Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. [1]
The FCC then ruled that Red Lion Broadcasting had violated the Fairness Doctrine, which could result in the loss of their broadcast license. [ 1 ] Red Lion Broadcasting filed suit and claimed that the Fairness Doctrine was a violation of the First Amendment because it compelled a broadcaster to issue time to, and air commentary from, parties ...
A guideline included in the Communications Act, the Fairness Doctrine, was created to enforce restrictions on radio and television broadcasting until 1987. [3] It was instituted to provide a platform for equal coverage of public issues. [3] During the past 90 years, radio regulation has varied tremendously.
The equal-time rule should not be confused with the now-defunct FCC fairness doctrine, which dealt with presenting balanced points of view on matters of public importance. The Zapple doctrine (part of a specific provision of the fairness doctrine) was similar to the equal-time rule but applied to different political campaign participants. The ...
The Mayflower doctrine hearing was held in late March-early April 1948 and had 49 witnesses testify between the two sides. [2] A decision wasn't made until June 2, 1949, when it was ruled that the Mayflower doctrine was to be repealed. The FCC introduced later that year the Fairness doctrine as a replacement.
The personal attack rule was a corollary to the Federal Communications Commission's fairness doctrine that mandated response time for an individual or group attacked during "origination cablecasting" that focused on a controversial issue of public importance. [1]
The station appealed on the grounds that it should have been given a full-time authorization, but lost. Even though the station was government owned, the Federal Radio Commission said that city ownership did not give the station any special standing under the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" standard. [29]
By 1985, the FCC was concerned that the fairness doctrine might have a chilling effect, which was the very opposite of the policy's original intent of encouraging fair and balanced coverage: "In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues."