Republicans spent 30 years at war with broadcasting's fairness doctrine, but since it was repealed under Obama, the *resident wants it back

After another lonely Friday night at The White House, Donald Trump woke up grouchy and tweet-y today:

The rule was criticized- by Republicans- for the decades as the government trying to substitute its judgment for that of TV and radio station owners. 

Now the Tweeter in Chief wants to restore it to impose his judgment for that of TV and radio station owners.

President Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill to codify the Fairness Doctrine in 1987:

The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." 

"This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment," Reagan said in his veto message. "In any other medium besides broadcasting, such federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable." 

The legislation had been staunchly opposed not only by the Administration, but also by the nation's broadcasters, who maintain that the FCC policy is an unconstitutional intrusion that has a chilling effect on their operations. 

Opponents also contend that the explosive growth of the telecommunications industry in recent years makes the fairness doctrine obsolete. In his veto message, Reagan noted that the FCC has concluded "that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism." 

Former FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler had pressed for repeal of the fairness doctrine and, the June 22 issue of Broadcasting magazine said, helped to write Reagan's veto message.
In 1985 the FCC, under Fowler's leadership, issued a report on the doctrine calling it constitutionally "suspect" and said that "if it were up to the commission, it would hold the doctrine unconstitutional." 

Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, applauded Reagan's action Saturday, declaring that "broadcasters believe in fairness" but that the doctrine is "unconstitutional and an infringement on free speech. It is an intrusion into broadcasters' journalistic judgment." 

In his veto message, Reagan said that, although the legislation may be well-intentioned, he considers it unconstitutional. He said the bill "simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by the Constitution." 

"The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the fairness doctrine, chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms," he said. 

Moreover, he said: "History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee." 

In arguing against the legislation, the nation's broadcasters maintained that the scarcity of broadcast outlets, which initially prompted creation of the fairness doctrine, no longer exists. The broadcasters contend that advances in technology and the expanding number of broadcast stations provide many more opportunities for the presentation of diverse viewpoints. 

Reagan agreed in his veto message, saying it was fair to conclude that "the growth in the number of available media outlets does indeed outweigh whatever justifications may have seemed to exist at the period during which the doctrine was developed."

In a 1993 report, "Why the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair", The conservative, and then-respected, Heritage Foundation declared,

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law. 

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.

Fox News celebrated the rule's repeal by the FCC in 2011:

The Fairness Doctrine and 83 other "outdated and obsolete media-related rules" were tossed Monday into the regulatory dustbin of the Federal Communications Commission, in a move that the agency said helps it achieve the FCC's "reform agenda." 

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that the decision to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine was part of a larger mandate proposed by the Obama administration to ease regulatory burdens by getting rid of duplicative or outdated measures. Genachowski informed Congress in June of the pending action.

"The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead," Genachowski said in a statement on the FCC website.

"The Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free flow of ideas and was properly abandoned over two decades ago. I am pleased we are removing these and other obsolete rules from our books," he added.

The Fairness Doctrine has been in place since 1949 and required licensed broadcasters to share airwaves equally for competing political points of view. At the time of its creation, only 2,881 radio stations existed, compared with roughly 14,000 today.  

The FCC said Monday it has not enforced the doctrine for 20 years and is reflective of rules outdated by technology and greater competition.

Its demise is welcome among Republicans who have argued that the media unfairly lean toward Democratic and liberal perspectives. However, earlier in President Obama's administration, several Democratic lawmakers had discussed bringing it back into force, noting the popularity of conservative talk radio, which they argue falls into the public airwaves. 

One commissioner warned as recently as this month that "localism," a proposal that gives the federal government the ability to make sure broadcasters serve their communities, could be used to wedge in principles of the fairness doctrine even without the regulation on the books.