Should the Fairness Doctrine be Reinstated?
...legitimacy of the Fairness Doctrine. In fear of more cases similar to this occurring, the FCC established requirements for stations to report on their efforts to search for and express issues of the community (Limburg). As years passed and media continued to grow, the Doctrine continued to disturb journalists. Feelings were strongly expressed against the policy’s violation of the first amendment. Journalists felt that the freedoms given by the First Amendment should allow reporters to make their own decisions. Many journalists still attempted to follow the Doctrine, and this resulted in them avoiding issues altogether in order to avoid controversy with the FCC, referred to as the “chilling effect”. In some situations, controversial issues were not even covered by media (Limburg). The 1980s marked the final descent of the Fairness Doctrine. Debate intensified surrounding the Doctrine. In 1984, a Supreme Court Case involving the League of Women’s Voters favored the FCC but said the Doctrine limited the variety of public debate. In 1985, the FCC made a Fairness Report, declaring the Doctrine no longer met its intentions and that a chilling effect was populating. Congress met and voted for the Fairness Doctrine to become a law. However, deregulation, or a clearing which provided a more effective administration, emphasized by President Reagan resulted in the vetoing of the bill. The FCC made a final push in a Supreme Court Case against Meredith Corp in 1987, but the Court declared the doctrine was not modified by Congress, and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. In August of that year, the FCC officially dissolved the doctrine, deciding it was hampering debate rather than improving it. Currently, all that remains of the Fairness Doctrine is two rules; the personal attack rule from 1967, and the political editorial rule, allowing media to endorse or oppose candidates, but the candidates not being enforced must be notified and allowed to respond (Limburg). The debate continues over the Fairness Doctrine. The main reason why the Doctrine should be reinstated is that in media today there are so many different views represented, it is sometimes difficult to make judgments on what political news is and what political advertising is. With the Fairness Doctrine, it would be easier to organize the thoughts and arguments of journalists. Reinstating the Doctrine would allow members of society to analyze political situations more carefully and make a more effective vote when it comes to elections. The Fairness Doctrine should not be reinstated because it does not belong in a country where freedom of speech and freedom of the press reins. A reason for the decline of the Doctrine was the fact that it was considered unconstitutional. Unless it is passed by government, there is no way that it could be considered constitutional. Passing a law in government would be bad publicity for government because it would be turning its back on something found by the nation’s creators. The freedoms of speech and press are meant to give citizens the right to express themselves freely. The Fairness Doctrine would abuse these rights. There is also entertainment in what some people have to say. Some of the stands taken by journalists are meant to draw attention and provide entertainment to its listeners. It would be dull listening to the radio and hearing the same perspectives with no twists to them. This type of radical media provides audiences with a different perspective on issues, and whether people agree with it or not, it gets their minds are thinking in a different manner. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be, as it was before, a violation of constitutional rights, and would take away from the effectiveness that radical views have on some people. With all the freedom the press contains today, there is a lot of debate on whether or not the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. Since the dissolving of the Doctrine in 1987, the FCC has continued to possess the power to revive the Fairness Doctrine because it is an independent regulatory agency (Thierer). However, the Fairness Doctrine would not be effective because the only way it would be strictly enforced is if it was passed by Congress as a law. This does not look promising because after being passed by Congress during both the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administration, it was vetoed by the President and could not be overruled (Limburg). In the most recent attempt of revival in the year 2000, it did not even make it through Congress. Enforcing the Doctrine without passing it as a law wo...