Often but not always true. But ,I really noticed it when it went away. I thought we were worse for it being gone. PBS gave most sides a chance to be heard. Sometimes they win converts. Sometimes they present an idea that gets traction. We have killed that possibility.
Your source is “The Volokh Conspiracy”?
Alright, they supposedly quote from a Fred Friendly book, including this alleged remark (context unknown) from a former Kennedy Administration official:
“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.”
Any indication at all that said broadcasters were “shut down” or even inhibited significantly by Fairness Doctrine challenges (the fact that 1000+ hours of air time was granted to the opposition (covering god knows how many radio stations total) doesn’t sound like an enormous impediment)? Are we to believe that far-right blowhards and other manifestations of free and unfettered views vanished from the airwaves until the days of Blessed Deregulation during the Reagan Administration?
Your original statement (that the Fairness Doctrine “was motivated by partisan politics”) remains undocumented, as the Doctrine took effect in 1949, and the Kennedy Administration didn’t appear on the scene until 1961.
I remain utterly unconvinced that reinstitution of the Doctrine would have any practical impact whatever. Liberals know that if they went after right-wing talk radio hard, left-leaning outlets would face retribution by the armies of the right. It’s just not worth the trouble.
To expand on a point I made earlier, the Fairness Doctrine not only required stations to allow alternative opinions a voice (if not an equal voice), but mandated that stations seek out those voices.
“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.”
This ascertainment procedure was widely viewed by station ownership as a pain in the ass and an unwarranted intrusion into business affairs (stations have always viewed their broadcast licenses as a right, not a privilege). Costs of complying with the law were never as big an issue as that of “freedom” of owners to do what they wanted on public frequencies.
I can remember when network news broadcasts included editorializing (for example, from the likes of Walter Cronkite). This was during the days of the Fairness Doctrine. Editorials eventually vanished from network news, and did not reappear once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. The Doctrine thus cannot be blamed for the lack of editorials on network news shows.
Stifling discussion of controversial issues.
The libs are dying to get it implemented because it will kill conservative talk radio.
How exactly did the Fairness Doctrine do that, when it was in effect?
How would it do that? See post #3.
Because broadcasters don’t like giving away free time or providing platforms for outsiders. They like getting paid for airtime and being in control of what is being broadcast on their station. The result was that they avoided anything that might trigger the Fairness Doctrine.
You mean a Democrat like Obama?
As both mks57 and I noted, rather than trying to provide a balanced discussion of controversial issues, the net effect was for broadcasters to simply avoid discussing controversial issues.