Page 459 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

| Regulat ng the A rwaves: “A Toaster w th P ctures” or a Publ c Serv ce?

Though the Fairness Doctrine typically applied to news and public affairs pro-
gramming, in the 1960s the FCC expanded its reach. For example, in 1962 John
Banzhaf filed a complaint under the Fairness Doctrine against CBS’s New York
stations; Banzhaf had requested airtime to respond to claims made in cigarette
ads. The FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine can apply to advertising and
other forms of programming, a decision affirmed by the U.S. District Court.
Public interest groups in the 1960s and 1970s drew on this expanded defi-
nition of the Fairness Doctrine in their campaigns to diversify the content of
broadcast programming. Specifically, one of the main activist strategies mem-
bers of the public used during this period was to file with the FCC a petition to
deny the license renewal of a local broadcasting station that, according to the
petitioners, had violated its public interest obligations. In their petitions, activ-
ists often pointed to how stations violated the Fairness Doctrine in their news
and entertainment programming, as well as in their choice of advertisements.
One of the priorities of the FCC during the deregulatory climate of the 1980s
was to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. Rather than facilitate discussion over pub-
lic affairs, detractors argued that the Fairness Doctrine had had a “chilling ef-
fect” on broadcasters who had shied away from controversy for fear of Fairness
Doctrine–based complaints to the FCC. In 1987, the FCC rescinded the Fairness
Doctrine. Congress passed a bill that made the Fairness Doctrine law, which
was vetoed by President Reagan.

rEguLaTing DECEnCy, ProTECTing ChiLDrEn

The impact of broadcasting on children has been a consistent concern for
regulators and activists. The FCC and Congress routinely have required broad-
casters to provide programming specifically for children and have worked to
shield children from indecency and violence on the airwaves. Public interest
groups also have targeted children as part of the broadcasting public in particu-
lar need of protection.
In the 1940s, the FCC issued its Public Service Responsibilities of Broadcasters
(also known as the “Blue Book”). The Blue Book pointed to programming for
children as a necessary component of broadcasters’ public interest obligations.
Indeed, when the FCC expanded the license renewal process, it required broad-
casters to document the shows they had provided for children. The continued
importance of children’s programming has been so persistent that, in the midst
of the widespread deregulation of the 1990s, Congress passed the Children’s
Television Act, which required broadcasters to air at least three hours each week
of educational programming for children. It also limited the amount of advertis-
ing during children’s programming.
Children’s advocates have not always been satisfied with the efforts of broad-
casters to serve and protect children. In 1968, concerned mothers formed Ac-
tion for Children’s Television (ACT), an organization committed to reforming
network television to make it more responsible to children. In the early 1970s,
ACT members successfully encouraged the FCC to examine rules regarding
children’s television and to develop a permanent children’s unit as part of the