Editing Fairness doctrine (section)

{{Short description|Former US broadcasting policy (1949-87)}}
{{For|the concept of sovereign immunity|Feres doctrine}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2022}}
The '''fairness doctrine''' of the United States [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of [[broadcast license]]s both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.<ref>{{Cite web|title=''CBS v. Democratic Nat'l Committee'', 412 U.S. 94 (1973)|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/94/|access-date=November 17, 2021|website=Justia Law}}</ref> In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Fletcher |first1=Dan |date=February 20, 2009 |title=A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine |url=http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |access-date=October 10, 2021 |quote=It's as predictable as Rush Limbaugh sparking a controversy: every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the 'fairness' part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so.}}</ref> prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.<ref>Clark, Drew (October 20, 2004). [http://www.slate.com/id/2108443/ "How Fair Is Sinclair's Doctrine?"]. ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]''.</ref> The FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the ''[[Federal Register]]'' in August 2011.<ref name="Finally">{{cite web|last=Boliek|first=Brooks|title=FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61851.html|work=[[Politico]]|date=August 22, 2011}}</ref>

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 cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of [[Polarization (politics)|party polarization]] [[Political polarization in the United States |in the United States]].<ref>[[Thomas E. Patterson|E. Patterson, Thomas]] (2013). "The News Media: Communicating Political Images". ''We the People''. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: 336.</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Rendall |first=Steve |title=The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back |work=[[Extra!]] |date=January 1, 2005 |url=http://fair.org/extra/the-fairness-doctrine/ |access-date=October 2, 2017}}</ref>

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 1969 the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]], in ''[[Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC]]'', upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was ''obliged'' to do so.<ref name=RedLion>[http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html ''Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC''], decided June 8, 1969, also at {{Ussc|395|367|1969}} (Excerpt from majority opinion, III A; Senate report cited in footnote 26). Justice [[William O. Douglas]] did not participate in the decision, but there were no concurring or dissenting opinions.</ref> 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.

The fairness doctrine is not the same as the [[equal-time rule]], which is still in place. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.