate endorsed, the person or the unendorsed candidate must be afforded airtime to respond. Those 2 rules alone would drastically alter the business of the major 24/7 news channels. And I think realistically what we're talking about are "major media outlets." Which I'd define either by total viewer/listener count or local market share. If you want to go off on your blog about someone, free speech seems to hold. But if the main radio station in your area decides to relentlessly beat the drum for a candidate / issue... well, that's probably a problem for democracy.