Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked. Attempting to apply it to a situation like this would not be constitutional. The fairness doctrine was found constitutional when it required a rebuttal to a direct personal attack during an era when there were only 3 stations. But this situation is different. It was never applied to a sitation where a network required "must run" content. At best, the fairness doctrine wo…
>The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked. I (a layperson) don't really follow this. It sounds to me like "while the rules were in effect, they were rarely broken". >an era when there were only 3 stations. But this situation is different. Lots of station numbers, run by just a handful of owners: http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-televis...
> I (a layperson) don't really follow this. It sounds to me like "while the rules were in effect, they were rarely broken".
It means that the FCC rarely enforced the fairness doctrine unless it was being blatantly abused.
> Lots of station numbers, run by just a handful of owners:
> http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-televis....
The fairness doctrine doesn't make sense any more because anybody with a phone can publish their opinions to a global audience. It made sense at the time because media was centrally controlled and very expensive to produce.