the Fairness Doctrine

[LincolnDuncan]

I’m not a regular geeber so I don’t initiate many threads. However, since there are so many bright and highly educated individuals from the USA posting on the GB I determined that this is absolutely the best place to illicit opinions.

Being a geezer I remember a time when society seemed more civilized and we had true journalists reporting the news. We now have corporate news that feeds propaganda from the right and the left.

Is this a result of the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine?

Wiki: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
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 considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States

 

[underguy1]

I’m not a regular geeber so I don’t initiate many threads. However, since there are so many bright and highly educated individuals from the USA posting on the GB I determined that this is absolutely the best place to illicit opinions.

Being a geezer I remember a time when society seemed more civilized and we had true journalists reporting the news. We now have corporate news that feeds propaganda from the right and the left.

Is this a result of the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine?

Wiki: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
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 considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States

More like from the extreme right and the ultra extreme right.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I hear plenty of bullshit coming from the left but they're not as focused as Fox, Rush and the others. They also don't employ the anger technique to sell their message.

 

[Christobal]

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.

Fairness is always in the eye of the beholders. Since you are older you probably remember the legal separation of blacks and white. The prevailing law was based on the notion of separate but equal. We all know how that worked out. The majority always decided what equal was fair for the minority.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Fairness is always in the eye of the beholders. Since you are older you probably remember the legal separation of blacks and white. The prevailing law was based on the notion of separate but equal. We all know how that worked out. The majority always decided what equal was fair for the minority.

Do you believe that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine impacted the current decline in civility and increase in polarization?

 

[Christobal]

Do you believe that the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine impacted the current decline in civility and increase in polarization?

No I don't. I think it was always there. Older times look simple because they have been distilled by history bullet points. There is no nuance.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

No I don't. I think it was always there. Older times look simple because they have been distilled by history bullet points. There is no nuance.

Bullet points for the young who are reading history but memories of real journalists transmitting the news without the corporate mouthpieces muddying the waters.

 

[hashtag45]

Wiki: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced.
The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

What was their explanation for such a decision? Both in in 1987 and 2011?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

What was their explanation for such a decision? Both in in 1987 and 2011?

I only know what I read on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I don't have an opinion. I'm hoping to read some intelligent opinions.

 

[Christobal]

Bullet points for the young who are reading history but memories of real journalists transmitting the news without the corporate mouthpieces muddying the waters.

Do you honestly believe that? Those reporters were acting in a vacuum? You don't think the film came in from over seas and they reported the raw news?

Could the reporters be considered mouthpieces for their own opinions?

 

[EllieTalbot]

I don't know but it's an interesting question. The people to ask would be those in cable news since they're the ones who had to adhere to it, and only they could relate what content decisions were made after it was removed. As a viewer, it seems like many cable news programs still make a pretense of presenting contrasting views, but barely.

The 1987 date is interesting, because it does seem to be the late 80's/early 90's that things took a real nosedive in terms of polarization. As I see it, the two biggest problems in our discourse, as far as news media is concerned, is demonization of those with different opinions, and the loss of long-form discussion. Everything is presented in brief soundbytes with no real chance to explore an issue thoroughly, and the soundbytes themselves usually consist of a couple of pundits sneering at each other. It's virtually pointless to listen to.

Pondering among Ponderosas,
Ellie

 

[hashtag45]

I only know what I read on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I don't have an opinion. I'm hoping to read some intelligent opinions.

Well, you lost me on that, since I don't live in the US either, and 'intelligent' isn't exactly how the GB regulars typically describe me lol.
I was assuming that both decisions parallelled some similar process in american politics with increase in corporate control over politics.

I love this thread, because it tackles a huge problem that we're all being confronted with.
Corporate propaganda and indoctrination have permeated almost every aspect of our lives and affect us both at a larger societal level (for obvious reasons) but also on a personal level. Most of us are normal people living in an abnormal world, and we're asked to behave as if this is how things should be, and those who don't like it or question it have some sort of character deficit (that they're either unadaptable, or belligerant).

As far as work is concerned (something that I was confronted with and had some difficulties with, when I first started) , one often has to function in abnormal environments (corporate culture = commodification, cut-throat mentality) and can easily feel dissatisfied and disempowered. Unless one's aware of it and able to label it, one can easily take it upon themselves and think there is something wrong with themselves.
.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The GB is usually a shit fight but I've read some intelligent posts. I appreciate the contributions.

 

[Christobal]

The GB is usually a shit fight but I've read some intelligent posts. I appreciate the contributions.

I know this crap is complicated but it is always complicated. Context is always important.

It is so easy to say I heard that so I'm mad.

Guilty subject but trying to do better.

 

[Bidin~Time]

I can't offer you any links, I am just ruminating over your OP. In 1949, the Second World War had ended, and the nation had seen the effects of the propaganda machine used in Germany to control, and then silence, the populous. I would imagine that was seen as a bad thing seeing that it could be argued by more intelligent than me that it had much to do with Hitler's rise to power. Television, and to a lesser extent, radio were still learning their role in everyday life and could it be the Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to all those factors?

By 1987, WWII was becoming a memory to many and a history footnote to many others. As we humans tend to do, we either forget history's lessons or we think we are smarter than those who came before us. Quite possibly it was thought that the world had become small enough that the various news outlets would keep each other honest to prevent marring their reputations. For whatever reason, the Doctrine was set aside.

By 2011, the language must have seemed outdated to those in the know at the FCC, hence the language of the Fairness Doctrine being dropped entirely. Was it thought that with the world at our fingertips via the web, we, the populous, could not or would not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the government by way of the media? Or was it a calculated action to pave the way to see if that very thing could be accomplished? Or was it just nothing at all? I don't know. As I said, I was just ruminating over the question.

 

[underguy1]

It's just the neoliberal groupthink of our times. The hoax of the 'free market' knows best ideology.

It's all nonsense of course. It's really about the rich getting more and more of everything and the rest getting less and less.

The media consists of the same corporate behemoths that the system is working for. They ain't gonna tell the truth about anything because people might wake up en masse and start hanging rich people from lamp posts.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Elicit opinions.

Ilicit opinions aren't
What you're
Looking for

 

[Bert Notorius]

tho,
this might be
the best place
to find illicit
opinions.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I only know what I read on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I don't have an opinion. I'm hoping to read some intelligent opinions.

The rest of the answer is in the next paragraph of the Wiki article you've already quoted:

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

In short, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine did not create political polarization. If anything, the democratization of mass communications gave unlimited access to ALL viewpoints and gave a clearer view of the range and intensity of political partisanship and made the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

So I assume you are in agreement with Wiki's point of view?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The rest of the answer is in the next paragraph of the Wiki article you've already quoted:



In short, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine did not create political polarization. If anything, the democratization of mass communications gave unlimited access to ALL viewpoints and gave a clearer view of the range and intensity of political partisanship and made the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

I'd like to know if you witnessed a change subsequent to the Fairness Doctrine being eliminated?

 

[underguy1]

Monopolisation and concentration of media ownership that has occurred in the neoliberal era is a bigger problem than the abolition of the fairness doctrine.

Deregulation allows monopolies and cartels to form and thus eliminates diversity and independence.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'd like to know if you witnessed a change subsequent to the Fairness Doctrine being eliminated?

Technically, yes, but it my opinion it was more a matter of coincidence rather than cause. To begin with, the Fairness Doctrine ONLY applied to those broadcasters holding an FCC license transmitting over public airwaves. It never applied to cable operators or content providers like CNN or FOX News, so the death of the doctrine had no effect on that content whatsoever. Same with MSNBC. That fact that it was owned by NBC did not make it a federal licensee subject to the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to the three major TV networks and their affiliates as well as radio stations. Even if the Doctrine was still in place for applicable license holders, unlicensed networks and content providers would remain unaffected, so it's spurious to attribute the disappearance of the Doctrine to the proliferation of content that was in no way inhibited or restrained by it.

See?

 

[Forest_Pixie]

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0K4etr7uxf2AnXzi/giphy.gif

 

[Hypoxia]

Technically, yes, but it my opinion it was more a matter of coincidence rather than cause. To begin with, the Fairness Doctrine ONLY applied to those broadcasters holding an FCC license transmitting over public airwaves. It never applied to cable operators or content providers like CNN or FOX News, so the death of the doctrine had no effect on that content whatsoever.

Quite true. I was a broadcast engineer and CATV (cable) technician long ago. (CV: Got my FCC 2nd and 1st tickets in 1970; went into military commo a few years later.) The FCC regulated content on the airwaves but had no jurisdiction over content on wires. CATV operations, which mostly relayed broadcast signals to suburbs in dead zones, provided Public Access airtime where pretty much anything went unless it irked the owners. Funny, nobody complained about the drag-queen strip-tease show. 'Fairness' wasn't mandated but anybody could sign up for a PA timeslot.

Abandoning the Fairness Doctrine didn't affect TV much as cable and the Net grew. But IMHO it DID remarkably coarsen talk radio, giving us the sickening hate-disinfo soup we're in now. Zillions of people in cars etc consume radio filling the public airwaves. Those public airwaves are still under FCC jurisdiction. I strongly feel the FCC should once again regulate audio content. FCC was established to promote and serve the public interest. Does hate radio serve the public interest? Hah.