Fair vs. Equal

Once in a while, I find a topic so fascinating, I like to present the story as if I were giving a college lecture.  So here goes.

Good morning class!  It’s a pleasure to be with all of you today!  Today we will be covering The Federal Communication Commission (FCC)  and the Fairness vs. Equal Time Doctrines.  If you do not want a history lesson, you are free to leave the room and take a nap in the advanced tax class next door.  There will be a closed book test on these topics next week, so if you choose to leave now, be forewarned.  All cell phones off now.  Yes, I mean you, little Johnny!

Last week, the FCC decided to remove the Fairness Doctrine, along with eighty-three other "outdated and obsolete media-related rules" from their arsenal of enforcement tools. 

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement on the FCC website, "The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead."

Today we will ask and answer the questions:

What exactly is the FCC?

What is the Fairness Doctrine?

Why get rid of the Fairness Doctrine?

What is the Equal Time Doctrine?

How does this ruling affect the Equal Time Doctrine?

The Communications Act of 1934 combined and organized federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications.  

The Communications Act has been amended by many acts of Congress since 1934, most extensively by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.   The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and the USA Patriot Act of 2001 added amendments that dealt with national security, law enforcement, and intelligence communities.

WHAT THE FCC DOES: 

The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934, and it operates as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress. The commission is committed to being a responsive, efficient and effective agency capable of facing the technological and economic opportunities of the new millennium. In its work, the agency seeks to capitalize on its expertise in the following areas:

•Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities;

•Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution;

•Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally;

•Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism;

•Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure.

The policy of the FCC that came to be known as the “Fairness Doctrine” was to ensure that all coverage of controversial subjects by broadcast media be fair and balanced.  In 1949, the FCC felt that station licensees were “public trustees” and had to present both sides of issues of public importance.  The FCC did not want broadcasters to use their stations as advocates for just one perspective. (Professor’s note-That really has changed!)

The doctrine had two basic elements: broadcasters were required to devote air time to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.  The stations could provide these contrasting views with news segments, shows related to public affairs, or editorials on the air.  There did not have to be equal time for differing viewpoints, but both sides had to be presented.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications  tells the history of the U.S. Supreme Court case that solidified the doctrine.  “The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.”

By the 1980’s, the FCC’s stance on limited broadcast outlets became outdated with the advent of cable.  It has not been enforced for more than 20 years even though it remains on the books.  Journalists, of course, hated the doctrine.  They saw it as a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and free press.

No longer requiring fairness in the media won’t become official until the commission releases the full text of its order in the near future.

For homework, write a twenty-five page essay on whether you think the doctrine should have been enforced through the years and what effect, if any, its demise will have.  Back up your analysis with facts.  Due no later than tomorrow, at the start of our regularly scheduled class time.  If you need help, don’t bother me, just google it.

The FCC decision will have no bearing on the Equal-Time rule (originating in section 18 of the Radio Act of 1927 )  because that deals exclusively with broadcast stations giving opposing political candidates “equal time” during the prime time hours.  This rule does not apply to documentaries, legitimate news interviews, scheduled newscast or spot news coverage.

To me, the most interesting provision of this rule (which was codified in the Communications Act of 1934 as section 315(a)) is the section that requires broadcast stations to sell ad time to candidates at the same rate as their “most favored advertiser” and it prohibits a station from censoring an ad.

The reason I find this rule so interesting is because it means that politicians can buy media time very, very cheaply.  A candidate who might advertise only once or twice gets to pay the lowest available rate a station offers.  I have often wondered why some business owners don’t simply register as  candidates.  That way, they can advertise their company at the cheapest price possible.  But that idea should be something discussed by your marketing professor, not me!

I will now start the Powerpoint presentation.  Lights off.