The Impact of the Removal of the Fairness Doctrine

The removal of the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s is a significant event in the history of American broadcast media. However, its importance and impact have often been overstated by contemporary discourse. The Fairness Doctrine only applied to over-the-air broadcast stations, specifically TV and radio, and did not affect other media such as newspapers, magazines, cable TV, or the Internet. This article seeks to clarify the actual impact of the Fairness Doctrine and explore its aftermath.

What Was the Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation that required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on significant public issues and to do so with fairness, objectivity, and balance. However, it never mandated “equal time” for opposing viewpoints. The regulation did not prevent conservative talk show hosts like Joe Pyne and Paul Harvey from being broadcast on many stations; instead, it mandated a diversified range of opinions on issues of public interest.

How the Fairness Doctrine Functioned in Practice

In practice, most stations met the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine with a brief segment of public affairs programming. This was often a poorly produced show airing at 7 am on Sundays, featuring individuals who considered appearing on TV or radio a significant achievement. The Fairness Doctrine did not require a substantial amount of programming time dedicated to controversial public interest matters. The term "controversial matters of public interest" and "a variety of points of view" were not clearly defined, leading to varying interpretations and practices among broadcasters.

The Role of Ownership Concentration in Broadcast Media

Ownership concentration rules significantly influenced the landscape of broadcast media prior to the 1980s. Broadcasters were required to negotiate with multiple local ownership groups to air their programming on a national scale. However, the elimination of these rules changed the dynamics of broadcast media. With fewer barriers to national distribution, large broadcasting conglomerates such as Cumulus and I Heart Media were able to negotiate deals that allowed their programming to be broadcast across the country. This shift has resulted in a decrease in local relevance and an increase in the representation of national interests at the expense of local issues.

The Historical Significance of the Removal of the Fairness Doctrine

The removal of the Fairness Doctrine had a profound impact on broadcast media, particularly on talk radio. After its repeal, talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh were given the freedom to practice their brand of conservative evangelicalism without the burden of balancing opposing viewpoints. This led to a proliferation of conservative radio programs, with hosts like Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin leading the way.

While liberal leftist talk show hosts were free to air their opinions, they have not been as successful in popularizing their viewpoints. This suggests that there is a demand in media for a balanced perspective, even if the left-leaning media has historically held the majority. In a sense, since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, talk radio has offered the public a counterbalance that the original Fairness Doctrine aimed to provide.

In conclusion, the removal of the Fairness Doctrine was more significant due to the significant changes it brought to broadcast media, particularly in the proliferation of conservative talk radio hosts. This shift has allowed a broader range of viewpoints to be expressed, though it has also contributed to a more polarized political landscape in the United States.