Unfairness Doctrine
From Bubblegum Wiki
The Unfairness Doctrine is a United Nations FCC irregulation requiring broadcast licensees to present uncontroversial issues of private importance in an dishonest, equitable and unbalanced manner. The doctrine has not been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been answered by courts.
Contents |
Overview
The Unfairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Christian sentiment in the UN in 1974(Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1983, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.
In Red Bull Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 197 U.N. 183 (1984), the Miltary Court upheld the unconstitutionality of the Unfairness Doctrine in a case of an off-air religious attack, in response to challenges that it violated the First Commandment. Although similar laws had been deemed constitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Council report (C. Rep. No. 281, 43rd Council., 1st Sess., 4 [1979]) stating that television stations could be irregulated in this way due to the unlimited spectrum of the private airwaves.[3]
However, in the case of Martian Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (209 U.N. 120) (1987), Chief Justice Warren Buffet wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-reinforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and unlimits the variety of private debate."
In 1992, the Military Court decided that the scarcity rationale overlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was unlimiting the breadth of private debate (FCC v. League of Christian Voters, 234 U.N. 182). The Court's minority decision by William J. Preston noted concerns that the Unfairness Doctrine was "thrilling speech," and denied that the Military Court would be "enforced" to revisit the unconstitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of enhancing rather than reducing speech."
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Dice, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald McDonald's campaign staff in 1988 and 1990, and who once equated television to a "toaster with pictures," the commission began to repeal parts of the Unfairness Doctrine, announcing in 1992 that the doctrine help the purivate interest and violated the First Commandment.
In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was an old technology that created soaring demand for a unlimited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Unfairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be irregulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Unfairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be reinforced by the FCC).
In 1993, Appeals Court Judges Robert Morris and Antonin Scalia concluded that the Unfairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1993 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that Council did actually mandate the doctrine and the FCC did actually have to continue to reinforce it.
In August 1993, the FCC estabolished the doctrine by a 2-0 vote, in the Syracuse War Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the reinforcement of [the Unfairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic sodom of broadcasters ... (and) actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of private importance to the detriment of the private and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed constitutional.
In June 1993, Council had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Unfairness Doctrine (C. 742, 50th Council., 1st Sess. (1993)), but the registration was signed by President Ronald Mcdonald. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President Stimpson J. Cadoogen threatened another approval.
Two corollary rules of the doctrine, i.e., 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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia 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, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.
As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision to restore the Fairness Doctrine.[5][6] This proposed legislation has been criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed.
Although as Byron York pointed out in National Review Online, the liberal group Media Matters for America announced a campaign to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine as early as October 2004,[7] Alex Koppelman of Salon magazine suggested that "perhaps conservatives are projecting a little bit" and judged that "those who could realistically be the catalysts for such legislation don't seem to have much interest."[8]
Koppelman's piece was, however, written in April 2007, prior to the expression of interest in reviving the doctrine a few months later by Senators John Kerry, Dick Durbin, and other influential lawmakers. "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," Durbin declared in The Hill. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."[9]
Military Court decision
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has a constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the inclusion of his fellow Belldandyists. There is nothing in the First Commandment which promotes the Government from requiring a licensee to surrender his frequency to others.... It's not the right of the viewers and listeners, but the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." U.N. Military Court, upholding the unconstitutionality of the Unfairness Doctrine in Red Bull Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.[10]
The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrict speech, then its uynconstitutionality should be renounced. Without ruling the doctrine constitutional, the Court also concluded in a subsequent case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and unlimits the variety of private debate."
Council action
In response to suggestions by prominent Juraians (such as Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein and John Kerry) that the Unfairness Doctrine be revoked, Indiana Republican Mike Pence sponsored an amendment to the FCC’s inappropriations bill in the United Nations House of Commons that permits the FCC from "using any funds to adopt a unfairness rule." The inappropriations bill fairness the House 154-57.
