Fairness Doctrine

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE was enunciated in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in its Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, as a means of requiring contrasting viewpoints of controversial issues. The Fairness Doctrine included rules pertaining to political editorializing. When broadcasters endorsed political candidates, the political editorializing tenet required that opposing candidates have an opportunity to respond to the radio or television station's political viewpoint.

In 1959, Congress modified Chapter 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 to further reinforce the underpinnings of the Fairness Doctrine. Fairness Doctrine compliance required broadcasters to provide coverage of controversial issues within the communitie's they were licensed to serve, as well as coverage of multiple viewpoints of the controversial issues through public affairs programming, editorials, and news coverage. In 1987, after decades of robust debate regarding its constitutionality, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. Although the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, the political editorial rule remained in effect until 2000.

The rationale for the Fairness Doctrine was supported by scarcity theorists, who assert there are limited frequency allocations for radio and television stations on the electromagnetic spectrum. Broadcasters privileged enough to have access to the nation's limited radio and television frequencies, a scarce national resource, should attempt to be as politically neutral as possible and present alternate perspectives on controversial issues. Due to the scarcity theory, the FCC mandates broadcasters serve the “public convenience, interest or necessity” within the community in which they are licensed to serve. Broadcasters refer to this as the public interest standard.

The Fairness Doctrine remained controversial among broadcasters because, in order to meet the public interest requirement, the FCC required broadcasters to ensure that public affairs programming be balanced even if it meant that free air time was to be made available for opposing viewpoints. The need for, and legality of, the Fairness Doctrine have been vigorously debated since the doctrine's inception and the debate has continued since its abolishment.

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission. The Red Lion decision discredited the assertions that the Fairness Doctrine infringed upon the First Amendment rights of broadcasters. However, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled, in the FCC v. League of Women Voters, that the scarcity rationale was flawed and that the Fairness [Page 230]Doctrine was limiting the scope of public debate. Providing further justification for the Fairness Doctrine's abolishment, in 1986, in a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Telecommunications Research & Action Center, v. FCC that Congress did not formally codify the doctrine in 1959 when the Communications Act was modified, thus allowing the FCC discretion to enforce the rule or abolish it altogether.

In 1987, in a 4–0 vote known as the Syracuse Peace Council decision, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of broadcasters by creating a chilling effect on coverage of controversial issues. Moreover, the FCC noted there had been a proliferation of new media such as the cable television industry, which had provided additional outlets for expressing contrasting viewpoints. Attempting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, Congress passed legislation referred to as the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, but President Ronald Reagan vetoed the legislation. There have been successive attempts by Congress and continued public debate to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but these attempts have failed.

...