Talk:Fairness doctrine
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theFairness doctrine article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
Anyone that follows politics hears about this constantly. Therefore, I believe it is important.Saksjn (talk)13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I believe this should be a candidate for limited editing. I've seen three malicious posts that had to be removed with regard to President-Elect Obama's intended legislative actions. I believe this will be a major subject as Congress had signaled its intent to implement most of its edicts.Mastercare (talk)04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn few articles are without bias but this one is golden. Good job.
--149.152.34.12819:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I will go as far as to say the most articles on wikipedia regarding anything political is fiecely biased to the left. This article is strikingly centered. I guess it would be ironic if the article ON the fairness doctrine were biased.—Precedingunsigned comment added by72.224.44.199 (talk)19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to discourage anyone else from adding anything, but I'm writing an extensive paper on the Fairness Doctrine this month, so this should be quite a lengthy and complete article by the time I'm done. —Postdlf 7:21 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It appears that the article is broken... It looks like a massive chunk of Talk: page got dumped into the end of the External Links section.
I am going to excise that and place it into its own section here on the Talk: page for somebody (possibly me, but not right now) to sort through later. --AStanhope 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The following text appeared to have been accidentally placed in the External Links section of the main article. Some of it, at least, appears to have come from either this talk page or some users' misunderstanding of how Wikipedia editing works. --AStanhope 17:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.
In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.
The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.
The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly vowed to kill the fairness doctrine.
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.
The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters doNOT provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.
-Val E. Limburg
--WARNING: Val E. Limburg seems to have a conservative bias on media regulation policy. In the spirit of the fairness doctrine, here are some opposing viewpoints:
- Media consolidation is out of control since 1996'sTelecommunications Act- Local broadcasters do not serve community need, but pander to corporate ideology.
http://www.reclaimthemedia.orghttp://media-alliance.org
The FCC has initiated a task force to determine the effectiveness of local broadcasters to their local communities. This is an ongoing process that citizens can take part in. Tell the FCC how you feel about media consolidation.http://www.fcc.gov/localism/
As Powell put it himself: “I created theLocalism Task Force to evaluate how broadcasters are serving their local communities. Broadcasters must serve the public interest, and the Commission has consistently interpreted this to require broadcast licensees to air programming that is responsive to the interests and needs of their communities.” - ChairmanMichael K. Powell
Notice the representation of Cumulus, The Tribune and others who stand to gain from the present deregulation of the media. Board of Directors – Officers and Executive Committee
* Bruce DuMont, Founder/President & CEO * Richard Fleming, USG Corporation (retired), VP & Treasurer * David Plier, Retail First Corporation, VP & Secretary * Jack Weinberg, Pro Consulting Associates, Ltd., VP
Members of the Board
* Jennifer Anderson, Impact Basketball * David Bart, McGladrey * Lana Brown (education consultant) * Sean Cassidy, DKC * Chris Gladwin, Cleversafe * Dennis Green, Cumulus Media Networks * Jon Harris, The Hillshire Brands Company * Andrew Hayes, Fifth Third Bank * David Kovach, Citibank * Michael Shmarak, DKC * Rocco Smeriglio, Yahoo * Larry Wert, Tribune BroadcastingMrSativa (talk)19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any references on this guy? Googling on Bill Ruddee or William Ruddee only brings references back to this article.--Eyemeansit03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but it appears that the last bit about the FCC's response to court action in 2000 was only to temporarily suspend the policy:http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/2000/nrmm0041.html(MicahMH18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Granted, I'm by no means a wiki expert, and do not yet know much about the operations of wiki articles... but is there any reason why I am getting two different versions of this article; one before I log in, and a different version after?
For example, I was going to ask about the obvious bias in the following segment;
The Doctrine did not apply to Newspapers, and was rarely enforced in other media, but the public perception of the meaning of fairness made many radio broadcasters believed it had a limiting effect on their broadcasting (not doing any and all commentary the left might deem critical or unfair, the left being called a "powerful special interests," was annoying to the right's powerful special interests and they were the ones paying bills).
But after I logged in to make this entry, that segment mysteriously disappeared from the article.I considered that, in those few seconds, perhaps an edit was made by someone else.But after logging out, clearing my cookies and looking again, it was back.So I logged in again, to be sure... and it was once again gone.
Maybe it's just my ignorance of wiki... but is this normal?
And, of course, if anyone would care to address the above section as it pertains to POV, I would appreciate that, a well.Artmonkey06:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that this article is under scrutiny for a question of importance.
Well, as the newly elected democratic majority in congress is pushing for areinstatement of the fairness doctrine right now, and given the opposition they are already seeing from those in talk radio broadcasting, I think you will find, very soon, that this article will become very popular and very timely.As for it's importance, the new fairness doctrine promises to completely change the face of talk radio media. I would personally consider that of notable importance, no matter which side of the issue you favor.Artmonkey06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are actually a number of "references" in the external links section, including to the line I just tagged as needing citation about GHW Bush. Anyone actually feel like reading through those articles and making them citations? I'll fix the markup, but sorry reading through those articles sounds deeply boring to me. I'm just here via the Recent Changes feed. --Hurtstotouchfire22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a very awkwardly worded phrase.
"In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the Reagan administration influenced FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine..."
And I have to disagree with the first poster on this page. Atrributive phrases like, "Reagan administration influnced," suggest POV and bias. It was not a Reagan administration influnced FCC, it was an FCC during the Reagan administration. If people don't understand that means its members were administration appointees (though only three of the five can ever be of the same political party, and there were no dissenting votes when the Fairness Doctrine was struck down), as were members of the FCC under all other administrations, then they need to go read an article on the FCC.As a counter-example, why not stick the appellation, "socalist" in front of Senator Bernie Sanders, or describe the putative legislation as "socialist-sponsored?" Because it suggests bias, even though Bernie Sanders proudly claims that he is a Socialist. The noted attributive phrase also suggests bias.
~mjd 2007-04-11 17:41EDT
A quick scan of the references and external links posted shows that all but one is a reference in clear support of the Fairness Doctrine, with not a small amount of political bias in many. I suggest that you can find a few more references with arguments against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to help this article mirror its title.
I would further suggest you remove the reference to the Slate article. It is by its very definition and own admission a POV peice. That would be bad enough, if it weren't for the fact that, while all of the media was apoplectic about the possibility of the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor airing shortly before the 2004 Presidential election in the United States, neither the Slate piece, this article, nor any of the rest of the mainstream media in 2004 seemed to mind that Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary aired on DishNetwork and on Pay-Per-View immediately before the election. [Someone is going to argue that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over DishNetwork or the cable companies: wrong. The FCC oversees them as well, and the existing equal time statutes apply to them as well]. In the end, Stolen Honor was NOT broadcast in October 2004 as Sinclair had planned; Fahrenheit 911 was broadcast in November 2004, the day before the election.
~mjd 2007-04-11 18:16EDT
The following sentence, I believe, is clearly biased and assumes facts not in evidence, to use a legal term."Touted periodically by liberals, if active, the doctrine would effectively quiet opposition to the leftist world view."Pueblonative12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to me formatting all of the references to use the citation templates (see the last citation I added for an example of what I'm talking about)? Apparently this is a contentious issue with some folks and if there are any objections I'll not bother. --Hiddekel22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trent Lott made some negative remarks about talk radio but reiterated that the solutions was not to regulate but instead better communication directly with the public. This does not constitute support for the Fairness Doctrine. Please stop erroneously adding that he supports it.Talmage14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been pointed out that talk radio uses the public airwaves, I think it should be pointed out that Hollywood uses the public airwaves as well (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, et al) and that academia, both private and public, receive billions in taxpayer dollars. This is as relevant as talk radio using the public airwaves, and I would like to know if anyone out there has links/sources to recommend in pointing these facts out? Thanks. --Gerkinstock00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Attempts" section has been renamed to "Controversy" since the very existence of the attempts is in controversy. I have also made it clear where assertions are made by opinion commentators; typically these are not sources for facts. If this article is to be factual, it should quote people directly, not refer to 2nd-hand quotes filtered through opinion pieces. It's not as if it'sdifficult to get quotes from politiciansrewinn17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Within the Controversy section, I split out the legislative matters (which are easy to state objectively) from the commentary (which is inherently POV). Since no link was provided to Pence's proposal, I substituted Coleman's which was basically the same (and an editor (below) had provided the link --- thanks!rewinn18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such legislation - although none has actually been introduced in Congress - has been criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed, despite the overwhelming (90%) conservative bias in the media and media ownership, especially in talk radio as shown in reports out of the Center for American Progress.
Ok this is absolute crap, the Center for American Progress is run by Liberals, how about this, 9/10 reporters give to Democrats! How's that for media bias.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
The above anonymous addition was made on 18:00, 2 August 2007 byUser:155.104.37.17
Associated Press reported on July 13, 2007 that "Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment ... that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine." Seehere andhere, for example. We probably could use mention this in the article. Unfortunately, that report does not say why they blocked that amendment.CWC12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters for America is a propoganda web site. Citing this organization in this article destroys credibility.71.94.236.20202:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant POV-pushing about the most recent controversy is not helpful. Wikipedia's job is to lay out both sides briefly, not to argue for either side. The argument that there is a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine was introduced by commentators and therefore their statements should be mentioned first. Factual support for their assertions is best left in their articles, but since an anonymous editor insists on citing directly to the relevant politicians, those secondary citations go AFTER the commentators. Otherwise, this would be forbidden OR. Or put it another way: to assert there is a conspiracy and then to argue for the conspiracy by producing evidence is OR; to claim that someone says there is a conspiracy and to link to their claim is being encyclopedic.rewinn15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your revert said "See Talk", but i did not see any new entries, so i'll discuss it here.
when byron york quotes directly from a media matters campaign to reinstate the fairness doctrine, it constitutes pov and weasle-wording to write that york merely "claims" such things.
when a number of senior democrat senators announce their support for reinstating the fairness doctrine, it constitutes pov and weasle-wording to write that "conservatives" merely "claim" they have.
quoting from another senior democrat senator's press aide is hardly probative of anything. nor is it, as it appears to be offered, disprobative of the quotes from senior democrat senators which preceed it. it appears to be some feeble pov-pushing following what appears to be a zeal to strike any evidence of official democrat support for reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, but i'll let that change stand as it is additive, narrowly factual and, as i said, non-disprobative.
as wiki editors, we are not obligated to restate a partisan organization's soft pr-talk. rather we are obligated to state things clearly. doing the former is not encyclopedic. in that graph, it is also appropriate to note facts which point to the limited scope of the study in question. it is also relevant to indicate the organization's founding connection with yet another democrat senator.
—Precedingunsigned comment added by38.98.181.23 (talk)16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
above comment added on 16:16, 11 October 2007 by38.98.181.23
the framing the controversy as a "conspiracy" closes the controvery and recreats it as the thing in itself. penetrating such a thing is to indulge in it as a seperate exersize.
"conspiracy" is rewinn's term. it's a loaded one which he has introduced to isolate the issue in the fashion described above.
however, no one asserts that there is a "conspiracy". there is the perfectly open and plainly stated and openly vocalized agenda to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
i could delete the reference to york's piece altogether and the plainly-stated agendas of senators kerry and durbin, along with reference to hinchey and clinton's organizations would evidence the agenda. we could then retitle the section, "Support for Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine".—Precedingunsigned comment added by38.98.181.23 (talk)16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[2]'
this is in fact OR.
your edit reintroduced all of the pov-pushing and weasle-wording i removed. i'm going to revert. if you revert back, you will be in violation of 3RR.—Precedingunsigned comment added by38.98.181.23 (talk)17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 2007 Xinunus added to the article:
Our anonymous vandal continues to delete references to the York article and to claim the controversy is not a controversy. I have partially reverted the vandalism, keeping however the most recent edits by another editor.rewinn21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couple things.
Torturous Devastating Cudgel22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy—Precedingunsigned comment added by98.206.145.219 (talk)17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor seems to be doing some improvements, so I'll take a break and maybe things will quiet down. This isonly wikipedia and no-one with any sense will change their political opinions based on a wiki. Have fun - and if you really want to, ping me talk page, I'll be back. Thanks.rewinn22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain why this link should remain in external links?
Thanks.Pgrote (talk)04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting paragraph on what came before the Fairness Doctrine has been temporarily removed so it can be sourced. It should also be more comprehensive - if the purpose is to cover antecedents to the Doctrine. Here's the text:
I think the above is interesting, but needs work.rewinn (talk)17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so now we got a very non-NPOV section based on a single book ... and a very selective use of that book indeed. When a more balanced treatment of the subject, and multiple sourcing is available, we can settle on some content.Fred Friendly seems to be an expert but it's hard to imagine a more partisan section than the below (which I reproduce in full so the editor's work is not lost. Also please use correct wiki citation when citing to the same work multiple times.:
The fairness doctrine has been used by various liberal administrations to harass political opponents on the radio.Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that "Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."[1] Former Kennedy FCC staffer Martin Firestone wrote a memo to theDemocratic National Committee on strategies to combat small rural radio stations unfriendly to Democrats:-
The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule.[2]
-Democratic Party operatives were deeply involved in the Red Lion case since the start of the litigation. Wayne Phillips, aDemocratic National Committee staffer, described the aftermath of the ruling, explaining that "Even more important than the free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts”.[3]rewinn (talk)05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References
I think added discussion on WHY the various people want to reintroduce it would be helpful. Just the other day Ms. Gaylor over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation said she wanted it because, when it was still in force, she was able to go on radio or TV to counter personal attacks against her and her organization, which she feels no longer happens now that it's gone. Whether you agree with that or not, I'm sure other people are giving their reasons, not just saying "bring it back" and not justifying why.VatoFirme (talk)22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One or more anonymous editors (it's hard to tell ... why not use a logon?) keeps trying to insert a highly partisan section based on a single source, a book byFred Friendly. And this keeps getting reverted because it's nakedly partisan. It may well be that the is notable and balanced (I won't say) but the subject matter of that section must be covered in a more NPOV way before it works. Let us talk about it on this "Talk" page.rewinn (talk)22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I updated the "Support for Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine" section. Previously, that section had read "Some legislators have expressed support for the Fairness Doctrine, although none have made any motions toward legislating about it." This is somewhat misleading because although no formal legislation has been introduced by House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has indicated very recently that she is intending to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Thus, I put in info regarding this and one of the main reasons for this new movement to reinstate the Doctrine, i.e., the success and domination of talk radio by conservatives. I cite to three sources for this proposition (that Democratic attempts to revive the doctrine is in response to success/domination of conservative talk radio), including a conservative WSJ columnist and Sen. Dianne Feinstein herself.—Precedingunsigned comment added byLawStudent 4482 (talk •contribs)05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stuff on this page that claims "liberals" want to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a bunch of right-wing agitprop. This article should be flagged for violating Wikipedia's NPOV. I removed the sections claiming that Barack Obama supported reviving the Fairness Doctrine as it was nothing more than hearsay. If Sen. Obama said so, then it would be a simple matter to just cite the article or speech in which he said so. Stop relying on second-hand innuendo. The Fairness Doctrine Revival is nothing but a lot of malarkey. --MontanaMax (talk)00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted the "citation needed" flag and it got me thinking. How do you cite the "lack" of something? I.e. no legislation had been introduced in the 110th congress. So I started doing a little googling to find the 110th congress voted on the fairness doctrine on 2007-06-28 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine).Focus on the Family Action Vote Scorecard states an amendment (H.AMDT. 484) to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2829) strips the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to reinstitute the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would order broadcasters to give equal air time to both sides of controversial issues.Navywings (talk)14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But back to the substance. While it's tricky to cite the absence of something like attempts to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, there was a positive amendment No. 484 to that appropriations bill H.R. 2829 unearthed above byUser:Navywings, forbidding the use of funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The summary at the Library of Congress's THOMAS reads:
H.AMDT.484 to H.R.2829 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees or any other regulations having the same substances.
Sponsor: Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] (introduced 6/28/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/28/2007 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Pence amendment (A031) Agreed to by recorded vote: 309 - 115, 1 Present (Roll no. 599).
There was extensive debate on the floor of the House before the roll-call vote (Congressional Record for June 28, 2007, beginning at 14:00, onpage H7375). I think this may be what Sen. Coleman brought unsuccessfully to the Senate in July.
I'll check this out so I can insert an appropriate reference to the text.Shakescene (talk)01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that this was put in place due to anti-communist sentiment, but it needs to be cited. There are journal articles foreshadowing the implementation of this policy before 1949, and none of them discuss communism. A search on J-Stor reveals many discussions of these issues years before 1949. Here is one example for reference:Radio Editorials and the Mayflower Doctrine -- Columbia Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 5 (Jul., 1948), pp. 785-793More over, there is a time line of events provided at the First Amendment Center (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=17491) showing that regulation was increasing, suggesting that the Fairness Doctrine was inevitable. While this article does a pretty good job of explaining the ins and outs of the Fairness Doctrine, it really lacks on empirical evidence. I also fault this article for failing to provide the language of the Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949].—Precedingunsigned comment added by98.222.132.95 (talk)04:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't liberals want free speech? I guess the exception is when it comes to criticizing liberals, then it's not okay to have free speech. Go figure.
Typo:"An August 13, 2008 poll released by Scott Rasmussen stated that 47% support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for radio and television while 31% favor the Internet."
should say: while 31% support instating it for the internet(note:maybe one could argue the internet was extant while the fair doctrine was also extant -i am not getting into that :)
Otherwise, you are saying 31% of the people like the internet.The wording should be revisited. Regards.Johndoeemail (talk)04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this addition byuser:James A. Donald to the "Criticism" section because while well-intentioned it was giving a judgement rather than providing a verifiable example of conservative critiques:
Conservatives often depict the fairness doctrine as the “Hush Rush Rule”. In practice, the FCC idea of what was “fair” could be depicted, and frequently was depicted, as extremist, as moderately in favor of Democrats, but as overwhelmingly and extravagantly in favor of regulation, in favor of state power, and in favor of FCC authority in particular.
I don't believe in applying any Wikipedia rule blindly—and there are times when I don't think it absolutely necessary, although it's nice, to find secondary verification of uncontested statements (e.g., "many people love Jalapeño peppers, but many others find them much too hot")—but this happens to be an extremely contentious issue; and Wikipedia (which speaks for all of us and to everyone) can't say how the FCC's idea of Fairness is depicted or could be depicted without either retrievable (print, video, audio or Internet) examples of such depictions or documentation of what makes such depictions possible "in practice". While I wasn't involved in the back-and-forth that produced them, you can see that the other arguments, pro and con, all have specific references to sources which made such arguments.
This isn't, of course, intended as an attack or a scolding, but just to explain my own reasoning.Shakescene (talk)07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a temporary glitch: You can ignore my discussion below, because the missing history came back and I was able to restore the exactBroadcasting & Cable quotations from the Obama campaign, instead of the confusing excerpts that were all thatUser:Willking1979 could work from before. ——Shakescene (talk)04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing some research on the Fairness Doctrine and I noticed that the first paragraph in the History section was taken word-for-word from this (pro-fairness doctrine) article:http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm. I tried adding quotes and a reference to give credit to the original source but I don't know how to do that on Wikipedia and this is actually my first time editing it. If someone wants to do it properly or fix the first paragraph so it isn't plagiarism, please do!24.116.39.250 (talk)22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not entirely BLACK OR WHITE. There are many gray areas in respect to the legality of a fairness doctrine. Cable television is a pay service and operates under slightly different rules than free, network television. However, they are both commercial entities. The "free" networks in television and radio make their money indirectly from viewership. Thus, the audience determines what will be shown...and the size of that audience determines how much money the network can charge for advertising. The media is rapidly approaching a point where "free" television is anything but "free." It is all commercial. There is a question whether or not a different set of rules is needed between "free" media and pay media.
Moreover, there is a very real Constitutional debate concerning whether or not a "fairness doctrine" would actually stiffle free speech. This was part of the concern voiced in the most recent Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s and 1990s. Would the reintroduction of such a rule be Constitutional given today's media (and how vastly different it is from a few decades ago)?
This might warrant further development within the article (perhaps under a "Constitutional Questions" section). The greatest opposition to the reintroduction of this doctrine comes from conservative and religious broadcasters. They seem to fear that this doctrine might limit their time on the air...regardless if they are an entirely commercial or nonprofit venture.
Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk)14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that any recent discussion regarding the FD would have at least mentioned various radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, (and others of their type) with regard to their position on the matter (since presumably they all would be specifically impacted by the re-introduction of the FD as it applies to talk-radio).
I'm sure that an unbiased entry into the main article could explain how the reintroduction of the FD would work at the "nuts and bolts" level with regard to radio (or talk radio specifically) and how would such a re-application of the FD would affect (financially or otherwise) certain specific stake-holders (or a general but narrow group of stake holders such as the on-air personalities of talk radio as it currently exists).
It would be illuminating and instructive for future readers of this FD wiki article to learn how various media or broadcasting segments would change or operate differently if the FD was brought back and enforced by the FCC, assuming such an entry could be written without bias.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.50.52.95 (talk)13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
February 05, 2009
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time tobe bringing accountability to the airwaves.
Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.50.52.95 (talk)13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm missing something, but is there any particular reason to replace existing citations with new citation templates? I can understand that they may be helpful in making sure that a fresh citation of one's own includes all the necessary items in one of several acceptable orders, but if someone else's citation already looks complete and OK, is there any special reason to bring in all that extra wordage and awkward formatting? I'm just asking since I've never used one myself.—— Shakescene (talk)12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear liberal bias from the first sentence. "Honest, equitable and balanced"? The obvious conclusion is that the status quo is "dishonest, unequal and unbalanced". Hardly an objective observation. (Pardon me for any Wiki posting offenses.)96.13.6.90 (talk)23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS A REALLY POORLY DONE ARTICLE. ALL IT HAS IS QUOTES. NO EXPLANATION. AND NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS ALL ABOUT!
I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING AT THE TOP OF THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ALERTING READERS THAT THIS ARTICLE "NEEDS CLEAN-UP" OR ONE OF THOSE TYPE OF MESSAGES!
I LEARNED VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE F.D., INCLUDING THE MAIN QUESITON - WHICH IS HOW MUCH AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE F.D. APPLIED TO STATIONS? I KNOW IT IS NOT TIME BASED BUT IS IT OVER THE FULL 24/7/365 PERIOD THAT THEY MUST PRESENT BOTH SIDES OR JUST SUNDAY MORNINGS?
AND NOBODY EVEN EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS HANDLED IN THE PAST? IN THE 70'S AND 80'S WHAT WAS IT LIKE? HOW DID THE STATIONS HANDLE IT? WHEN DID CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO COME ABOUT - ONLY AFTER THIS WENT AWAY? HOW HAVE THE STATIONS KEPT DOING THINGS AFTER THE F.D. WENT AWAY LIKE ON SUNDAY MORNINGS WE SEE AND HEAR LOTS OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMMING?
EXPLAIN SOMETHING!
GOD. WHAT A HORRIBLE ARTICLE!
NO CONTEXT. NO REAL INFORMATION. JUST QUOTES!'—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.244.63.133 (talk)19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no clue how to use this, but i believe there is some discrepancy of information between what is written in this article about the fcc chairperson at the time, and what was written in other places. this article claims that the chairperson of the fairness doctrine was a person put in place by reagan... which can't be the case because reagan put people in office to abolish the fairness doctrine... "This doctrine was officially introduced in 1981 under the FCC chairman, Mark S. Fowler."
I don't understand how fowler introduced anything about the fairness doctrine. from my research fowler abolished the fairness doctrine.
furthermore, it seems like there are some erroneous statements here scattered about the document. one example is here: "the main agenda for this doctrine was to ensure that the viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints."
now i believe it is an overstatement to say that this was the main agenda. the main agenda seemed to be exactly what it states, which was to prevent broadcast companies from exhibiting systematic bias in their programming. since broadcast companies have to operate in the interests of the public in order to broadcast, they should assume that there are alternative viewpoints to one discussion, and that the broadcaster is responsible for not exhibiting bias in reporting, which is probably a good thing. I don't really have time to share more because I have to write a paper, but I think this article needs some serious work to be up to research standards.—Precedingunsigned comment added by75.69.29.170 (talk)23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annie, please discuss your proposed changes here. They are far out of keeping with Wikipedia articles; we rely heavily onreliable sources, for example, and your additions provide none; we have a generalstyle in which Wikipedia articles are written, and your additions are far from that style. --jpgordon::==( o )00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onFairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online03:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onFairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onFairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)07:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When reading through this article, I was a little confused by the "Formal revocation" section stating that the FCC removed the Fairness Doctrine in 2011, when it was stated that FCC had voted to abolish the doctrine in 1987 and the corollary rules were repealed in 2000. I think it should be stated more clearly that while the Doctrine was no longer in effect, it was to officially take it off the books.Schoe043 (talk)00:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems biased in that it may be pre-arguing against reinstating the 1940s post-WWII "Hitler-Crippler" Doctrine by transposing modern internet communication back into 1987, a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS. That modern argument runs something like this: With all the privately owned communication venues now available, the public airways may be as biased and one-sided as the private broadcasting company using them so desires. (They don't word it that way, but that's a "logical" equivalence.
Below area sample of those unsupported statements and implied arguments that need correcting:
Below, the editorial/POV; "limits" should be replaced with; "requirements" or similar. Furthermore the quote (and questionable history) does not support that POV introductory claim.
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. (footnote 11)"
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:7077:A52D:CCF6:EF94 (talk)22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)JustSayin'[reply]
At the part under "Revocation" where the article tells how the FCC rejected the list of alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine, the article simply says this was done "for various reasons". This is an important moment in the events of the doctrine's revocation and I believe the FCC's reasons for rejecting the alternatives are a key piece of information necessary to readers' understanding of the overall events.
I have never used Wikipedia's talk pages before (and please forgive me if I'm not using them correctly) but I feel a great need to point out this issue. I would find and list the reasons myself but I unfortunately don't have the time or present mental capacity (I'll just say "medication changes") to do so.Mantha065 (talk)00:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The History section fails to explain why it was revoked.
The "fairness" doctrine was used like a shield. You simply couldn't disagree with anyone in politics because if you did it was a personal attack. perfect example: I was in possession of a video tape of 5 Dallas police officers raping an 8 year old girl. It was filmed by the local news, i think it was nbc. I couldn't talk about it on the air because it was a "personal attack" on the sheriff/police chief in Dallas. Which are elected officials and elected was almost always extended to cover "other" people. Believe it or not it wasn't allowed to press charges on cops, prosecutors, judges or politicians back then either.
All this fairness and not fairness is just cover so the Government doesn't have to hold themselves accountable to the law. They don't want to go to prison when they commit crimes. ie: George Bush, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. None of them.
That is the problem not what we are allowed to talk about. I have seen fairness and supposed allowed unfairness. The problem is when they commit crimes it doesn't matter.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStooggy (talk •contribs)22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Conservative Talk appears new and contains a mixture of opinions and facts, citing op ed and not primary sources. Can this be word smithed to remove bias and present facts, not feelings?
Haleme (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Matthew HaleHaleme (talk)01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DarrellWinkler: How can you say "source has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine"?
The section you deleted contained two references:
I've corrected the typo "Civil Responsibility" > "Civic Responsibility" and replaced the references to Friendly with citations to a Wikidata item I created for that book. (I love Wikidata references, because they link to other items in ways that the citations they replace do not. And for web links, they are more easily maintained against link rot: If a link goes bad, fixing it in one place fixes it for every use if the same reference is used in multiple places.)
I deleted, "The NCCR ended its use of the fairness doctrine to harass broadcasters in light of the Nixon Watergate scandal.<ref>Friendly, Fred (1976). ''The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, and the First Amendment''. Random House. pg 41.</ref>, because that seems to be a misstatement of what appears on p. 41: Friendly says the NCCR was created in 1964 and ended in 1969 with theRed Lion Supreme Court decision. On p. 41 Friendly wrote, "Larson, who had long been a target of the radical right, recalls, '... we decided to use the Fairness Doctrine to harass the extreme right. In the light of Watergate, it was wrong.'" I disagree: Using "the Fairness Doctrine to harass the extreme right" -- more generally "using the Fairness Doctrine to harass media outlets that are unfair and fundamentally dishonest -- is what the Fairness Doctrine was designed to do and is VERY different from burglarizing the offices of your political opponents and other blatantly dishonest and criminal practices. However, that's a digression that does not need to appear in an article on the FCC Fairness Doctrine.
I also deleted the reference to O'Mara, because it's not clear how much of what O'Mara described there in 1995 pertains to the earlier period during which the Fairness Doctrine was operating ... and the article is already long enough.
Comments?DavidMCEddy (talk)04:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
