|
| |
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
Term Paper ID:29059
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Examines impact of the Federal Trade Commission's doctrine.... More...
|
7 Pages / 1575 Words
9 sources, 9 Citations,
APA Format
$28.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Examines impact of the Federal Trade Commission's doctrine. Affects Fairness Doctrine has had on society from a political, social and legal perspective. History of the FCC doctrine. Purpose of the doctrine to offer balancing views on controversial issues. Legal issues and political impact. Relevance of the doctrine in today's society. Outline.
Paper Introduction:
OUTLINE
Introduction – What is the Fairness Doctrine?
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters in television and radio, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues within their community by offering some balancing views.
The Social Impact of the Fairness Doctrine
For public debate and dialogue concerning issues surrounding politics. Unnecessary the explosion in media alternatives with the influx of cable television stations and the Internet.
The Legal Issues Regarding the Fairness Doctrine
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367)
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, (418 U.S. 241)
FCC v. League of Wo
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlyingthe doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth ofpublic debate (FCC v. Thedebate including this third candidate was not a show of Fairness, butrather more of an instance of the networks giving in to pressure. It is then that opposing views come into the stations a demand equal time and request it be given them free. The result was Congress reinstating the doctrine in decision.In 1994 the Media Institute (2 2) "filed comments opposing a Petition forEmergency Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commissionin company with the Radio-Television News Directors Association, theNational Association of Broadcasters, and the Reporters Committee forFreedom of the Press. Networks were not allowed to endorse one candidate overthe other and therefore give them free airtime or only focus on onecandidate's ads. Introduction - What is the Fairness Doctrine? Dec. Unnecessary the explosion in media alternatives with the influx of cable television stations and the Internet. III. V. An example of this would be allowing the American Nazi Party to aira program on race in America. Conservatives and Right-wing hosts dominatedthe talk show circuit, even in liberal cities such as New York. Limbaugh, Rush. That was only changed in the 1992election when Ross Perot's party candidates were allowed to debate. (1993, Oct.). FCC (395 U.S. Nov. "The Rush Hour Hoax: Limbaugh on theFairness Doctrine". Tornillo, (418 U.S. Online, Available:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=468&invol=364 Labunski, Richard. Unfortunately, it has never been a point of actualusage of time for all candidates on issues. 219-29 ). Tornillo (1974). TheCommission did not act on the petition." In this filing, they hoped toachieve a goal of not having the FCC regulate the Fairness Doctrine andimpose it by statute. The Commission declined to reconsider the elimination of theFairness Doctrine" (Media Institute, 2 2). Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red LionBroadcasting v. 367). REFERENCES FCC (2 2). The social impact of the Fairness Doctrine was an exercise in publicdebate and dialogue. (pp. The very talk show genre and format were born, and flourished, whilethe doctrine was instated. 367) Miami Herald Publishing Co. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA (1984). v. Aug, 2 . The fairness doctrine's constitutionality has been tested and wasupheld by the U.S. The doctrine hasalways been supported by myriads of grassroots groups spanning thepolitical rainbow, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and theright-wing Accuracy In Media. For instance, when networkshave covered Presidential debates, the only invited candidates have beenthe Democratic and the Republican. Thetrue intent of the Doctrine was merely to focus on political issues andcandidate debate. The Limbaugh Letter. Later that same year, however, they decided thatBallot Measures were deserving of Fairness Doctrine application andattention and thus "filed a motion opposing a petition for reconsiderationbefore the Federal Communications Commission in company with the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the National Association ofBroadcasters, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Just five years later, withoutruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another casethat the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety ofpublic debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. 241). Although the Court then ruled that itdid not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautionedthat if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule'sconstitutionality should be reconsidered. The Fairness Doctrine, instituted by the FCC was in operation fromapproximately 1949 until Ronald Reagan's 1987 deregulation-oriented FCCabolished it. The truth of the matter shows that not one doctrine decisionissued by the FCC concerned itself with talk shows, especially talk radioshows. v. Themotivation behind it was "the call to bring back the Fairness Doctrinefalls in line with the efforts of Democrats - namely presidential hopefulAl Gore and running mate Joe Lieberman - to force content control on theentertainment industry and the media" (Taylor, 1). TheHeritage Foundation. "May It Rest in Peace: PublicInterest and Public Access in the Post-Fairness Doctrine Era," 11 Comm/Ent- A Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law No. Today, The FairnessDoctrine is completely unnecessary given the explosion in mediaalternatives with the influx of cable television stations and the Internet. Severaltimes, they have over their time in existence, filed court proceedingsbased on several violations of government and others in regards to themedia. None wasever muzzled. 364). 2 Hastings Collegeof the Law, University of California, San Francisco (published April,1989). "Democratic Party seeks reinstatement ofFairness Doctrine". Why the Fairness Is Anything But Fair. This paper will analyze theaffects the doctrine has had on society from a social, legal, and politicalstandpoint. FCC (395 U.S. "It's the latest attempt by the United States Congress tolegislate against me, and talk radio hosts." Remarked Limbaugh (LimbaughLetter, 1993). Online, Available:http://www.epic.org/free_speech/tornillo.html Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. The television station that airs the programwould then be required to review their programming schedule to insertopposing view programming on the same topic by such groups as the NAACP orthe Council of Jewish Americans. Online, Available: http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html Taylor, Philip. The Doctrine required broadcasters in television and radio,as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to covercontroversial issues within their community by offering some balancingviews. The Legal Issues Regarding the Fairness Doctrine Red Lion Broadcasting v. Thesecomments argued for the denial of a petition requesting the FCC toreconsider its elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in situations involvingballot issues. Interestingly, the Democratic party of 2 included a line in theirparty platform regarding the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. One of the most important, or at least visibly viewed because of hiscelebrate, challengers to this issue was Talk Show Radio Host Rush Limbaughin 1994. (2 2). Therefore, community outrage and protest mayoccur when a station has instituted a program schedule that includes aprogram espousing extreme views, yet under the First Amendment, suchopinions are allowed to be heard. The Media Institute is an established organization whose sole purposeis to act legally in the best interest of broadcasting freedom. The Freedom Forum Online. Accessed 4/11/ 2. A landmark in the history of the FCC is the institutionof a Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. 1994. (1993). The Political Impact of the Fairness Doctrine The political repercussions of the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not allow the public to receive fair hearing of all debated ballot measures during an election through a broadcast medium source. Theirer, Adam. It merely prohibits a station from blasting away day after dayfrom one perspective (the American Nazi Party), without any opposing views(Such as the examples cited above). Since many people mistake the Fairness Doctrine's intent, they oftenassume what is meant by it. There have been studies doneregarding the Doctrine that found the abolition of the doctrine had beendisastrous for democratic debate in 1992 ballot measures. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters in television and radio, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues within their community by offering some balancing views. ConclusionsINTRODUCTION: The FCC website states that the organization "was established by theCommunications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate andinternational communications by radio, television, wire, satellite andcable" (FCC, 2 2). League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. Available online at:http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/regulation/em368.html Federal Communications Commission(1969). OUTLINE I. [They] Filed a Petition forClarification before the FCC with several other media groups, organized bythe Radio-Television News Directors Association, requesting that theCommission repeal its rules in light of its recent action eliminating theFairness Doctrine" (Media Institute, 2 2) The political repercussions of the re-instatement of the FairnessDoctrine would not allow the public to receive fair hearing of all debatedballot measures during an election through a broadcast medium source.After the 1992 study was released indicting that fairness had not beenadhered to, a closer watch has been instituted and recent elections havesecured attention to details for both sides (albeit, we are a multi-partysystem, yet there are only two distinctive parties reigning until anindependent voice creates enough momentum to garner more than 8% of thevoting public). 364) IV. This was a result of an earlier legal situation thatbroadcasters felt needed to be addressed, President Reagan's decision in1987 to grant elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. II. Online, Available: http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html FCC v. The Fairness Doctrine does not require that each program be internallybalanced (such as our previous example), or mandate "equal time": It wouldnot require that balance in the overall program line-up be anything closeto 5 /5 . The Fairness Doctrine came under some express legal debates in theearly 9 's. League of Women Voters (468 U.S. It has the ability to prevent stations from allowing only one side ofall issues to be heard on ballot measures. v. At the time it waseliminated, broadcasters were concerned because "the FCC has to daterefused to eliminate the corollaries. These comments strongly opposed a petition for adeclaratory ruling that the Fairness Doctrine is statutorily mandated. As such a group, their material offers a historical basis for thelegal institution of the Fairness Doctrine and its application. Tornillo, 418 U.S. During the 198 's-9 's, several questioned the FCC's continuation ofrule-making under the Fairness Doctrine so in 199 the Media Institute withothers "filed a Petition for Rulemaking before the FCC with several othermedia groups, organized by the Radio-Television News Directors Association,arguing for the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine corollaries based uponthe fact that the doctrine's repeal had withstood court and congressionalchallenges" (2 2). 241) FCC v. Online, Available:http://www.mediainstitute.org/broadcast.html Miami Herald Publishing Co v. The Social Impact of the Fairness Doctrine For public debate and dialogue concerning issues surrounding politics. www.fair.org/extra/9411/limbaugh-fcc.html Media Institute. (Winter, 1989). As quoted inCohen, Jeff. Citizen groups (League of Women Voters) have used the FairnessDoctrine correctly as a tool to expand speech and debate -- not restrictit.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
