At this point, only the most hardcore partisan right-wing hacks can say that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 was a good thing that led to increased debate and diversity for the public when actually the opposite is true. Here is a quote from Wikipedia about the repeal:
The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Conference decision in 1987. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.
A solid argument can be made that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has damaged any remaining vestiges of democracy in America and that it has limited debate and the ability of citizens to both inform and be informed. With the overwhelming rise of media consolidation into a handful of corporate entities, our public airwaves no longer serve the public interest. Our airwaves now serve the interests of the shareholders and the shareholders alone, not the public. Stories are not told. Images are not shown. Self-interest rules the day and the pubic is poorer for it.
This entry in Wikipedia also stated:
The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice even after the repeal of the fairness doctrine. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Ok, so why aren't we able to use this to counter the lies, venom and deceit that are being spewed on the airwaves daily? Is this one of those things that is part of the code but is neglected or ignored? If so, we need to see what we can do to make this operative. Of course, the hatred and vile propaganda that is part and parcel of cable news is much harder to fight because they do not use public airwaves. However, that does leave broadcast television and most of AM radio that continually pours out the sewage of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc., etc., etc. Fighting back means that we need to be heard to counteract their constant drumbeat of lies and slander. To do this we must use the tools at our disposal and regain the ones that have been lost.
We must look at the current state of the use of our airwaves and see it for what it is. It is theft, pure and simple. Our airwaves have been stolen from us and are being used against us to pursue a Republican, corporate, fundamentalist, military industrial complex agenda. To restore democracy we must take back the airwaves. The first step in this long process is to reenact the Fairness Doctrine. This should be a prime item in the Democratic platform and an issue in the next campaign.
Finally, for all of you legal scholars out there. What proactive steps can be taken to reenact the Fairness Doctrine and make use of the two corollary rules (the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule)?