Last thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine....
Mon Nov 17 00:06:04 EST 2008
At 11:51 PM 11/16/2008, Don A wrote:
>>>For those that have an opinion, how do you think this should have been
>>Very scary example, IMO. Any time someone on a broadcast station
>>attacks an author of a controversial book, the station would have
>>to let the author respond.
Umm, not exactly. These and other durable myths are among the
reasons the right wing fears the Fairness Doctrine, but they
shouldn't. The only time a station would have to let the author
respond is if he or she were slandered. Opinion and commentary and
honest difference of opinion went on all the time under the FD. But
the FCC had a "personally attack rule" and it was the result of a
1966-67 incident where an ulta-extreme right wing preacher called
Fred Cook, a media critic for the Nation magazine, a commie. He
called him other names too-- in addition to a Communist, he said
Cook was a traitor and anti-Christian and un-American (sound
familiar? Sama rhetoric could be heard today on many rightie talk
shows); this got Fred's knickers in a twist and he demanded time to
defend himself. Preacher said no, I won't. FCC said yes, you have
to. And thus was born the Personal Attack rule.
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest