Talk:Fairness doctrine

Comment on High Importance Tag

Anyone that follows politics hears about this constantly. Therefore, I believe it is important. Saksjn (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I believe this should be a candidate for limited editing. I've seen three malicious posts that had to be removed with regard to President-Elect Obama's intended legislative actions. I believe this will be a major subject as Congress had signaled its intent to implement most of its edicts.Mastercare (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Article seems well written

Damn few articles are without bias but this one is golden. Good job.

--149.152.34.128 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I will go as far as to say the most articles on wikipedia regarding anything political is fiecely biased to the left. This article is strikingly centered. I guess it would be ironic if the article ON the fairness doctrine were biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.44.199 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I hope that recent changes will not embolden people to edit this article to be biased like most others. Fool4jesus (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to discourage anyone else from adding anything, but I'm writing an extensive paper on the Fairness Doctrine this month, so this should be quite a lengthy and complete article by the time I'm done. —Postdlf 7:21 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Article is Broken

It appears that the article is broken... It looks like a massive chunk of Talk: page got dumped into the end of the External Links section.

I am going to excise that and place it into its own section here on the Talk: page for somebody (possibly me, but not right now) to sort through later. --AStanhope 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Text excised from the article 23 Apr 05

The following text appeared to have been accidentally placed in the External Links section of the main article. Some of it, at least, appears to have come from either this talk page or some users' misunderstanding of how Wikipedia editing works. --AStanhope 17:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

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.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly vowed to kill the fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters do NOT provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

-Val E. Limburg

-- WARNING: Val E. Limburg seems to have a conservative bias on media regulation policy. In the spirit of the fairness doctrine, here are some opposing viewpoints:

- Media consolidation is out of control since 1996's Telecommunications Act - Local broadcasters do not serve community need, but pander to corporate ideology.

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org http://media-alliance.org

The FCC has initiated a task force to determine the effectiveness of local broadcasters to their local communities. This is an ongoing process that citizens can take part in. Tell the FCC how you feel about media consolidation. http://www.fcc.gov/localism/

As Powell put it himself: “I created the Localism Task Force to evaluate how broadcasters are serving their local communities. Broadcasters must serve the public interest, and the Commission has consistently interpreted this to require broadcast licensees to air programming that is responsive to the interests and needs of their communities.” - Chairman Michael K. Powell

This is the board of mr. Limburg's Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago - http://www.museum.tv/about.htm

Notice the representation of Cumulus, The Tribune and others who stand to gain from the present deregulation of the media. Board of Directors – Officers and Executive Committee

   * Bruce DuMont, Founder/President & CEO
   * Richard Fleming, USG Corporation (retired), VP & Treasurer
   * David Plier, Retail First Corporation, VP & Secretary
   * Jack Weinberg, Pro Consulting Associates, Ltd., VP

Members of the Board

   * Jennifer Anderson, Impact Basketball
   * David Bart, McGladrey
   * Lana Brown (education consultant)
   * Sean Cassidy, DKC
   * Chris Gladwin, Cleversafe
   * Dennis Green, Cumulus Media Networks
   * Jon Harris, The Hillshire Brands Company
   * Andrew Hayes, Fifth Third Bank
   * David Kovach, Citibank
   * Michael Shmarak, DKC
   * Rocco Smeriglio, Yahoo
   * Larry Wert, Tribune Broadcasting MrSativa (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mystery solved?

Mystery clarified if not entirely solved: that text (signed by Val E. Limburg) is from the Museum of Broadcast Communications page on the Fairness Doctrine that was linked in "External Links". What might have happened is that (as has often happened to me) the poster thought s/he was copying and pasting the URL from the address bar, but instead pasted the text of the page itself. I think this was an attempt (successful or not) to give a balanced account, and to my humble eyes it seems to contain some useful background and clarification that might well be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Shakescene (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Bill Ruddee?

Any references on this guy? Googling on Bill Ruddee or William Ruddee only brings references back to this article.--Eyemeansit 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeal

Not sure, but it appears that the last bit about the FCC's response to court action in 2000 was only to temporarily suspend the policy: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/2000/nrmm0041.html (MicahMH 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Different pages?

Granted, I'm by no means a wiki expert, and do not yet know much about the operations of wiki articles... but is there any reason why I am getting two different versions of this article; one before I log in, and a different version after?

For example, I was going to ask about the obvious bias in the following segment;

The Doctrine did not apply to Newspapers, and was rarely enforced in other media, but the public perception of the meaning of fairness made many radio broadcasters believed it had a limiting effect on their broadcasting (not doing any and all commentary the left might deem critical or unfair, the left being called a "powerful special interests," was annoying to the right's powerful special interests and they were the ones paying bills).

But after I logged in to make this entry, that segment mysteriously disappeared from the article. I considered that, in those few seconds, perhaps an edit was made by someone else. But after logging out, clearing my cookies and looking again, it was back. So I logged in again, to be sure... and it was once again gone.

Maybe it's just my ignorance of wiki... but is this normal?

And, of course, if anyone would care to address the above section as it pertains to POV, I would appreciate that, a well. Artmonkey 06:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but I think you may have been experiencing server lag. My understanding is that any website changes take time to update on all the servers along the path from source to receiver. Maybe the "path" you got when logged off wasn't updated and was different from the one you got when you logged on. Either that, or your series of tubes was blocked. I do know that there aren't different versions of wiki articles, except for language translations.

The paragraph in question was added on January 15 and removed about 12 hours later by the same user. You are right, it was obviously POV and the article seems pretty neutral now. Hoof Hearted 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance

I also see that this article is under scrutiny for a question of importance.

Well, as the newly elected democratic majority in congress is pushing for a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine right now, and given the opposition they are already seeing from those in talk radio broadcasting, I think you will find, very soon, that this article will become very popular and very timely. As for it's importance, the new fairness doctrine promises to completely change the face of talk radio media. I would personally consider that of notable importance, no matter which side of the issue you favor. Artmonkey 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like this article is important enough. I removed the tag for notability. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost referenced

It looks like there are actually a number of "references" in the external links section, including to the line I just tagged as needing citation about GHW Bush. Anyone actually feel like reading through those articles and making them citations? I'll fix the markup, but sorry reading through those articles sounds deeply boring to me. I'm just here via the Recent Changes feed. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Improve this sentence

This is just a very awkwardly worded phrase.

"In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the Reagan administration influenced FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine..."

And I have to disagree with the first poster on this page. Atrributive phrases like, "Reagan administration influnced," suggest POV and bias. It was not a Reagan administration influnced FCC, it was an FCC during the Reagan administration. If people don't understand that means its members were administration appointees (though only three of the five can ever be of the same political party, and there were no dissenting votes when the Fairness Doctrine was struck down), as were members of the FCC under all other administrations, then they need to go read an article on the FCC. As a counter-example, why not stick the appellation, "socalist" in front of Senator Bernie Sanders, or describe the putative legislation as "socialist-sponsored?" Because it suggests bias, even though Bernie Sanders proudly claims that he is a Socialist. The noted attributive phrase also suggests bias.

~mjd 2007-04-11 17:41EDT

More bias issues

A quick scan of the references and external links posted shows that all but one is a reference in clear support of the Fairness Doctrine, with not a small amount of political bias in many. I suggest that you can find a few more references with arguments against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to help this article mirror its title.

I would further suggest you remove the reference to the Slate article. It is by its very definition and own admission a POV peice. That would be bad enough, if it weren't for the fact that, while all of the media was apoplectic about the possibility of the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor airing shortly before the 2004 Presidential election in the United States, neither the Slate piece, this article, nor any of the rest of the mainstream media in 2004 seemed to mind that Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary aired on DishNetwork and on Pay-Per-View immediately before the election. [Someone is going to argue that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over DishNetwork or the cable companies: wrong. The FCC oversees them as well, and the existing equal time statutes apply to them as well]. In the end, Stolen Honor was NOT broadcast in October 2004 as Sinclair had planned; Fahrenheit 911 was broadcast in November 2004, the day before the election.

~mjd 2007-04-11 18:16EDT

The following sentence, I believe, is clearly biased and assumes facts not in evidence, to use a legal term. "Touted periodically by liberals, if active, the doctrine would effectively quiet opposition to the leftist world view." Pueblonative 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it, but backed up the statement following it with a reference. --Hiddekel 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another sentence that, I believe, contains bias:

"This proposed legislation has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half."

My big objection is to "routinely," which I think suggests that conservatives are using 'talking points' and/or coming up with a repetitious criticism. The link to an article in Salon (possibly the one mjd mentions just above) that follows the sentence pooh-poohs conservatives' concern, but I think it is OK for it to stay if it is balanced by other sources that offer a counter-view.

I am editing this sentence accordingly. --MollyTheCat 09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation Templates

Does anyone object to me formatting all of the references to use the citation templates (see the last citation I added for an example of what I'm talking about)? Apparently this is a contentious issue with some folks and if there are any objections I'll not bother. --Hiddekel 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Trent Lott

Trent Lott made some negative remarks about talk radio but reiterated that the solutions was not to regulate but instead better communication directly with the public. This does not constitute support for the Fairness Doctrine. Please stop erroneously adding that he supports it. Talmage 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempts at reinstatement

Since it has been pointed out that talk radio uses the public airwaves, I think it should be pointed out that Hollywood uses the public airwaves as well (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, et al) and that academia, both private and public, receive billions in taxpayer dollars. This is as relevant as talk radio using the public airwaves, and I would like to know if anyone out there has links/sources to recommend in pointing these facts out? Thanks. -- Gerkinstock 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Correcting section name to "Controversy"

The "Attempts" section has been renamed to "Controversy" since the very existence of the attempts is in controversy. I have also made it clear where assertions are made by opinion commentators; typically these are not sources for facts. If this article is to be factual, it should quote people directly, not refer to 2nd-hand quotes filtered through opinion pieces. It's not as if it's difficult to get quotes from politiciansrewinn 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Split out "legislation"

Within the Controversy section, I split out the legislative matters (which are easy to state objectively) from the commentary (which is inherently POV). Since no link was provided to Pence's proposal, I substituted Coleman's which was basically the same (and an editor (below) had provided the link --- thanks! rewinn 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous addition

Such legislation - although none has actually been introduced in Congress - has been criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed, despite the overwhelming (90%) conservative bias in the media and media ownership, especially in talk radio as shown in reports out of the Center for American Progress.

Ok this is absolute crap, the Center for American Progress is run by Liberals, how about this, 9/10 reporters give to Democrats! How's that for media bias.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

The above anonymous addition was made on 18:00, 2 August 2007 by User:155.104.37.17

I wouldn't use profanity, but I do agree with the sentiment that a factual claim (90%) should be linked to the exact study making the claim; and I hope you would make that addition. In a section about a controversy, whether the Center for American Progress is partisan does not disqualify it as a contributor to the controversy; to the contrary, there are conservative commentators quoted earlier in the section. In describing a controversy, it is probably best to provide a representative sample of the parties in the controversy, their positions and the evidence they provide in support; then let the readers hash it out. rewinn 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant source

Associated Press reported on July 13, 2007 that "Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment ... that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine." See here and here, for example. We probably could use mention this in the article. Unfortunately, that report does not say why they blocked that amendment. CWC 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1st link's busted. 2nd link answers your question:

...no legislation has been offered to bring back the regulation, which was scrapped in 1987... Levin’s office said he objected because the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction, and because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq. rewinn 22:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters?

Media Matters for America is a propoganda web site. Citing this organization in this article destroys credibility. 71.94.236.202 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

don't playa hate. i think that to the extent that such sourcing stands, you should feel free to enter opposing arguments from sources such as brent bozell's organization. also, salon = frontpagemag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of Media Matters is that it is cited by proponents of a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine. If that citation by proponets is to stand, then the link to the target of that citation is necessary so readers can decide for themselves. It is also worth noting that Media Matters, while it has a point of view, is as rigorous or more so in citing information to back up its assertions than are, for example, some of the politicians cited in this article. rewinn 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"conspiracy" is your term. it's a loaded one. no one asserts that there is a "conspiracy". there is the perfectly open and plainly stated and openly vocalized agenda to reinstate the fairness doctrine. you struck from an earlier edit reference to congressman hinchey and others vocalizing this agenda. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Media Matters, while it has a point of view, is as rigorous or more so in citing information to back up its assertions than are, for example, some of the politicians cited in this article."

with statements like these, rewinn's ability to to approch this editing problem without POV is clearly in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Your personal attack is noted
2. Any particular editor's abilities are not relevant; rather, each part of the article must stand or fall on its own merits. Since one side of the controversy cites MM, it is correct for the other side to include evidence of MM's side. rewinn 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Blatant POV-pushing about the most recent controversy is not helpful. Wikipedia's job is to lay out both sides briefly, not to argue for either side. The argument that there is a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine was introduced by commentators and therefore their statements should be mentioned first. Factual support for their assertions is best left in their articles, but since an anonymous editor insists on citing directly to the relevant politicians, those secondary citations go AFTER the commentators. Otherwise, this would be forbidden OR. Or put it another way: to assert there is a conspiracy and then to argue for the conspiracy by producing evidence is OR; to claim that someone says there is a conspiracy and to link to their claim is being encyclopedic. rewinn 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section edits

your revert said "See Talk", but i did not see any new entries, so i'll discuss it here.

when byron york quotes directly from a media matters campaign to reinstate the fairness doctrine, it constitutes pov and weasle-wording to write that york merely "claims" such things.

when a number of senior democrat senators announce their support for reinstating the fairness doctrine, it constitutes pov and weasle-wording to write that "conservatives" merely "claim" they have.

quoting from another senior democrat senator's press aide is hardly probative of anything. nor is it, as it appears to be offered, disprobative of the quotes from senior democrat senators which preceed it. it appears to be some feeble pov-pushing following what appears to be a zeal to strike any evidence of official democrat support for reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, but i'll let that change stand as it is additive, narrowly factual and, as i said, non-disprobative.

as wiki editors, we are not obligated to restate a partisan organization's soft pr-talk. rather we are obligated to state things clearly. doing the former is not encyclopedic. in that graph, it is also appropriate to note facts which point to the limited scope of the study in question. it is also relevant to indicate the organization's founding connection with yet another democrat senator.

1. Please sign your talk page contributions
2. Please do not perform OR. That two or more Senators have said they like something is not strong evidence that there is a conspiracy to do something.
3. The objective evidence is that commentators have said there is an effort to revive FD and that you have researched statements in support of it
4. Your blatant POV-pushing is demonstrated by your disparagement of the statement from Harry Reid's office. rewinn 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

i have not performed "or". i wonder in fact what the wholesale reprinting of the center for american progress' study on the matter constitutes, as york never mentioned it in his piece and yet it is offered as a rebuttal.

rewinn, if you want to construct the sort of article you have been trying to construct, there are other wikis such as the dkosfopedia and sourcewatch where you can assert your narrative as stridently as you wish. this however is wikipedia and you have to avoid pov-pushing and weasle-wording to the ends of enforcing a particular point of view.

1. I'll ignore your silly personal attacks.
2. I suggest you get a login so that you won't be confused with others from your IP who have been booted from other sites for vandalism. I'm sure it wasn't you, but you'll understand the problem.
3. If you would check edit history, you'll see that I didn't put Center for American Progress detailed content on this page; I don't really care if it stays or goes.
4. Who-ever converted the discussion of the controversy away from a description of the controversy as expressed by York et al. into a couple of non-notable quotes was indeed doing Original Research and POV-pusing.
5. It is not the function of wikipedia to assert that there is a controversy and then to buttress the naked assertion with quotes about the subject of the controversy; to support the idea that there is a controversy you must start with a source that states there is a controversy. Let me know if this distinction requires clarification.
6. You will note that my edits leave in the quotes of the Senators and improved on them by linking to the Senator's wikipedia pages. So what's the complaint?rewinn 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i made no personal attacks
2. this may be interpreted as a personal attack on me, but i'll just assume you're a stickler for this sort of officiality
3. i didn't say you did.* yet you haven't appeared to have had any OR objection to that section.
4. what would constitute a sufficiently notable quote in the face of the pov weasle wording that "some conservative commenters have claimed..."?
5. i believe that byron york's peice fails this test. he doesn't identify the presence of a "controversy" as such, he merely reports that x are pushing x agenda, not that there is a "controversy" over whether x is pushing x agenda.
6. that is i have to say, good clean work. why weren't you as cooperative with the below edit in which you wholesale deleted the references and replaced them with weasle-wording? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=162604562&oldid=162603617
7. when you wrote, On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[1] was that or? i mean, the "other side" you reference is you, supported by a link to a site search you made.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I hope you don't mind that I fixed your indenting. I'll restart indenting since this thread is getting deep
2. Your use of strident and other language is a silly personal attack. Please stop.
3. I urged you to get a login so you don't get confused with other persons on your IP who are known for vandalization. If you think my advice is a personal attack, well, it is still good advice. Your work will be better respected if you are proud enough of it to sign it
4. About the Center for American Progress report: it is not my job to make edits that you want.
5. "Some conservative commentators have claimed" is accurate. York is a conservative; it may be better to call him a 'writer'. If you'd read his report, it concerns something done by Media Matters, not by any politician; therefore to characterize his report at concerning an effort by politicians is not accurate. I'll edit to reflect that.
6. If you are complementing my work, thank you sincerely. If you're asking why I made a broad reversion, it was because there were multiple POV-pushing edits which I didn't want to bother wading through. Somehow I felt confident any objective content in it would resurface
7. The Media Matters link was in response to an unsourced claim that Media Matters had done this or that. It is difficult to cite to a negative but that's what I attempted. It might have been better to delete the entire claim by York, since in his 2004 article he doesn't cite to the actual "announcement". All that we know with encyclopedic rigor is that York claimed Media Matters announced something that so far no-one has found on the MM website. If *you* can find it on the MM website, *that* would be a direct and relevant cite.
8. Edit wars are silly. I'll see if I can clean up the section. An objective structure is to put claims in date order. rewinn 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Hinckley link in that section is dead. Feel free to submit updated link. rewinn 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree edit wars are silly. i don't know why you chose to start your day with one.

i believe i have resolved the matter. since all of the ambiguity, OR (both merely asserted and evident), weasle-wording and POV-pushing have been reposed within the tendentious frame of "controversy", i've reworked the section and reduceded it to what is not controversial or controvertable.

1. Your personal attack is noted
2. Your deletion of the York article and all content contrary to your POV has been reverted. They should not be deleted without discussion. If you delete items contrary to your POV simply because they are contrary to your POV, a page protection will be requested
3. I urge you to get a logon so that you may better participate in encyclopediac editting rewinn 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• although, in fact you did: Rewinn -- "Linked to CAP report" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=150444138&oldid=150100226

above comment added on 16:16, 11 October 2007 by 38.98.181.23

1. It's hard to figure out what you're talking about since you're not providing context in that quote (I even had to go to history to find out who posted that content).
2. Assuming that you're referring to the Center for American Progress report, I must remind you that in fact the reference to the study came much earlier (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=prev&oldid=148532759 ) than my contribution which was to wikify it. Surely when a report is being talked about, it is correct to link to the report so that you and other readers may decide its value for yourself. rewinn 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is a POV charictarization

the framing the controversy as a "conspiracy" closes the controvery and recreats it as the thing in itself. penetrating such a thing is to indulge in it as a seperate exersize.

"conspiracy" is rewinn's term. it's a loaded one which he has introduced to isolate the issue in the fashion described above.

however, no one asserts that there is a "conspiracy". there is the perfectly open and plainly stated and openly vocalized agenda to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

i could delete the reference to york's piece altogether and the plainly-stated agendas of senators kerry and durbin, along with reference to hinchey and clinton's organizations would evidence the agenda. we could then retitle the section, "Support for Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be why it is not used in the article. This is a "talk" page, in which sometimes people have POV. For example, your advocacy of listing one but only one person who helped found Media Matters is a bit of POV advocacy.

I cannot agree with deleting the York piece, since he (York) is an authority on what he (York) himself has said. For you to assemble a conspiracy to restore the Fairness Doctrine out of a couple of Senatorial quotes and allegations of membership in organizations would be unencyclopedic. rewinn 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

an Actual Original Research Violation

'On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[2]'

this is in fact OR.

your edit reintroduced all of the pov-pushing and weasle-wording i removed. i'm going to revert. if you revert back, you will be in violation of 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Balancing claims is not OR

You are mistaken. There was a claim about Media Matters that required balance. How would you provide balance without referring to the MM site? rewinn 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise there are claims about Kerry and Durbin, yet "Fairness Doctrine" is not found on their Senatorial websites. It would appear that these are not, in fact, very important to them. One must wonder where that YouTube clip came from and what question prompted Kerry's response, as well as the Durbin quote which now looks a little shakey rewinn 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

rewinn, you've literrally declared that you will not accept digital media documentation of a figure's own words as legitimate. to continue working with you as if you're approaching this with good faith would be foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous Vandal: you are at best mistaken. I'm pointing out that the clip is editted to eliminate any hint of context. I will try to find a complete text so readers may decide for themselves. Your continuing deletion of data from this page should stop. rewinn 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Xinunus suggests

October 2007 Xinunus added to the article:

• I suggest someone do a study about national news networks. Following the example of the Center for American Progress, we could call it, "The Structural Imbalance of the National News Networks". How do you like them apples?

I moved those comments to this talk page since this is where such comments go. rewinn 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in Controversy

Our anonymous vandal continues to delete references to the York article and to claim the controversy is not a controversy. I have partially reverted the vandalism, keeping however the most recent edits by another editor. rewinn 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand the section title: Controversy over claims of revival, does this mean that some people deny that there has been a recent revivial, or that there is controversy over the recent revival, or both, or what? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is that some people claim there is an attempt to revive it, and other people say there is not. The York article says there is, the Salon article says no. rewinn 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there is more evidence indicating that there has been some attempts to revive this, the bill in 06 for example, or at the least, a number of congressmen have floated the idea. But as far as labeling this a controversy, I dont have access to the Salon article, but are they calling talk of resurecting the Fairness Doctrine controversial, because we cannot make this leap ourselves as editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The article does not call talk of reviving FD controversial. It says that there is a controversy about whether there is an attempt to revive it
2. The Salon article is linked to in the article (unless our friendly neighborhood vandal has deleted it)
3. The controversy's existence rests not on the Salon article alone, but on the direct contradiction of the claim by the Reid office
4. The 2006 bill does not support the idea that there is a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine because (A) it did not seek to restore FD and (B) it was introduced into a Congress that opposed FD by an opponent of FD
5. When some people say there is an attempt to revive it and other people say there is not, we have the type specimen of a controversy.
6. A section header that asserts that there is an attempt to revive the FD, given the controversy, would not be NPOV rewinn 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple things.

1. Agreed
2. Still there.
3. I will have to look at the article later, my surf control blocks it, but it would appear that unless someone has called this a controversy, the "claims of revival" it would be WP:OR for us to. If the only thing Reid's assistant said what was quoted in the Wiki article, thats not enough to call it a controversy.
4. I dont know if you looked into this, but Hinchey is most certainly a supporter of the FA; from his websiteThe Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.
5. When some people say there is an attempt to revive it and other people say there is not, we have only conflicting statements, it only develops into a controversy if a reliable third part calls it one, otherwise it WP:OR, as we are making an independet judgement not supported by a source that also makes this judgement.
6. Even if there has been legislation, like Hinchey's?

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1-2:ok

3: t'ain't so. Read the Salon article. And certainly an official statement out of the head of the Senate is notable

4. OK, Hinchey's bill supported FD, that goes into the "for" column. It doesn't seem to have attracted an aweful lot of co-sponsors and of course it's as dead as the 109th Congress

5. If someone says there are unicorns and someone else says there are no unicorns, is it WP:OR to state that there is a controversy over the existence of unicorns. And at any rate the Salon article satisfies the "3rd Party statement of controversy" rule.

6: see 4+5rewinn 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone says something about unicors, and it is so outrageous or controversial, surely someone, somewhere will take note? It takes a third part to mention or cerify a controverst, its not up to the job of the Wiki editor. I could dig up lots of material on this from talk pages and RfC's, but I would ask that you take my word for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewinn is asking us to "Teach the controversy" here where there is none apart from his manufacturing of one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.145.219 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Outta Here for a Bit

Another editor seems to be doing some improvements, so I'll take a break and maybe things will quiet down. This is only wikipedia and no-one with any sense will change their political opinions based on a wiki. Have fun - and if you really want to, ping me talk page, I'll be back. Thanks. rewinn 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

External commentary link

Can someone explain why this link should remain in external links?

1. Fixing the Fairness Doctrine - A modest technology proposal Writer and Blogger Mike Wallach offers a topical commentary on the Fairness Doctrine.

Thanks. Pgrote (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Fairness Doctrine

An interesting paragraph on what came before the Fairness Doctrine has been temporarily removed so it can be sourced. It should also be more comprehensive - if the purpose is to cover antecedents to the Doctrine. Here's the text:

The Yankee Network was on the receiving end of the FCC’s first major act of censorship. In 1938, Yankee was airing editorials against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The FCC requested that the network provide details about these programs. Yankee got the drift and dropped the editorials. The FCC declared that radio stations, due to their public interest obligations, cannot be editorially devoted to the support of any particular political position. In application, this meant that airing Roosevelt's fireside chat was considered nonpartisan, but broadcasting a critique of his proposed legislation would be unacceptably biased.

I think the above is interesting, but needs work. rewinn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Partisan Use"

OK, so now we got a very non-NPOV section based on a single book ... and a very selective use of that book indeed. When a more balanced treatment of the subject, and multiple sourcing is available, we can settle on some content. Fred Friendly seems to be an expert but it's hard to imagine a more partisan section than the below (which I reproduce in full so the editor's work is not lost. Also please use correct wiki citation when citing to the same work multiple times.:

The fairness doctrine has been used by various liberal administrations to harass political opponents on the radio. Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that "Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." Former Kennedy FCC staffer Martin Firestone wrote a memo to the Democratic National Committee on strategies to combat small rural radio stations unfriendly to Democrats: -

The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule.

- Democratic Party operatives were deeply involved in the Red Lion case since the start of the litigation. Wayne Phillips, a Democratic National Committee staffer, described the aftermath of the ruling, explaining that "Even more important than the free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts”. rewinn (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, tried to write about this and got into an edit conflict with ya. But I wrote the following, FYI:

This section seems very biased to me. What was the content of the right-wing broadcasts that the liberals were so intent on silencing? Given the controversial nature of a lot of right-wing ideas (particularly in past decades and especially during the civil rights era), it seems likely there were heart-felt moral objections to what was being aired, not simply a desire to silence dissenting views. And even if some left-wing politicians were using it dishonorably only to try to silence anyone who disagreed with them, it seems likely both sides would have attempted to use it toward that end.VatoFirme (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Edit conflicts happen ;-) Ya know, I don't doubt that politicians might use stuff like the Fairness Doctrine for political purposes, and it may be that only one political faction did so, but more documentation is necessary before the article makes such an assertion. It's far more plausible (although not necessarily true) that all sides tried to use it, or even that people in power sometimes enforce existing laws because it is their duty. At any rate, a balanced presentation would be noteworthy and interesting. rewinn (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Why reinstate it?

I think added discussion on WHY the various people want to reintroduce it would be helpful. Just the other day Ms. Gaylor over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation said she wanted it because, when it was still in force, she was able to go on radio or TV to counter personal attacks against her and her organization, which she feels no longer happens now that it's gone. Whether you agree with that or not, I'm sure other people are giving their reasons, not just saying "bring it back" and not justifying why.VatoFirme (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would use caution with any matter of "why". Listing arguments can easily veer into argumentation itself. Perhaps an approach would be to list Groups that want to bring it back and Groups that oppose bringing it back and let the reader work out the arguments on their own.

As long as the Groups.... sections have only quotes from a reputable source, preferably from notable persons (a low std but what the hey) then I see no objection. This article is not too long. rewinn (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Book

One or more anonymous editors (it's hard to tell ... why not use a logon?) keeps trying to insert a highly partisan section based on a single source, a book by Fred Friendly. And this keeps getting reverted because it's nakedly partisan. It may well be that the is notable and balanced (I won't say) but the subject matter of that section must be covered in a more NPOV way before it works. Let us talk about it on this "Talk" page. rewinn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Hello. I updated the "Support for Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine" section. Previously, that section had read "Some legislators have expressed support for the Fairness Doctrine, although none have made any motions toward legislating about it." This is somewhat misleading because although no formal legislation has been introduced by House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has indicated very recently that she is intending to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Thus, I put in info regarding this and one of the main reasons for this new movement to reinstate the Doctrine, i.e., the success and domination of talk radio by conservatives. I cite to three sources for this proposition (that Democratic attempts to revive the doctrine is in response to success/domination of conservative talk radio), including a conservative WSJ columnist and Sen. Dianne Feinstein herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LawStudent 4482 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You linked to an editorial. Editorials are not reliable sources. Also, the source does not quote Pelosi, but merely makes a bald assertion. Your use of "many" instead of "some" is unsupported; Pelosi is "one" person not "many". rewinn (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The other links in the "Support" section were also to editorials. I have moved them to "Oppose". Again, editorials can not be used to source assertions of fact; however they may be cited as examples of their own opinions. rewinn (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I probably shouldn't have linked to editorials but those were the only sources I could find that stated the proposition that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats would like to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I have made two revisions. First, I did a new search and was able to find a non-editorial article that states that Ms. Pelosi and the Democratic caucus want to bring back the Doctrine. This reporter, among others, specifically spoke with Ms. Pelosi. Second, I totally understand why you put the stuff about the "successes of conservative talk radio" in the opposition section. However, it is not only conservative editorialists who believe that Democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because of conservative talk radio. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated as much in her interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday (Two quotes: (1) FEINSTEIN: "Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." (2) WALLACE: "So would you revive the fairness doctrine?" FEINSTEIN: "Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."] LawStudent 4482 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, if the only source you have is an editorial, then you don't have a source for anything except the existence of the editorial. Second, your Gizzi citation is very questionable; it is a one-word quote provided by the political editor of a magazine with an obvious interest in making the person whose one word is quoted look bad. Third, your Chris Wallace quote does not support your proposition: Wallace expresses NO opinion on the subject. And note that Feinstein says she's "looking at it" which is not the same as "supporting it". What you need to do is find some document by Feinstein or whomever that says, "Let's bring back the Fairness Doctrine". Lord knows, it's not hard to find press releases from politicians. Why don't you go see if she has a web site? rewinn (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the stuff on this page that claims "liberals" want to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a bunch of right-wing agitprop. This article should be flagged for violating Wikipedia's NPOV. I removed the sections claiming that Barack Obama supported reviving the Fairness Doctrine as it was nothing more than hearsay. If Sen. Obama said so, then it would be a simple matter to just cite the article or speech in which he said so. Stop relying on second-hand innuendo. The Fairness Doctrine Revival is nothing but a lot of malarkey. --MontanaMax (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MontanaMax, I had no choice but to restore the material; it came from a reliable source. Willking1979 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

¶ See the #Wikipedia breakdown or sabotage? section of the talk page below this section. I carefully extracted the exact quotation, rather than User:Rod Sullivan's excerpts, and won't restore the sentence about Obama supporting the Fairness Doctrine in the past without a specific citation. In this particular quotation from Broadcasting & Cable, Obama's campaign is saying there are other ways of restoring balance without restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

¶ Support for restoration of the Fairness Doctrine is more than mere rumor, but there aren't as many examples as some believe (if you actually read the June 2007 Congressional Record debate on Mike Pence's proposed ban on the Fairness Doctrine, his supporters are constantly using the exact same four quotations and semi-quotations. And it should be noted that, contrary to some people's belief, such support for restoration as does exist within the Democratic Congressional caucuses is spread fairly evenly among different ideological currents: Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal, but Ellen Tauscher is far more of a centrist, as is Sen. Jeff Bingaman.)

¶ But as I've said several times on this Talk Page, I'm undecided as to the pro's and con's of restoring the Fairness Doctrine. I've edited and revised both ways, according to my own best interpretation of the evidence offered. Without wanting to sound too sanctimonious or self-justifying, my main bias is for a neutrally-presented record of the soundest material. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Legislation

I spotted the "citation needed" flag and it got me thinking. How do you cite the "lack" of something? I.e. no legislation had been introduced in the 110th congress. So I started doing a little googling to find the 110th congress voted on the fairness doctrine on 2007-06-28 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine). Focus on the Family Action Vote Scorecard states an amendment (H.AMDT. 484) to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2829) strips the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to reinstitute the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would order broadcasters to give equal air time to both sides of controversial issues.Navywings (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certain negative citation's a problem. One solution would be to find an authority who says that "No bills have been introduced" and then cite to that. rewinn (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I may not be thinking hard enough, but the verifiability/citation requirement applies to statements that might be subject to challenge. Since the way to challenge the absence of legislation in any given recent session of the Congress is to offer a counter-example, and the sources are not obscure but relatively ready to hand (The Congressional Record, reports of Congressional committees, keyword searches on the THOMAS [ Library of Congress ] site, C-Span.com, etc.), shouldn't the onus be on those who doubt the absence of legislation? Of course that doesn't apply to all negative assertions everywhere ("There is no X conspiracy" or "No Y have died because of Z") but on the other hand, one should not have to search for a secondary source to claim that "The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series of baseball since 1908" or "No woman has yet been elected President of the United States." Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

agree: In matters of this sort, if a counterexample exists, then it would be far easier to produce it than the other way 'round; and of course a counterexample can spring into existence at almost any time ... after all, some day the Cubs might win a World Series ;-) rewinn (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But back to the substance. While it's tricky to cite the absence of something like attempts to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, there was a positive amendment No. 484 to that appropriations bill H.R. 2829 unearthed above by User:Navywings, forbidding the use of funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The summary at the Library of Congress's THOMAS reads:

H.AMDT.484 to H.R.2829 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees or any other regulations having the same substances.

Sponsor: Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] (introduced 6/28/2007) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 6/28/2007 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Pence amendment (A031) Agreed to by recorded vote: 309 - 115, 1 Present (Roll no. 599).

There was extensive debate on the floor of the House before the roll-call vote (Congressional Record for June 28, 2007, beginning at 14:00, on page H7375). I think this may be what Sen. Coleman brought unsuccessfully to the Senate in July.

I'll check this out so I can insert an appropriate reference to the text. Shakescene (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Communism

I don't doubt that this was put in place due to anti-communist sentiment, but it needs to be cited. There are journal articles foreshadowing the implementation of this policy before 1949, and none of them discuss communism. A search on J-Stor reveals many discussions of these issues years before 1949. Here is one example for reference: Radio Editorials and the Mayflower Doctrine -- Columbia Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 5 (Jul., 1948), pp. 785-793 More over, there is a time line of events provided at the First Amendment Center (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=17491) showing that regulation was increasing, suggesting that the Fairness Doctrine was inevitable. While this article does a pretty good job of explaining the ins and outs of the Fairness Doctrine, it really lacks on empirical evidence. I also fault this article for failing to provide the language of the Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.132.95 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairness Doctrine Is Evil

Don't liberals want free speech? I guess the exception is when it comes to criticizing liberals, then it's not okay to have free speech. Go figure.

• Fairness is evil? It's just not fair! In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes when posting. Thanks. SuMadre (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rasumussen Poll of August 13, 2008

Typo: "An August 13, 2008 poll released by Scott Rasmussen stated that 47% support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for radio and television while 31% favor the Internet."

should say: while 31% support instating it for the internet (note:maybe one could argue the internet was extant while the fair doctrine was also extant - i am not getting into that :)

Otherwise, you are saying 31% of the people like the internet. The wording should be revisited. Regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to make the same correction myself, although I wanted to take a peek at Mr. Rasmussen's poll first. But, really, Mr. Doe, you shouldn't feel shy; Be Bold and just put in those clarifying words yourself. Shakescene (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is moot, because I felt impelled to rewrite the whole sentence into a paragraph that, in my humble and far-from-unchallengeable opinion, better reflects the actual results of the poll. (No offense to the original writer, who provided a sound source for verification.) Shakescene (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted 18 August 2008 conservative critique

I deleted this addition by user:James A. Donald to the "Criticism" section because while well-intentioned it was giving a judgement rather than providing a verifiable example of conservative critiques:

Conservatives often depict the fairness doctrine as the “Hush Rush Rule”. In practice, the FCC idea of what was “fair” could be depicted, and frequently was depicted, as extremist, as moderately in favor of Democrats, but as overwhelmingly and extravagantly in favor of regulation, in favor of state power, and in favor of FCC authority in particular.

I don't believe in applying any Wikipedia rule blindly—and there are times when I don't think it absolutely necessary, although it's nice, to find secondary verification of uncontested statements (e.g., "many people love Jalapeño peppers, but many others find them much too hot")—but this happens to be an extremely contentious issue; and Wikipedia (which speaks for all of us and to everyone) can't say how the FCC's idea of Fairness is depicted or could be depicted without either retrievable (print, video, audio or Internet) examples of such depictions or documentation of what makes such depictions possible "in practice". While I wasn't involved in the back-and-forth that produced them, you can see that the other arguments, pro and con, all have specific references to sources which made such arguments.

This isn't, of course, intended as an attack or a scolding, but just to explain my own reasoning. Shakescene (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia breakdown or sabotage?

Just a temporary glitch: You can ignore my discussion below, because the missing history came back and I was able to restore the exact Broadcasting & Cable quotations from the Obama campaign, instead of the confusing excerpts that were all that User:Willking1979 could work from before. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Two months' worth of editing history has vanished (between August 20 and October 30, 2008). This is distressing to me because I carefully extracted the precise and complete Obama quotation from the source cited, rather than the mixed cited and uncited version to which User:Willking1979 had to revert because my version was no longer available.

I'm going to see what I can do to retrieve, but please don't be alarmed at the interim results; I'm on no crusade, I have not yet made up my own mind about the underlying issues, and just want a balanced, well-grounded article to let everyone (including me) make up his or her own mind from the best information available. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

History

I am doing some research on the Fairness Doctrine and I noticed that the first paragraph in the History section was taken word-for-word from this (pro-fairness doctrine) article: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm. I tried adding quotes and a reference to give credit to the original source but I don't know how to do that on Wikipedia and this is actually my first time editing it. If someone wants to do it properly or fix the first paragraph so it isn't plagiarism, please do! 24.116.39.250 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Viewpoints

This issue is not entirely BLACK OR WHITE. There are many gray areas in respect to the legality of a fairness doctrine. Cable television is a pay service and operates under slightly different rules than free, network television. However, they are both commercial entities. The "free" networks in television and radio make their money indirectly from viewership. Thus, the audience determines what will be shown...and the size of that audience determines how much money the network can charge for advertising. The media is rapidly approaching a point where "free" television is anything but "free." It is all commercial. There is a question whether or not a different set of rules is needed between "free" media and pay media.

Moreover, there is a very real Constitutional debate concerning whether or not a "fairness doctrine" would actually stiffle free speech. This was part of the concern voiced in the most recent Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s and 1990s. Would the reintroduction of such a rule be Constitutional given today's media (and how vastly different it is from a few decades ago)?

This might warrant further development within the article (perhaps under a "Constitutional Questions" section). The greatest opposition to the reintroduction of this doctrine comes from conservative and religious broadcasters. They seem to fear that this doctrine might limit their time on the air...regardless if they are an entirely commercial or nonprofit venture.

Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I wrong to expect more here regarding the FD and talk radio (and it's various personalities) ?

I would have thought that any recent discussion regarding the FD would have at least mentioned various radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, (and others of their type) with regard to their position on the matter (since presumably they all would be specifically impacted by the re-introduction of the FD as it applies to talk-radio).

I'm sure that an unbiased entry into the main article could explain how the reintroduction of the FD would work at the "nuts and bolts" level with regard to radio (or talk radio specifically) and how would such a re-application of the FD would affect (financially or otherwise) certain specific stake-holders (or a general but narrow group of stake holders such as the on-air personalities of talk radio as it currently exists).

It would be illuminating and instructive for future readers of this FD wiki article to learn how various media or broadcasting segments would change or operate differently if the FD was brought back and enforced by the FCC, assuming such an entry could be written without bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem - there is absolutely zero chance that the FD is going to be reinstated. So there are no mainstream publications (see WP:RS) that explain how reintroduction would work, just as there are no mainstream publications that discuss (say) the impact of unicorns on the ecology of Africa, assuming that scientists are able to create a beast that looks like a unicorn.

That may sound odd; what is really needed is a mainstream newspaper article about why Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and similar have spent so much time discussing something that has absolutely no possibility of happening. One possibility is that they've completely misread the political situation. Another is that see advantages in this as a sort of straw man proposal. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The New Republic's article that I've cited, although not from a neutral source, made such an attempt, although in my opinion it tried too hard to explain away too many pro-Doctrine comments. Since what I want here is something reasonably objective, I'm always trying to edit away or edit down or edit back to reality either overstretched or unsourced attributions from the right (e.g. someone trying to twist Obama's summer comments into support for Reinstatement) or liberal attempts to rewrite history. There was support for reinstating the Doctrine, but most of it was the same four comments (repeated over and over again) made about 3-5 years ago. What I'd like to indicate in an unbiased way is that the last Democratic attempts (NY Reps Slaughter's and Hinchey's) to reinstate the doctrine were while the Democrats were out of power in both the 109th Congress and the Bush White House, and thus had no realistic hope of passing their bills, while the Republican attempts to forbid its reintroduction are being made in the 110th Congress and 111th Congress when they're out of power and have no hope of winning passage, although the effort wins them cost-free applause from conservative talk-show hosts and listeners. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Senator Stabenow : "it's absolutely time to pass a standard"

February 05, 2009

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.

Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotation used in the "Support" section of the main page is obviously (e.g. "yesterday") a direct copy-and-paste from somewhere. which needs to be acknowledged. The quotation needs closing and attribution. That's not to say anything about its substance, which seems useful to me. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is a controversial, on-line only source. As such, it is questionable that it qualifies as reliable. If Stabenow really supports something like the Fairness Doctrine, then she presumably will say something similar to a more reputable publication, and then it's acceptable for us to include information about her position, in the Wikipedia article. Or, if she actually files a bill in Congress, then that would be worth including. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that Sen. Stabenow was talking on Bill Press's radio show (rather than WorldNetDaily), and the affiliation to WND was mentioned as an aside and additional identification for WND's own readers, since apparently Press's column appears on the WND site. Bill Press is a liberal and former chairman of the California Democratic Party. WND must show a few alternate viewpoints in addition to its own. I think WorldNetDaily, like the World Socialist Web Site (or for that matter al-Jazeera.net), none of which approximates my own personal views, has good material that just has to be used with caution and is often presented in a non-neutral way. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular need for replacing citations with citation templates?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but is there any particular reason to replace existing citations with new citation templates? I can understand that they may be helpful in making sure that a fresh citation of one's own includes all the necessary items in one of several acceptable orders, but if someone else's citation already looks complete and OK, is there any special reason to bring in all that extra wordage and awkward formatting? I'm just asking since I've never used one myself. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should Wikipedia decide to change its citation format, then it would be changed wherever the template is used. Using a template encourages consistency of style. Copysan (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, leave complete citations alone. There are much better things to spend time on. Yes, templates have advantages - but they take up extra space, and some editors accordingly dislike them. Citation style is a matter of choice, and some editors get (appropriately) irritated when other editors change theirs. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral phrasing in the introduction

Clear liberal bias from the first sentence. "Honest, equitable and balanced"? The obvious conclusion is that the status quo is "dishonest, unequal and unbalanced". Hardly an objective observation. (Pardon me for any Wiki posting offenses.)96.13.6.90 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd put in "(in the Commission's view)" (and I'm certainly no conservative, just trying to keep this article neutral and informative), but it was recently removed, so I just restored it. However, it's not perfect and has a slight bias problem the other way (it suggests that the FCC's view of honesty, equity and balance differ from the real qualities). If someone has a better way of indicating the Doctrine's stated requirements without implying either approval or disapproval, that would be most welcome.

I also wrote "honest, equitable and balanced" when trying to clean up an earlier version of the introduction. Another editor flagged "honest" as unsourced. I think I was using some earlier source, but I can't easily find the FCC's text of the Fairness Doctrine. Any well-intended help much appreciated. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS A REALLY POORLY DONE ARTICLE

THIS IS A REALLY POORLY DONE ARTICLE. ALL IT HAS IS QUOTES. NO EXPLANATION. AND NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS ALL ABOUT!

I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING AT THE TOP OF THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ALERTING READERS THAT THIS ARTICLE "NEEDS CLEAN-UP" OR ONE OF THOSE TYPE OF MESSAGES!

I LEARNED VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE F.D., INCLUDING THE MAIN QUESITON - WHICH IS HOW MUCH AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE F.D. APPLIED TO STATIONS? I KNOW IT IS NOT TIME BASED BUT IS IT OVER THE FULL 24/7/365 PERIOD THAT THEY MUST PRESENT BOTH SIDES OR JUST SUNDAY MORNINGS?

AND NOBODY EVEN EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS HANDLED IN THE PAST? IN THE 70'S AND 80'S WHAT WAS IT LIKE? HOW DID THE STATIONS HANDLE IT? WHEN DID CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO COME ABOUT - ONLY AFTER THIS WENT AWAY? HOW HAVE THE STATIONS KEPT DOING THINGS AFTER THE F.D. WENT AWAY LIKE ON SUNDAY MORNINGS WE SEE AND HEAR LOTS OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMMING?

EXPLAIN SOMETHING!

GOD. WHAT A HORRIBLE ARTICLE!

NO CONTEXT. NO REAL INFORMATION. JUST QUOTES!' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.63.133 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I really have no clue how to use this, but i believe there is some discrepancy of information between what is written in this article about the fcc chairperson at the time, and what was written in other places. this article claims that the chairperson of the fairness doctrine was a person put in place by reagan... which can't be the case because reagan put people in office to abolish the fairness doctrine... "This doctrine was officially introduced in 1981 under the FCC chairman, Mark S. Fowler."

I don't understand how fowler introduced anything about the fairness doctrine. from my research fowler abolished the fairness doctrine.

furthermore, it seems like there are some erroneous statements here scattered about the document. one example is here: "the main agenda for this doctrine was to ensure that the viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints."

now i believe it is an overstatement to say that this was the main agenda. the main agenda seemed to be exactly what it states, which was to prevent broadcast companies from exhibiting systematic bias in their programming. since broadcast companies have to operate in the interests of the public in order to broadcast, they should assume that there are alternative viewpoints to one discussion, and that the broadcaster is responsible for not exhibiting bias in reporting, which is probably a good thing. I don't really have time to share more because I have to write a paper, but I think this article needs some serious work to be up to research standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.29.170 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest contributions by User:Annie birdsong

Annie, please discuss your proposed changes here. They are far out of keeping with Wikipedia articles; we rely heavily on reliable sources, for example, and your additions provide none; we have a general style in which Wikipedia articles are written, and your additions are far from that style. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that Annie's historical comments may (or may not) be appropriate; but Jpgordon's comment is correct - they have to be in wikipedia style. Citation to objective sources is mandatory so people can go check the facts for themselves. If you can provide sourcing perhaps we can work on the wording together. Wikipedia is all about teamwork! rewinn (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228062416/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081026103641/http://www.cnsnews.com:80/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38008 to http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015065201/http://www.commondreams.org:80/views05/0212-03.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing section

When reading through this article, I was a little confused by the "Formal revocation" section stating that the FCC removed the Fairness Doctrine in 2011, when it was stated that FCC had voted to abolish the doctrine in 1987 and the corollary rules were repealed in 2000. I think it should be stated more clearly that while the Doctrine was no longer in effect, it was to officially take it off the books. Schoe043 (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems biased & "pre-arguing" against Reinstating

The article seems biased in that it may be pre-arguing against reinstating the 1940s post-WWII "Hitler-Crippler" Doctrine by transposing modern internet communication back into 1987, a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS. That modern argument runs something like this: With all the privately owned communication venues now available, the public airways may be as biased and one-sided as the private broadcasting company using them so desires. (They don't word it that way, but that's a "logical" equivalence.

Below are a sample of those unsupported statements and implied arguments that need correcting:

• "upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited."
• "a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the fairness doctrine."...seems to be a contradiction of so-called "limited resource" as a reason to remove the regulations.
• "a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. "
• "to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors."

Below, the editorial/POV; "limits" should be replaced with; "requirements" or similar. Furthermore the quote (and questionable history) does not support that POV introductory claim.

The Court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the fairness doctrine's limits unnecessary:

“ We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)"

--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:7077:A52D:CCF6:EF94 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)JustSayin'

"Various reasons" needs describing

At the part under "Revocation" where the article tells how the FCC rejected the list of alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine, the article simply says this was done "for various reasons". This is an important moment in the events of the doctrine's revocation and I believe the FCC's reasons for rejecting the alternatives are a key piece of information necessary to readers' understanding of the overall events.

I have never used Wikipedia's talk pages before (and please forgive me if I'm not using them correctly) but I feel a great need to point out this issue. I would find and list the reasons myself but I unfortunately don't have the time or present mental capacity (I'll just say "medication changes") to do so. Mantha065 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

History

The History section fails to explain why it was revoked.

The "fairness" doctrine was used like a shield. You simply couldn't disagree with anyone in politics because if you did it was a personal attack. perfect example: I was in possession of a video tape of 5 Dallas police officers raping an 8 year old girl. It was filmed by the local news, i think it was nbc. I couldn't talk about it on the air because it was a "personal attack" on the sheriff/police chief in Dallas. Which are elected officials and elected was almost always extended to cover "other" people. Believe it or not it wasn't allowed to press charges on cops, prosecutors, judges or politicians back then either.

All this fairness and not fairness is just cover so the Government doesn't have to hold themselves accountable to the law. They don't want to go to prison when they commit crimes. ie: George Bush, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. None of them.

That is the problem not what we are allowed to talk about. I have seen fairness and supposed allowed unfairness. The problem is when they commit crimes it doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stooggy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of the above unsigned comment.

I think the comment is misinformed but should nevertheless not be deleted without comment.

The Fairness Doctrine did NOT limit what you could say: It only "required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." Even while the fairness doctrine was officially enforced, on some issues like the Vietnam War, the mainstream commercial broadcasters did not "present controversial issues of public importance ... in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced", but they came closer than they have since.

Wilbur Mills, often called "the most powerful man in Washington", was criticized and forced into retirement in 1977, a decade before the Fairness Doctrine was finally revoked.

The civil rights movement in the US depended heavily on the willingness of television stations in the US to broadcast videos criticizing police, and that was decades before the fairness doctrine was repealed. They had to be fair and balanced in their coverage, but they were not prevented from discussing those issues.

Regarding "George Bush, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama", the fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987 when George H. W. Bush was still Vice President, long before Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama became president.

Regarding the "video tape of 5 Dallas police officers raping an 8 year old girl", I don't know when that was, whether it was before or after the fairness doctrine was repealed, but if it was before, I would guess that station merely used the fairness doctrine as an excuse to avoid airing that video: If they had wanted to offend law enforcement at that time, might have aired it, though they would have had to doctor it to avoid prosecution for violating child pornography laws in the United States or more stringent FCC rules on pornography. Certainly, they would not have had to suppress discussion of the issues it raised.

If the poster still has that video, I would encourage them to discuss with others what might be done with it. The George Floyd protests last year prove that the media and other organizations could do something with material like that. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Conservative Talk

The section on Conservative Talk appears new and contains a mixture of opinions and facts, citing op ed and not primary sources. Can this be word smithed to remove bias and present facts, not feelings?

Haleme (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Matthew HaleHaleme (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Limbaugh did NOT invent the term "feminazis", and even if he did, it's neither "divisive" nor "vicious"?

Doesn't Wikipedia have a system that would allow us to access the book cited, Hemmer (2016), without buying it ourselves or getting it from a library, which would exclude many editors? Then we could assess the scholarship behind that book.

Nicole Hemmer (2016). Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-2430-6. OL 27359649M. Wikidata Q105427186..

DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Excalibur26: Why did you delete one of two quotes AND the two citations that are needed to justify the quote you left? The citations, in my judgment, are more important than the exact verbiage. I reverted your edit to retain both quotes and the citations while revising the first sentence in that section to read, 'The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered" divisive and/or vicious'. Thanks for your efforts to improve "the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Friendly, Red Lion, and Fairness

@DarrellWinkler: How can you say "source has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine"?

The section you deleted contained two references:

• Fred W. Friendly (1976). The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, and the First Amendment: Free speech vs. fairness in broadcasting. Random House. ISBN 0-394-49725-2. Wikidata Q111848516.: This book is devoted to the Fairness Doctrine including especially the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC US Supreme Court decision. The reference to ch. 4 may be goofy. The National Council for Civil Responsibility (NCCR)" (actually "Civic" responsibility) is mentioned on pp. 10 and 39-40: P. 10 is in the end of Ch. 1, and pp. 39-40 are in Ch. 3, not 4.
• Richard P. O'Mara (9 May 1995). "Conservative broadcaster draws line on militia talk". The Baltimore Sun. ISSN 1930-8965. Wikidata Q111848645. does NOT mention the Fairness Doctrine by name but does mention the Red Lion Supreme Court decision and describes Red Lion broadcasting as a fountain or arch right wing (unfair) broadcasting.

I've corrected the typo "Civil Responsibility" > "Civic Responsibility" and replaced the references to Friendly with citations to a Wikidata item I created for that book. (I love Wikidata references, because they link to other items in ways that the citations they replace do not. And for web links, they are more easily maintained against link rot: If a link goes bad, fixing it in one place fixes it for every use if the same reference is used in multiple places.)

I deleted, "The NCCR ended its use of the fairness doctrine to harass broadcasters in light of the Nixon Watergate scandal.<ref>Friendly, Fred (1976). ''The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, and the First Amendment''. Random House. pg 41.</ref>, because that seems to be a misstatement of what appears on p. 41: Friendly says the NCCR was created in 1964 and ended in 1969 with the Red Lion Supreme Court decision. On p. 41 Friendly wrote, "Larson, who had long been a target of the radical right, recalls, '... we decided to use the Fairness Doctrine to harass the extreme right. In the light of Watergate, it was wrong.'" I disagree: Using "the Fairness Doctrine to harass the extreme right" -- more generally "using the Fairness Doctrine to harass media outlets that are unfair and fundamentally dishonest -- is what the Fairness Doctrine was designed to do and is VERY different from burglarizing the offices of your political opponents and other blatantly dishonest and criminal practices. However, that's a digression that does not need to appear in an article on the FCC Fairness Doctrine.

I also deleted the reference to O'Mara, because it's not clear how much of what O'Mara described there in 1995 pertains to the earlier period during which the Fairness Doctrine was operating ... and the article is already long enough.

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)