The Fairness Doctrine actually restricted the outlets that could participate in news-related activities. This was an unintended consequence, not a purpose.

Back “in the day” there were three national networks (now four), and the news radio stations in major cities. That’s it. Period. Nada. That’s how you got your news. And the newspapers.

You can easily see the problem the FD was designed to solve. With such limited options, an outlet bias could be devastating to the free flow of information.

The problem is that it had an unintended consequence, that being to stifle OPINION. Most “opinion” has a bias to it. So, if you put out one opinion, you have to put out the other. That’s OK on paper, again, but more difficult to do in practice. So, the solution was to put out little to no opinion at all.

So, ultimately, after several court cases which weakened and questioned it, the FCC decided not to enforce it starting in 1987, but it remained on the books until it was finally wiped off them by the Obama Admin.

I highly doubt it would pass Court muster in its traditional form it reinstatement were ever attempted. The solution to problems of free speech is more free speech, not less.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.