4 ms·

Between 1949 and 1987, US private companies were forced to pay for and produce high quality news content under guidelines set by the federal government. One of

Between 1949 and 1987, US private companies were forced to pay for and produce high quality news content under guidelines set by the federal government. One of the conditions of ABC, CBS and NBC being given access to the airwaves was that they had to produce and distribute high quality news broadcasts. News was considered a public good. From wikipedia: The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.

jt2190 3y ago
This is because the technology of the time severely limited the number of available channels. You’ve enumerated only three, but there weren’t many more than that. Clearly there are more than three points of view, so these laws helped balance things out until the technology for more channels arrived.
- fwlr 3y ago
  “The technology of that time severely limited the number of available channels (broadcast channels being six megahertz wide due to severe interference etc)” is actually very comparable to “the market forces of our time severely limits the number of available distributors (network effects mean everyone is on Facebook and Twitter)”. To a government this is genuinely a strong argument for fairness doctrines. I personally don’t think the Canadian laws are like fairness doctrines, to me they are more like rent-seeking on valuable Canadian eyeballs, but if the Canadian government does see their laws as something like fairness doctrines, they have a pretty good case for it!
  - bparsons 3y ago
    Canada is a pretty small market. Google and Meta have come in and (perhaps unintentionally) destroyed the tiny Canadian news media sector. I don't think it unreasonable that these companies, (largest on earth), pay a tiny fraction of a percentage of their Canadian revenue to help support that sector. Without our own news media, we are particularly vulnerable to the toxic influence of American right wing media, billionaire funded astro-turf media and any other foreign entity that wishes to push their agenda.

jt2190 3y ago

This is because the technology of the time severely limited the number of available channels. You’ve enumerated only three, but there weren’t many more than that. Clearly there are more than three points of view, so these laws helped balance things out until the technology for more channels arrived.

fwlr 3y ago
“The technology of that time severely limited the number of available channels (broadcast channels being six megahertz wide due to severe interference etc)” is actually very comparable to “the market forces of our time severely limits the number of available distributors (network effects mean everyone is on Facebook and Twitter)”. To a government this is genuinely a strong argument for fairness doctrines. I personally don’t think the Canadian laws are like fairness doctrines, to me they are more like rent-seeking on valuable Canadian eyeballs, but if the Canadian government does see their laws as something like fairness doctrines, they have a pretty good case for it!
- bparsons 3y ago
  Canada is a pretty small market. Google and Meta have come in and (perhaps unintentionally) destroyed the tiny Canadian news media sector. I don't think it unreasonable that these companies, (largest on earth), pay a tiny fraction of a percentage of their Canadian revenue to help support that sector. Without our own news media, we are particularly vulnerable to the toxic influence of American right wing media, billionaire funded astro-turf media and any other foreign entity that wishes to push their agenda.