tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24213446.post3183035953457260985..comments2024-03-24T06:12:51.173-05:00Comments on jobsanger: Has Media Been Fair In Presidential Campaign Coverage ?Ted McLaughlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15035498835671628943noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24213446.post-83251466496923967072016-03-27T20:29:10.292-05:002016-03-27T20:29:10.292-05:00Just for clarification of an often-misunderstood p...Just for clarification of an often-misunderstood point, the Fairness Doctrine never required "equal time for all presidential candidates." In fact, it didn't require equal time at all. The Fairness Doctrine in essence required broadcast (radio and TV) stations to cover issues of public interest and to do it in a way that was, as the name indicates, fair.<br /><br />(<a href="http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/11/whats-fair-is-fair.html" rel="nofollow">As a sidebar</a>, the Fairness Doctrine had various forms over the years and not only does the general principle predate 1949, it predates the creation of the FCC.) <br /><br />The Equal Time doctrine was a separate rule. It required that candidates be given equal time in terms of time provided by the station. Some examples to make it clearer: You couldn't do a 10-minute interview with Candidate A without granting other candidates for the same office the same opportunity. You couldn't endorse Candidate A without allowing the other candidates equal time to respond. If you ran an editorial and allowed Candidate A to respond, you had to allow the other candidates to do the same. If you sold commercial time to Candidate A, you had to allow other candidates to purchase the same amount of time with the same conditions. And so on.<br /><br />"Equal time" had nothing to do with news coverage.Lotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com