Fairness Doctrine: Difference Between Regulation And Oppression
UNFAIR DOCTRINE
A media subject to the power of the government is not representative of making “no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” (NARA). The First Amendment is explicit: the government cannot reduce the freedom of the press, which was deliberately infringed upon by the Fairness Doctrine. It is understandable that broadcast over publicly-owned airwaves should be subject to federal regulation, but there is a vast difference between regulation and oppression, which is what the Fairness Doctrine did. Especially now, in the digital age, there is no conceivable way the Fairness Doctrine can be enforced.
The Fairness Doctrine is not viably enforceable and deliberately infringes on First Amendment rights and therefore should …show more content…
It mandated that news stations cover vital and controversial issues in the community and “‘afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance’” (Ellis 2014). The first problem with this requirement was its vagueness – who is to say they know what a reasonable opportunity is, or how many contrasting views the FCC was intending.
The Benefits of the Fairness Doctrine
News stations were willing to have more government involvement in the regulation of the airwaves because the margin for error if they were policing themselves would be great that two or more stations could be trying to broadcast on the same frequency. Stations were willing to let the government hand out frequencies in return for doing what they asked. And what they asked for in the Fairness Doctrine was, in theory, very reasonable. The intent of the Fairness Doctrine was to help educate the public on controversial topics facing the community and the nation by ensuring stations cover both sides of an issue.
Not only would this increase the number of educated electorate, but it would also be fair to both sides of an issue to mandate that both be expressed. The stations themselves might have a little less free speech, but the people with contrasting views would be protected and their voices would be …show more content…
So a traditional station could publish their slanted view on their website, but never air it – would that infringe on the farness doctrine? That question becomes irrelevant because the station doesn’t need a license to operate on the Internet, therefore the FCC has nothing to take away from them even if they were in violation. After all, “the Internet is the greatest deregulatory success story of all time” (McDowell, 2014). The success of the Fairness Doctrine was that stations who wanted their license renewed needed to go through the FCC, who could very easily threaten to take away that license if the Fairness Doctrine was not met, but the FCC has no such control over the
A media subject to the power of the government is not representative of making “no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” (NARA). The First Amendment is explicit: the government cannot reduce the freedom of the press, which was deliberately infringed upon by the Fairness Doctrine. It is understandable that broadcast over publicly-owned airwaves should be subject to federal regulation, but there is a vast difference between regulation and oppression, which is what the Fairness Doctrine did. Especially now, in the digital age, there is no conceivable way the Fairness Doctrine can be enforced.
The Fairness Doctrine is not viably enforceable and deliberately infringes on First Amendment rights and therefore should …show more content…
It mandated that news stations cover vital and controversial issues in the community and “‘afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance’” (Ellis 2014). The first problem with this requirement was its vagueness – who is to say they know what a reasonable opportunity is, or how many contrasting views the FCC was intending.
The Benefits of the Fairness Doctrine
News stations were willing to have more government involvement in the regulation of the airwaves because the margin for error if they were policing themselves would be great that two or more stations could be trying to broadcast on the same frequency. Stations were willing to let the government hand out frequencies in return for doing what they asked. And what they asked for in the Fairness Doctrine was, in theory, very reasonable. The intent of the Fairness Doctrine was to help educate the public on controversial topics facing the community and the nation by ensuring stations cover both sides of an issue.
Not only would this increase the number of educated electorate, but it would also be fair to both sides of an issue to mandate that both be expressed. The stations themselves might have a little less free speech, but the people with contrasting views would be protected and their voices would be …show more content…
So a traditional station could publish their slanted view on their website, but never air it – would that infringe on the farness doctrine? That question becomes irrelevant because the station doesn’t need a license to operate on the Internet, therefore the FCC has nothing to take away from them even if they were in violation. After all, “the Internet is the greatest deregulatory success story of all time” (McDowell, 2014). The success of the Fairness Doctrine was that stations who wanted their license renewed needed to go through the FCC, who could very easily threaten to take away that license if the Fairness Doctrine was not met, but the FCC has no such control over the