Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

12-1992

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Major

Communication

Major Professor

Sam Swan

Committee Members

Herbert Howard, Faye Julian, Barbara Moore

Abstract

The First Amendment acknowledges the importance of a marketplace of ideas to facilitate the function of government, and guarantees freedom of speech for both the individual and media. Two very different points of view have emerged. One gives the public a right of access to media in order to encourage a multiplicity of views that would not have been available through traditional media structure. The second view is that media is responsible for programming content that would be compromised by citizen access. Broadcasters have had to accept a limited amount of citizen access as a price for licensing by the Federal government.

The Federal government was unprepared to effectively regulate broadcasting and the ineffectiveness of early wireless legislation led to subsequent and authoritative broadcast legislation. The Radio Act of 1912 had not anticipated: 1) the explosive growth of broadcast radio, 2) non continuous transmission reducing the number of stations able to broadcast within available frequencies, and, 3) a service, unlike common carrier, responsible for the messages and content sent to the public.

On air confusion resulted in 1927 when legal decisions ruled that the Secretary of Commerce did not have the power to regulate broadcasting under provisions of the 1912 Radio Act. Several broadcast stations operated beyond the scope of their license by changing frequencies and times of operation.

The Radio Act of 1927 was a reaction to the confusion following the breakdown of the 1912 Radio Act. The scarcity of frequencies became the rationale for the "public interest, convenience, or necessity" standard that originated from provisions of public utility laws. Early regulators also feared the possible monopolization of media. ownership that might exclude divergent viewpoints.

Subsequent court decisions and rulings by the Federal Radio Commission and Federal Communications Commission further refined the definition of "public interest." A logical outgrowth of the public interest standard was the Fairness Doctrine's requirement that broadcasters devote "a reasonable percentage of time to coverage of public issues; and [the] coverage of these issues must be fair in the sense that it provides an opportunity for the presentation of contrasting points of view" (Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of the Handling of Public Issues under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards of the Communications Act, 48 FCC 2d 1, 1974). The Federal Communications Commission took this charge so seriously that they said the Fairness Doctrine was "the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest--the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license" (FCC, 1974, p. 1). However, by 1985 a frustrated FCC issued an inquiry calling for alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine (FCC, 1985). In August 1987 the FCC said the Fairness Doctrine inhibited the presentation of controversial issues of public importance and had a "chilling effect" on the broadcast industry. That is, because of the threat of government interference many broadcasters have decided not to air controversial programs. The Commission's choice was not to enforce the Fairness Doctrine (FCC, 1987, p. 5273).

Several accounts by broadcasters including testimony at several congressional hearings appears to demonstrate that there has been some kind of "chilling effect" on the production of controversial programming among commercial television stations in the United States. Using Tedford's (1985) definition of chilling effect, the effect of the Fairness Doctrine on controversial programming seems to have developed from confusion over the Fairness Doctrine, difficulty in adhering to its requirements and the imposition of unusually severe punishments, such as the loss of a license.

The production and airing of controversial programs is one measure of a station's operation in the public interest, convenience and necessity as required by the Communications Act of 1934. Are television stations now engaging in the robust discussion of controversial issues the Fairness Doctrine was designed to encourage? Using editorials as one measure of that commitment to public affairs, this research surveyed television stations with network affiliation in the United States to measure attitudes toward the Fairness Doctrine and to determine the extent of editorializing by those television stations. This dissertation asks: What are the attitudes of Television station managers towards the Fairness Doctrine and what has happened since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Because they are controversial in nature, editorials are considered an extension of the Fairness Doctrine. Are television stations increasing their coverage of controversial issues, specifically editorials?

For this research a mail survey was conducted among commercial television stations in the United States with network affiliation to determine: 1) management attitudes toward the Fairness Doctrine, and 2) editorializing practices at those stations. Of the 694 stations surveyed, 306 stations responded representing a return rate of 44.1%.

This dissertation found the following: 1) Station managers surveyed are overwhelmingly (77.1%) opposed to the Fairness Doctrine and more than half (57.8%) believe it had a chilling effect on broadcasting. 2) It appears that the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine had a mixed effect on television editorializing. Of the 306 stations surveyed, twenty-three stations (7.5%) began editorializing after July 1, 1987. But only two of those stations did so because the Fairness Doctrine had been lifted. Twenty stations (6.5%) stopped editorializing after the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. Nine stations said budgetary or resource problems caused their editorial policy shift. Only three stations cited external pressures for their termination of editorializing. 3) Although the number is down from previous research, 33% of the television stations surveyed continue to editorialize. 4) Most television stations do not editorialize and the primary reason (40.5%) continues to be budget and resources. This dissertation indicates that there was not a mass effort by broadcasters to begin or cease editorializing after the Fairness Doctrine was set aside by the FCC in 1987. Since the Fairness Doctrine has not been completely abolished, stations may be hesitant to engage in additional controversial programming until the fate of the Fairness Doctrine is determined.

Those stations that did produce editorials tended to be owned by a newspaper or magazine, be a traditional network affiliate (ABC, CBS or NBC), be located in a larger market, operate in the VHF band, and have an aggressive news effort.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS