fairness doctrine

While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Brookings - Why creating an internet “fairness doctrine” would backfire
• CORE - F.C.C. and the Fairness Doctrine
• The Federalist Society - Fairness Doctrine
• Cato Institute - The Sordid History of the Fairness Doctrine
• The Washington Post - The Fairness Doctrine won’t solve our problems — but it can foster needed debate
• The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law Scholarship Repository - The Fairness Doctrine in Light of Hostile Media Perception
• Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum - Fairness Doctrine
• Indiana University Bloomington - Maurer School of Law - The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem
• Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University - Fairness Doctrine

While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Brookings - Why creating an internet “fairness doctrine” would backfire
• CORE - F.C.C. and the Fairness Doctrine
• The Federalist Society - Fairness Doctrine
• Cato Institute - The Sordid History of the Fairness Doctrine
• The Washington Post - The Fairness Doctrine won’t solve our problems — but it can foster needed debate
• The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law Scholarship Repository - The Fairness Doctrine in Light of Hostile Media Perception
• Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum - Fairness Doctrine
• Indiana University Bloomington - Maurer School of Law - The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem
• Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University - Fairness Doctrine

Matt Stefon was a religion editor at Encyclopaedia Britannica. He earned B.A. degrees in English and American studies from the Pennsylvania State University and an M.A. in religion and literature and an.

Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.

Ask the Chatbot a Question

Ask the Chatbot a Question

fairness doctrine, U.S. communications policy (1949–87) formulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required licensed radio and television broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues of interest to their communities, including by granting equal airtime to opposing candidates for public office.

The origins of the fairness doctrine lay in the Radio Act (1927), which limited radio broadcasting to licensed broadcasters but mandated that the licensees serve the public interest. The Federal Communications Act (1934) supplanted the Radio Act and created the FCC, the chief regulatory body governing the U.S. airwaves, with a mission to “encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.” In 1949 the commission promulgated a report, In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, that interpreted the public interest provisions of the Radio Act and the Communications Act as a mandate to promote “a basic standard of fairness” in broadcasting. Licensees had the duty to devote airtime to fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues that were of interest to their home communities. Individuals who were the subject of editorials or who perceived themselves to be the subject of unfair attacks in news programming were to be granted an opportunity to reply. Also, candidates for public office were entitled to equal airtime.

In 1959 a portion of the fairness doctrine became U.S. law when Congress amended the Communications Act with the doctrine’s mandate of equal airtime for office seekers. The revised law recognized some exceptions to the equal airtime mandate but held that such exceptions did not annul licensees’ obligation to provide equal airtime and balanced coverage of “conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

The fairness doctrine was never without its opponents, however, many of whom perceived the equal airtime requirement as an infringement of the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. In 1969 the doctrine survived a challenge in the Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, in which the court found that the FCC had acted within its jurisdiction in ruling that a Pennsylvania radio station had violated the fairness doctrine by denying response time to a writer who had been characterized in a broadcast as a communist sympathizer.

In 1985, however, the FCC decided that the doctrine had a “chilling effect” upon freedom of speech. At about that time, representatives of cable and satellite television networks challenged the applicability of the doctrine to their industries.

In 1987 the FCC formally repealed the fairness doctrine but maintained both the editorial and personal-attack provisions, which remained in effect until 2000. In addition, until they were finally repealed by the commission in 2011, more than 80 media rules maintained language that implemented the doctrine.