Editing Fairness doctrine (section)

== Revocation ==
=== Basic doctrine ===
In 1985, under FCC Chairman [[Mark S. Fowler]], a communications attorney who had served on [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released its report on ''General Fairness Doctrine Obligations''<ref>''General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees'', Report, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985)</ref> stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated [[free speech]] rights guaranteed by the [[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|First Amendment]]. The commission could not, however, come to a determination as to whether the doctrine had been enacted by Congress through its 1959 Amendment to Section 315 of the [[Communications Act of 1934|Communications Act]].

In response to the 1986 ''Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. F.C.C.'' decision,<ref>801 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1986), ''rehearing denied'', 806 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1986), ''cert. denied'', 107 S.Ct. 3196 (1987).</ref> the [[99th Congress]] directed<ref>Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1987, P.L. 99-500. See also, ''Conference Report to Accompany H.J.Res. 738'', H.Rept. 99-1005. 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986).</ref> the FCC to examine alternatives to the fairness doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40009.pdf | publisher=Congressional Research Service | date=July 13, 2011 | access-date=May 10, 2016 |title=Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues}}</ref> In 1987, in ''Meredith Corporation v. F.C.C.'' the case was returned to the FCC with a directive to consider whether the doctrine had been "self-generated pursuant to its general congressional authorization or specifically mandated by Congress."<ref>809 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1987) at 872.</ref>

The FCC opened an inquiry inviting public comment on alternative means for administrating and enforcing the fairness doctrine.<ref>''Inquiry into Section 73.1910 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Concerning Alternatives to the General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees in MM Docket No. 97-26'', 2 FCC Rcd 1532 (1987).</ref> In its 1987 report, the alternatives—including abandoning a case-by-case enforcement approach, replacing the doctrine with open access time for all members of the public, doing away with the [[personal attack rule]], and eliminating certain other aspects of the doctrine—were rejected by the FCC for various reasons.<ref>''In the Matter of Inquiry into Section 73.1910 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Concerning Alternatives to the General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees''. 2 FCC Rcd 5272 (1987).</ref>

On August 4, 1987, under FCC Chairman [[Dennis R. Patrick]], the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4–0 vote, in the ''Syracuse Peace Council'' decision,<ref><!-- ''In re Complaint of Syracuse Peach Council against Television Station WTVH Syracuse, New York'', 2 FCC Rcd 5043 (1987)-->{{cite Q|Q112043674}}</ref> which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."<ref name="syacuse_fcc">{{cite web | url=http://openjurist.org/867/f2d/654/syracuse-peace-council-v-federal-communications-commission | title=867 F. 2d 654 - ''Syracuse Peace Council v. Federal Communications Commission'' | publisher=Openjurist | date=February 10, 1989 | volume=F2d | issue=867 | page=654 | access-date=December 7, 2014 | quote=Under the 'fairness doctrine,' the Federal Communications Commission has, as its 1985 Fairness Report explains, required broadcast media licensees (1) 'to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by the licensees' and (2) 'to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.' Report Concerning General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 F.C.C. 2d 143, 146 (1985). In adjudication of a complaint against Meredith Corporation, licensee of station [[WTVH]] in Syracuse, New York, the Commission concluded that the doctrine did not serve the public interest and was unconstitutional. Accordingly it refused to enforce the doctrine against Meredith. Although the Commission somewhat entangled its public interest and constitutional findings, we find that the Commission's public interest determination was an independent basis for its decision and was supported by the record. We uphold that determination without reaching the constitutional issue.| last=Circuit | first=District of Columbia }}</ref> The FCC suggested in ''Syracuse Peace Council'' that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that: {{cquote|The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the fairness doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters&nbsp;... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.}}

At the 4–0 vote, Chairman Patrick said:{{cquote|We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.<ref name="vote1987">{{cite news |last1=Hershey Jr. |first1=Robert D. |title=F.C.C. Votes Down Fairness Doctrine in a 4-0 Decision |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/05/arts/fcc-votes-down-fairness-doctrine-in-a-4-0-decision.html |access-date=October 28, 2018 |work=FCC Video |agency=[[The New York Times]] |issue=FCC 1987 |publisher=[[NBCUniversal]] |date=August 5, 1987 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316054128/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/05/arts/fcc-votes-down-fairness-doctrine-in-a-4-0-decision.html |archive-date=March 16, 2012 |quote=Today we reaffirm our faith in the American people.  Our faith in their ability to distinguish between fact and fiction without any help from government.}} [http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5112536677_002.do Alt URL]</ref>}}

Sitting commissioners at the time of the vote were:<ref>[https://www.fcc.gov/general/commissioners-1934-present Commissioners from 1934 to Present]</ref><ref>[https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1594/m1/48/?q=wtvh FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 17, Pages 5002 to 5398, August 17–28, 1987]</ref>

* [[Dennis R. Patrick]], chairman, Republican<br />(Named an FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1983)
* [[Mimi Weyforth Dawson]], Republican<br />(Named an FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
* [[Patricia Diaz Dennis]], Democrat<br />(Named an FCC commissioner by Ronald Reagan in 1986)
* [[James Henry Quello]], Democrat<br />(Named an FCC commissioner by Richard M. Nixon in 1974)

The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical".<ref name=vote1987 /> The decision drew political fire, and cooperation with Congress was one issue.<ref>Salmans, Sandra (September 20, 1987). [https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/20/business/regulator-unregulated-dennis-patrick-fcc-another-man-who-loves-free-markets.html "Regulator Unregulated: Dennis Patrick; At the FCC, Another Man Who Loves Free Markets"]. ''The New York Times''.</ref> In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the fairness doctrine,<ref>The Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, S. 742 & H.R. 1934, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)</ref> but the legislation was vetoed by President [[Ronald Reagan]]. In 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine was stopped when President [[George H. W. Bush]] threatened another veto.<ref>Limburg, Val E. (April 27, 2009). [http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm "Fairness Doctrine"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041022073709/http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm |date=October 22, 2004 }}. [[Museum of Broadcast Communications]].</ref>

In February 2009, Fowler said that his work toward revoking the fairness doctrine under the Reagan administration had been a matter of principle, his belief that the doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment, not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the [[Big Three television networks]] and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan: {{cquote|The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks{{mdash}}every day they would savage Ronald Reagan{{mdash}}is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!<ref name="Fowler-Levin;">[http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/levin02162009.mp3 "unknown"]. ''[[The Mark Levin Show]]''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326135550/http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/levin02162009.mp3 |date=March 26, 2009 }}, February 16, 2009. (a 26-megabyte [[MP3]] file), from about 17 minutes 15 seconds into the broadcast to 25 min. 45 sec. </ref>}}

=== Conservative talk radio ===
The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered", divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed [[Rush Limbaugh]] — then working at a little-known Sacramento station — to a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers."<ref>{{cite Q|Q105426282}}<!-- Rush Limbaugh is ailing. And so is the conservative talk-radio industry. -->.</ref>

According to ''The Washington Post'', "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness", e.g., "feminazis".<ref>{{cite Q|Q105426282}}<!-- Rush Limbaugh is ailing. And so is the conservative talk-radio industry. -->.</ref> Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.<ref>{{cite Q|Q105427186}}<!-- Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics -->.</ref>

=== Corollary rules ===

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the [[personal attack rule]] and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person, or small group, was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to 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 applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.<ref>{{cite web|title=Information Needs of Communities: The policy and regulatory landscape|url=https://transition.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/INoC-26-Broadcast.pdf|publisher=[[FCC]]|access-date=August 22, 2017|pages=277–278|date=June 9, 2011}}</ref>

The [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]] ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the fairness doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, so both corollary rules were repealed in October 2000.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Leweke|first1=Robert W.|title=Rules Without a Home: FCC Enforcement of the Personal Attack and Political Editorial Rules|journal=Communication Law and Policy|date=October 1, 2001|volume=6|issue=4|pages=557–576|doi=10.1207/S15326926CLP0604_02|s2cid=143329667|issn=1081-1680}}</ref>