In 1987, the long standing Fairness Doctrine, in place since 1949 (around the invention of the new medium of television) was abolished. Prior to this, on matters of "public interest" (i.e. political matters) broadcasters were required to air and provide "contrasting views". Not equal time, just an airing of both sides of the argument. Prior to this, with few exceptions, the demagogues were generally the politicians themselves such as Eugene McCarthy. The news media reported what they said. Editorial journalism was a different animal. But with the end of it in 1987 the demagogues all ended up with their own cable news and talk radio shows. We all have to ask ourselves: has this freedom to not be fair improved our public dialogue?
This one simple rule, contained in the original law, would have a profound impact:
Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to 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 applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
With nothing but attacks being offered day after day, the Limbaugs, Levins, Hannitys, etc..... would now have to (shock!!) give people a chance to defend themselves against slander!!!
If there is a law that could be passed that could change the political discourse in this country, which is generally now about tearing the other side down, the return of this law would certainly offer change, or at least give pause to those who traffic in slander and sensationalism. Their words would once again have consequences.
The return of fairness is necessary for us to have an intelligent conversation about any of the enormously serious issues that we collectively face. Without it, we will all continue to yell at each other. Without it, Roger Ailes will continue to yield more power than any elected official in this country. When you control the debate, you really control it all.