| Revision as of 15:43, 15 February 2008 editMiffedone (talk | contribs)3 edits long winded explanation to change a few words about the Fairness Doctrine← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:33, 15 February 2008 edit undoDual Freq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers37,117 edits rv, that should go on Talk:Rush Limbaugh not on the todo listNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
*FA nomination |
|
The portion in the 1980's Rush Limbaugh section describing the "Fairness Doctrine" is factually inaccurate. The Fairness Doctring did NOT require stations to give "free airtime" for responses to "any controversial issues that were discussed." All the Fairness Doctrine required was that stations owners give reasonable voice (not even "perfect balance") to various points of view on controversial subjects which were aired. Station owners were free to find people to pay for access either through long form programming (talk shows, discussion panels), short form (commercials or other paid broadcasts), to cover those issues (for free) in newscasts or other public affairs programs (either longform (talk shows, Sunday morning shows) or short form - editorials, "speakout" messages from listeners, etc.), or to do nothing and potentially have their license challenged and revoked at renewal time, which was an exceptionally rare event. The Fairness Doctrine is often mistaken for "equal time", which is entirely different, and applies only to recognized political candidates during a specific period prior to open elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
Original quote: ''"The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast—by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. "'' |
|
|
|
|
|
A better phaseology of the sentence would be: |
|
|
'''The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine—which had required that stations present multiple sides to any controversial opinions that were broadcast—by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I worked in broadcasting for 30 years and am well versed in what the Fairness Doctrine did and did not require. A reasonable, if easy to draw mistaken inference summary is in wikipedia's own Fairness Doctrine page, although it repeated the "free airtime" meme, incorrectly. Red Lion was a "personal attack" suit, one small subsection in the Fairness Doctrine regulations, and which had different remedy for personal slander or libel on an individual (as opposed to general discussion of issues.) The Democratic quote relies on faulty information; no "free airtime" (as I have explained above) was necessary. It might be true that they hoped that the Station Owner would not go to the trouble of "balancing" their broadcast and would drop the (so-called) Right Wing show, but to my knowledge that never happened. |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Fairness_Doctrine |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|