[5][6] While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by both the Kennedy and later the Johnson administration to combat political opponents operating on talk radio.
In 1938, Lawrence J. Flynn, a former Yankee Network employee, challenged the license of John Shepard III's WAAB in Boston, and lodged a complaint about WNAC.
Flynn asserted that these stations were being used to air one-sided political viewpoints and broadcast attacks, including editorials, against local and federal politicians that Shepard opposed.
[16]In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the fairness doctrine.
The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the fairness doctrine was applicable, and must be enforced by the FCC.
The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.
The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues.
However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors.
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)).
The court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the fairness doctrine's limits unnecessary: We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required.
As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine '[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case.
[25] In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released its report on General Fairness Doctrine Obligations[26] stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
the case was returned to the FCC with a directive to consider whether the doctrine had been "self-generated pursuant to its general congressional authorization or specifically mandated by Congress.
[31] In its 1987 report, the alternatives—including abandoning a case-by-case enforcement approach, replacing the doctrine with open access time for all members of the public, doing away with the personal attack rule, and eliminating certain other aspects of the doctrine—were rejected by the FCC for various reasons.
"[34] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that: The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the fairness doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
At the 4–0 vote, Chairman Patrick said:We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.
[38] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the fairness doctrine,[39] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan.
[54] On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters, stating: I'll work on bringing it back.
[55]On February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told radio host Bill Press, "we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again."
Later in response to Press's assertion that "they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another", Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair—that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.
During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said: Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it does not reflect economic reality.
4401 would mandate equal media discussion of key political and social topics, requiring television and radio broadcasters to give airtime to opposing sides of issues of civic interest.
This bill requires a broadcast radio or television licensee to provide reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.
[61] The Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act would once again mandate television and radio broadcasters present both sides when discussing political or social issues, reinstituting the rule in place from 1949 to 1987 ... .
Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the fairness doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio.
[65] In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a fairness rule.
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and fairness doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.
[76] The Associated Press reported that the vote on the fairness doctrine rider was "in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time."
[78] In an August 2008 telephone poll, released by Rasmussen Reports, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary.
By a margin of 71–20%, the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today's media", including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio, but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the fairness doctrine closely.