Hawkeye-X
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-20-04 04:51 PM
Original message |
|
Let's review the old Fairness Doctrine before St. Raygun set the motion to destroy it.
(Stolen from wikipedia.com)
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy enforced in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission that required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in a fair and balanced manner.
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment.
The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Conference decision in 1987. The primary reason was that the commission felt that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate, and due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional.
The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice even after the repeal of the fairness doctrine. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to axe the fairness doctrine. The commission did not do so promptly, and in 2000 the ordered their repeal.
If we had an opportunity to rewrite the Fairness Doctrine based on the light of the conservative media bullshit, how would you write it, and make sure it is enforced fairly?
Hawkeye-X
|
Senior citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-20-04 09:54 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Any publication or broadcast outlet |
|
which serves an area where it does not give at least 50% of it's news/editorial space or airtime to views and opinions that reflect those of the simple majority of registered voters in that area, shall, upon petition to the FCC by an elected representative of such voters, along with appropriate documentation, forfeit their license to broadcast in that area, or in the case of print media, upon petition by a local elected representative to the local District Attorney's office, be ordered to cut the number of issues distributed in that area by half to allow for fair competition.
This shall not apply in areas where the views and opinions of the majority of registered voters are already given adequate expression by means of similar and comparable media.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:01 AM
Response to Original message |