Was The Fairness Doctrine A “Chilling Effect”? Evidence from the Postderegulation Radio Market

The stated rationale for the Fairness Doctrine was to encourage more information to be aired by radio and TV stations, on the theory that private broadcasters would tend to underprovide a public good—news about important social issues. Yet, the danger has been seen, at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of legal studies 1997-01, Vol.26 (1), p.279-301
Main Authors: Hazlett, Thomas W., Sosa, David W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Broadcast regulation
Broadcasting
Broadcasting industry
Deregulation
Entertainment
Fairness
Fairness doctrine
Freedom of speech
News content
Public affairs
Radio
Radio programming
Radio programs
United States Supreme Court doctrines
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The stated rationale for the Fairness Doctrine was to encourage more information to be aired by radio and TV stations, on the theory that private broadcasters would tend to underprovide a public good—news about important social issues. Yet, the danger has been seen, at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Communications Commission, and elsewhere, that there exists a potentially unconstitutional “chilling effect”: the prospect of having to award equal (unpaid) time to dissenting points of view constitutes a tax on controversial speech. In that the Doctrine was abolished in 1987, the radio market now allows us to observe licensees' unregulated choices in selecting the profit‐maximizing quantity of informational programming. Industry data show a clear break in the trend around 1987, when informational formats began rising relative to others—evidence suggesting just the “chilling effect” feared by the Supreme Court.
ISSN:0047-2530
1537-5366
DOI:10.1086/467996