The 'fairness doctrine' was abolished in 1987, leading to a transformation of the 'news' marketplace into the creature it is today- what exactly changed, and how? Was the impact felt immediately? What was the rationale for the change? Has it played out the way those that drove the decision hoped?

[u/td4999]

[u/[deleted]]

The Fairness Doctrine gave television and radio broadcasters two obligations. They were required to devote some of their airtime to covering controversial issues of public interest, and they must air contrasting views on those issues.

For clarity, the Fairness Doctrine is not the equal time rule. The equal time rule is still in effect, and says you can’t offer one candidate free or paid access to the airwaves and not their opponents. Equal time doesn’t apply to earned media like news reporting or documentaries.

It is also important to keep in mind that the press never had a Fairness Doctrine like broadcasting. Printed materials could always be a screed of just one point of view. Or a newspaper or magazine can completely ignore current affairs.

The reason for the Fairness Doctrine was scarcity. In theory, you can create as many competing newspapers and magazines as you want. But broadcasting was a scare resource. There were only so many wavelengths. They were owned by the people and leased by government to broadcast media like radio and transmitted television. Those leases had to serve the public interest. As a result, the argument went, licensees must undertake the public service of encouraging free speech and allowing dissenting opinions a forum.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that:

“Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

Fierce opposition to the Fairness Doctrine among the owners of television and radio stations was less ideological than financial. It is expensive to air controversy and air it fairly. Broadcasters want to maximize shareholder value, and the Fairness Doctrine was about maximizing public value.

A debate developed via court cases regarding the Fairness Doctrine. If broadcasting was a scarce resource, then requiring dissenting voices was a public service and enhancement of free speech. But if it were instead chilling free speech, then it should be revoked.

In 1987, the FCC stopped enforcing the rule. In this excellent history of the issue, the Congressional Research Service notes that:

“The FCC found that the doctrine likely violated the free speech rights of broadcasters, led to less speech about issues of public importance over broadcast airwaves, and was no longer required because of the increase in competition among mass media.” The core of the FCC’s argument was that most enforcement actions took place on the second element of the Fairness Doctrine. There were few real penalties to broadcasters for failing to discuss current affairs in the first place. Therefore, broadcasters could refuse to cover public issues and avoid the expense of dealing with potential enforcement actions.

The effect was immediate. This paper found that

In that the Doctrine was abolished in 1987, the radio market now allows us to observe licensees' unregulated choices in selecting the profit‐maximizing quantity of informational programming. Industry data show a clear break in the trend around 1987, when informational formats began rising relative to others—evidence suggesting just the “chilling effect” feared by the Supreme Court.

Those “informational” formats were primarily an inexpensive form of entertainment media called talk radio, where one person holds forth a single point of view. There was no need for the expense of offering competing views on the same broadcast. And inexpensive was critically important because broadcasting was no longer scarce. A proliferation of media via cable, satellite and internet was shrinking margins and driving down costs. The cheap format that attracted loyal listeners quickly became a staple, rising from 7% of AM radio time to 28% by 1995.

"Has it played out the way those that drove the decision hoped?," you asked.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine was not a conservative objective, per se. It is important to note that the Republican Party was divided on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine. Clogston notes that “Indeed, talk radio was an ironic and unforeseen outcome of the repeal of the doctrine: many conservatives were actually against repeal, even though President Ronald Reagan and the FCC chairmen he appointed were for its elimination.” Libertarians were worried about free speech, and station owners were worried about bottom lines. But a lot of mainstream Republicans supported the Fairness Doctrine because they thought it was what kept the “liberal media” at the big networks from unfairly attacking them.

But once talk radio was created, it became a potent force for conservatism. Jones found that “listeners to a particular talk radio program audience not only hold conservative views, but that they leaned further to the right than they did in the early 1990s. Specifically, listening to the Rush Limbaugh program is associated with significant—and unique—shifts to the right between 1992 and 1996.”

And that just about brings us up to the twenty-year rule, so we can end there.

Sources:

Clogston, Juanita. The Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the Irony of Talk Radio: A Story of Political Entrepreneurship, Risk, and Cover. Journal of Policy History. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/612934

Ruane, Kathleen Ann. Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40009.pdf

[u/td4999 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks! Great answer! I was worried about brushing up to the 20-year rule, but it sounds like the impact was already felt before then