This sadly was the law back during the Fairness Doctrine. That made it by law you had to report both sides to a subject with fairness and no bias. Reagan's administration revoked the act.
Replies
That is extremely not true. The FD never applied to news reporting. It applied only to editorial content. It required that broadcast tv & radio stations allocate some time to discussion of issues of public interest and, in so doing, offer varying points of view. By definition, varying points of view
aug 26, 2025, 10:35 pm • 2 0 • view
are biased. It was never an act (statute, enacted by Congress). It was an FCC policy. Here it is, in case you want to read it: www.fcc.gov/document/edi...
aug 26, 2025, 10:35 pm • 3 0 • view
Thank you, I was always told it was a law/rule.
aug 27, 2025, 4:26 am • 0 0 • view
It was never a law enacted by Congress. And only part of it was ever made into a formal regulation.
aug 27, 2025, 9:44 am • 1 0 • view
That's not what the Fairness Doctrine did. The FD never applied to "reporting both sides". It simply mandated that broadcasters to "present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints." That's it. That's all the FD did
aug 26, 2025, 2:52 pm • 5 0 • view
FD also included the “personal attack rule” and the "political editorial rule”. The FD was for public safety in broadcasting. Its repeal immediately led to conservative radio and Rush Limbaugh. And then Fox News. So much for public safety as its repeal helped lead to the fascism we now face.
aug 26, 2025, 3:11 pm • 7 0 • view
Rush was on the air during it and Fox News is a cable channel. 🤦🏻♀️
aug 26, 2025, 3:17 pm • 2 0 • view
Repealing the Doctrine changed nothing. Even if the Doctrine were still in effect TODAY, Limbaugh and FOX News would still exist (well, not Limbaugh now...). Cable channels were not subject to the Fairness Doctrine nor were syndicated programs.
aug 26, 2025, 3:17 pm • 6 0 • view
Glad Limbaugh is worm food. The world is infinitely better with him gone.
aug 27, 2025, 4:23 pm • 1 0 • view
But they should be. Repealing the FD absolutely changed things and it helped lead the way, like many Reagan policies, to allow the wealthy control over messaging and propaganda.
aug 26, 2025, 3:19 pm • 5 0 • view
They cannot be. You are extremely confused about what that policy was. Propaganda is protected speech. What you want is to shred 1A. You sound like DJT. Gross.
aug 26, 2025, 3:52 pm • 4 0 • view
the Fairness Doctrine never applied to NEWS in the first place. Such a mandate would have violated the First Amendment. I'm curious though - if the Fairness Doctrine HAD stayed in place, what is it exactly that you think it would do??
aug 26, 2025, 6:10 pm • 3 0 • view
It applied to any controversial issues broadcasted — and that certainly included news. But FD, though antiquated, was a basis for attempting to ensure public safety. Reagan and the GOP push corps over people. Greed. So as we see propaganda leading us to hell, when do we protect citizens again?
aug 26, 2025, 7:06 pm • 2 0 • view
No, it did not. It applied only to editorial content. In case you want to read it, here it is: www.fcc.gov/document/edi...
aug 28, 2025, 1:58 pm • 0 0 • view
Funny and Related.. back from #JibJab was funny.. and 17yrs ago..
aug 27, 2025, 4:25 am • 1 0 • view
Ha! Never saw that before! Still relevant for sure.
aug 27, 2025, 1:49 pm • 1 0 • view
As I said, regulating NEWS would have violated the First Amendment. The word "NEWS" is no where to be found in the text of the Fairness Doctrine. Not every broadcaster does NEWS to begin with
aug 27, 2025, 2:33 pm • 1 0 • view
Where in the Fairness Doctrine did it exclude NEWS? It applied to controversial issues in news segments. The demise of the Fairness Doctrine absolutely gave rise to conservative right wing hate speech and conspiracies. Its intent needs to be revived as we’ve witnessed the impact of propaganda.
aug 27, 2025, 3:20 pm • 0 0 • view
I just posted a link to the actual document. It is actually titled "Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees." www.fcc.gov/document/edi...
aug 28, 2025, 1:58 pm • 0 0 • view
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
aug 27, 2025, 3:38 pm • 1 0 • view
The text of the Doctrine says it requires broadcasters to "both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints". It never says the word "NEWS" and AGAIN, such a mandate would VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
aug 27, 2025, 4:20 pm • 1 0 • view
It's hysterical that you think NEWS is excluded because it's not the only specific designation. Any controversial issue of public importance..." included news segments.
aug 27, 2025, 7:48 pm • 0 0 • view