Fairness Doctrine

Зомби - пипл, вуду пипл

Fairness Doctrine

Opposite effect

Description Some considered Fairness Doctrine as a First Amendment violation

Fairness Doctrine was introduced by Federal Communications Commission in 1949.

Sometimes journalists decided not to cover controversial subjects at all to avoid the burden of the doctrine.

Sometimes it was used as a pretext

Goal - to ensure that broadcast stations cover controversial issues in balanced and fair manner

The right of the public to be informed is more important than the right of a station to air only licensee's opinion.

Cases Michael J. Zarkin in his book 'The Federal Communications Commission' mentions that in 1964 accusations of of F.J. Cook in lying about public official and compassion to the Communist Party by a member of clergy B.J. Hagris were transmitted by WGCB station. F.J.Cook requested airtime to respond to the attack, but was refused. After that he petitioned to FCC, who ordered WGCB to satisfy his request.

WGCB owner, Red Lion Broadcasting, brought the case to the court, claiming Fairness Doctrine being a violation of the First Amendment. The court decision was that 'it is the right of viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount' and Fairness Doctrine serves for a public good, because radio is a scarce resource.

II am socially dangerous right now, Especially for the guy who made write this stuff

ces

FCC has been created by Communication Act.

Content of Fairness Doctrine, included series of rules

Personal Attack Rule

History

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Made Grace question 'Are the airwaves really free?'

This doctrine has continued tradition of regulations in communication field.

in 1967 Political Editorial Section was added

Mayflower Doctrine introduced in 1940 by FCC actually prohibited any kind of editorialization, which included even the choice of topics for local news. Overturned in 1949 by FCC.

In most cases broadcasting companies still provide the variety of points of view on the given subject even without regulation being imposed on them.

Communication Act of 1934, which was adopted to offer "equal opportunity'' for political candidates.

If a station editorialized in favour or against a candidate, it had to notify every candidate for that office and provide them an opportunity to reply

Sour

Or, as states the FCC Report Concerning General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees : licensees must 'provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by licensees ... and a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues'.

According to the president of American Advertising Federation, Howard Bell, the doctrine 'constitutes enforced censorship and that's antithetical to the First Amendment'.

Grace commercial 'The Deficit Trial' directed by Ridley Scott was banned from all major networks including NBC, CBS and ABC. The video was trying to highlight the problem of US financial deficit by picturing gloomy future where the suffering young will judge the previous generation for not taking care of the debt. By the words of P. Grace, the commercial 'doesn't sell anything 'except common sense'. The reason of the refusal was 'the controversy' of the subject, even though, apparently, the networks would have a hard time finding the opposite party, which would claim the benefit of the deficit.

In 1967 FCC issues formal rules developping on Personal Attack Rule and Political Editorial Section. The station is now oblliged to notify the attacked party and provide the response airtime within a week.

In 1985 FCC president Fowler admitted that scarcity was no longer an issue and Fairness Doctrine does not help in encouraging the covering of controversial issues.

The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy, not a federal law.

Fairness Doctrine was introduced by Federal Communications Commission in 1949.

Opinion With the proliferation of media sources there is no risk of scarcity and domination of the singular opinion anymore, which were among the reasons why the Fairness Doctrine has been created. With web 2.0 user generated content, and when most people would go online for news and choose the source that would align with his or her position, there is not much sens in Fairness Doctrine nowadays. Especially, taking into account that in the situation of media abundance it is rather limiting the freedom of speech than enhancing as the 80s have proven.

Encyclopedia of television By Horace Newcomb, Museum of Broadcast Communications Contributor Horace Newcomb Edition: 2, illustrated Published by CRC Press, 2004 ISBN 157958411X, 9781579584115 2697 pages

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/01/8640.ars

Airwaves: a collection of radio editorials from the Golden Apple By William O'Shaughnessy Edition: illustrated Published by Fordham Univ Press, 1999 ISBN 0823219046, 9780823219049

Democracy and the mass media: a collection of essays By Judith Lichtenberg Contributor Judith Lichtenberg Edition: reprint Published by Cambridge University Press, 1990 ISBN 0521388171, 9780521388177

Science, Technology, and the First Amendment: Special Report By Office of Technology Assessment, United States, Congress Published by DIANE Publishing ISBN 1428922865, 9781428922860

The Federal Communications Commission: front line in the culture and regulation wars By Michael J. Zarkin Edition: illustrated, annotated Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 ISBN 0313334161, 9780313334160 378 pages

New York Magazine Feb 10, 1986 124 pages Vol. 19, No. 6 ISSN 0028-7369 Published by New York Media, LLC

Finally, in 1987 Fairness Doctrine was abolished by FCC by Syracuse Peace Council decision which refered to the case of WTVH station accused in violation of the doctrine by broadcasting commercials for an new nuclear plant without providing opposite views.

The Court of Appeals in Columbia District in Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC has stated that Fairness Doctrine is no longer in public interest, however, it has never been proved that it violates the First Amendment.

Omnia tempus habent

Since this time there were three attempts to reinstate the doctrine, however, neither has been successful. The Personal Attack and Political Editorial rules Rule continued to exist until October, 2000.

IЕсли меня укусит кандидат технических наук-оборотень...

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html

Love, love will tear us apart...