The problem in the late 1920s and 1930s was that the foundations of democracy were being assaulted by those who mistakenly thought democratic systems were too weak to survive the onslaught of fascism.\u00a0 Studies had shown that propaganda can be very effective in a vacuum, but far less effective when more than a single point of view is presented.<\/p>\n
The origins of the Equal Time Rule of 1934 and the Fairness Doctrine\u00a0 of 1949 came out of that scarcity of broadcast information.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n One of the first cases was\u00a0the 1929 <\/span>Great Lakes Broadcasting Co.<\/a> decision. In that case, the Federal Radio Commission\u00a0 said:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and the Commission believes that the principle applies to all discussions of issues of importance to the public.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not only did the FRC require radio broadcast license holders to fairly\u00a0 report the views of others, but also to refrain from expressing their own views. The fairness doctrine grew out of the belief that the limited number of broadcast frequencies available compelled the government to ensure that broadcasters did not use their stations simply as advocates of a single perspective.\u00a0 \u00a0(See First Amendment Encyclopedia<\/a>).\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When the Federal Radio Commission became the Federal Communications Commission in 1934, the “Equal Time Rule” — Section 315\u00a0 — was written into the law.<\/p>\n Father Charles Coughlin, pro-Nazi radio personality<\/p><\/div>\n Father Charles Coughlin\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite a commitment to the principle of fairness and the idea that broadcast stations should ensure multiple points of view,\u00a0 highly partisan debates around religion and politics flourished in the 1930s.\u00a0 The best known American partisan in this era was Father Charles Coughlin<\/a>, a popular pro-Nazi American radio personality. \u00a0With a following of 16 million radio listeners, Coughlin tried to convince people that the Nazis were a logical antidote to communism in Germany.<\/p>\n The American radio program that led to Coughlin’s downfall was his reaction to\u00a0 attacks by Nazis in Germany on Jewish businesses and synagogues. The attacks took place on Nov. 9 and 10th, 1938, and became known as the Kristallnacht<\/a>.\u00a0 Some\u00a0 30,000 Jewish men were imprisoned without cause and kept in concentration camps. Hundreds of synagogues and thousands of businesses were burned to the ground.\u00a0 Global outrage followed, but Coughlin tried to excuse the Nazi atrocities:<\/p>\n \u00a0“Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted.”\u00a0 — Father Charles Coughlin\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n While the FCC wondered how to approach content regulation in hate speech cases, the National Association of Broadcasters changed the code of ethics on July 12, 1939 to bar the sale of airtime for the presentation of controversial issues except in political races. The effect was to take Coughlin and others like him off the air permanently. \u201cThis new rule closed the one loophole that remained in the networks\u2019 and stations\u2019 ability to censor controversial opinion: the dollar loophole,\u201d said historian Michelle Hilmes. \u201cThe ability to pay was no longer [enough] \u2026 In fact, now broadcasters had an obligation to restrict all those outside the broad mainstream of political views\u201d (Hilmes, 2006).<\/p>\n Mayflower Decision\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The networks and the FCC agreed that in the future, no one single speaker would be allowed to have their own hour-long program, but rather, that a variety of speakers would be required on all programs. \u00a0This was reinforced by the FCC\u2019s 1941 \u00a0Mayflower Decision, \u00a0which banned radio broadcasters from taking sides in controversies, especially elections.<\/p>\n Fairness Doctrine\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine<\/a> was formally established to ensure both sides of controversial issues were\u00a0 presented by broadcasters. There were problems with trying to enforce fairness, but the original idea was to simply ensure that audiences were exposed to many points of view.<\/p>\n Billy Joe Hargis, evangelical minister and forerunner of right wing radio, was sued under the Fairness Doctrine for not including author Fred J. Cook in his broadcasts attacking Cook. (Center for Public Secrets)<\/p><\/div><\/dt>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC,<\/a> 1969<\/strong> \u2014 The case involved the right of reply to an attack by “Christian Crusade” radio personality — Billy Joe Hargis<\/a> —\u00a0 on\u00a0 book author Fred J. Cook who wrote about Barry Goldwater and the 1964 presidential campaign. In effect, it was a right-wing radio attack on a left wing book, and the FCC said the author ought to have his say.\u00a0 The court upheld the FCC\u2019s Fairness Doctrine regulations that imposed a requirement for equal time to respond to personal attacks. It also upheld and entrenched the scarcity rationale. It is the right of viewers and listeners, not broadcasters, which is paramount, the court said.\u00a0 In contrast, note the Miami Herald v. Tornillo 1974 case, in which a print medium was not forced to give right of reply.<\/p>\n Friends of the Earth v. FCC 1971 \u2014 \u00a0This\u00a0 case\u00a0 highlighted problems with the\u00a0 Fairness Doctrine.\u00a0 In some areas of controversy, it seemed easy to present alternative points of view.\u00a0 For example, advertising from the tobacco industry\u00a0 was\u00a0 balanced under the Fairness Doctrine by ads urging people to quit smoking.\u00a0 But in other areas of controversy, the Fairness Doctrine didn’t quite work. When Friends of the Earth, an environmental public interest group, sued the FCC under the Fairness Doctrine, wishing to present alternative views about\u00a0 leaded gasoline and gas guzzling cars, the FCC reinterpreted the Fairness Doctrine as not giving a right of reply in cases involving commercial advertising.<\/p>\n FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 1984 \u2014 In a case\u00a0 challenging a law that said public broadcasting stations couldn\u2019t editorialize,\u00a0 the court overturned a content restriction of broadcasters on First Amendment grounds. The case paved the way for abolition of most of Fairness Doctrine.<\/p>\n Syracuse Peace Council,<\/a><\/strong> 1987 — Formally ended the Fairness Doctrine following a set of Reagan-era hearings in 1985<\/a>.<\/p>\n Section 315<\/a>\u00a0 – Equal time & Political advertising\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Father](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/5\/59\/CharlesCouglinCraineDetroitPortrait.jpg\")
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/BlillyJoeHargis-300x248.png\")
<\/a>
\n