Zapple doctrine

The Zapple doctrine was part of a specific provision of the fairness doctrine, an FCC policy which required broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints about controversial issues of public importance. The fairness doctrine of 1949 allowed station licensees to editorialize, provided that more than one perspective was included in their overall programming.[1] This was a departure from prior policy under the Mayflower doctrine, which did not allow any editorial content.[2]

The Zapple doctrine pertained to a particular sort of political speech situation, when a candidate or his supporters buy air time to support the candidate, or criticize his opponent, but the candidate himself does not actually appear in the broadcast.

History

The FCC's political broadcasting rules require that equal time be offered to political candidates. The equal-time rule only applied to the candidate, not to the candidate's supporters or spokespeople though.[3]

In May 1970, Senate Commerce Committee counsel Nicholas Zapple argued to the FCC that the fairness doctrine was applicable to air time provided by a broadcast station to a political candidate's spokesperson or supporters. In other words, if one candidate's supporters were allowed to buy air time, then representatives and supporters of opposing candidates should have the opportunity to buy a comparable amount of air time. Similarly, if one candidate was given free coverage by a broadcaster, then that broadcaster should be required to offer free coverage to the opposing candidate too. After careful consideration, the FCC responded to Nicholas Zapple by ruling that all similar parties must have quasi-equal opportunity,[4] i.e. they should be treated similarly.[5] This decision became known as the Zapple ruling, and eventually, the Zapple doctrine.

Under the terms of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, 23 FCC 2d 707 (1970), the Zapple Doctrine applied to purchasing of broadcast time by major political party candidates only.[6]

Demise of the fairness doctrine

By 1985, the FCC was concerned that the fairness doctrine might actually have a chilling effect, which was the very opposite of the policy's original intent of encouraging fair and balanced coverage: "In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues."[7] In addition, journalists felt that it infringed on their rights of free speech/free press under the First Amendment. In August 1985, the FCC decided to suspend the fairness doctrine (it was an FCC policy but not mandated by Congress).[8]

Zapple Doctrine 1985–2014

Although the Fairness Doctrine was suspended, the Zapple doctrine remained extant as an FCC ruling for the next two decades.

Wisconsin election complaint

On May 8, 2014, the FCC was asked to respond to a political programming complaint, made against a broadcast licensee, Capstar TX LLC by supporters of Tom Barrett, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Wisconsin. The Barrett supporters alleged that Capstar would not give them any free airtime on its radio station WISN (AM), in order to respond to statements previously aired on WISN in support of Scott Walker, the Republican candidate for office in the 2012 election. Walker's supporters had received free air time from WISN and affiliate WTMJ (AM) for political campaigning purposes. Barrett supporters based their complaint on WISN's violation of the Zapple doctrine.[9]

The FCC acknowledged that WISN had refused to provide air time to Barrett campaign supporters, in violation of the Zapple doctrine. However, the FCC ruled that there was no violation of the law: "Given the fact that the Zapple Doctrine was based on an interpretation of the fairness doctrine, which has no current legal effect, we conclude that the Zapple Doctrine similarly has no current legal effect."[10][11]

Unenforcable

In re: Capstar TX LLC was the catalyst for the FCC's decision that the Zapple doctrine was unenforcable.[11]

The agency [FCC] tasked with protecting the public interest in broadcasting has decided that WISN and WTMJ, two publicly-licensed radio stations in Milwaukee, were allowed to give away all the free time they wanted to the supporters of one candidate (in this case, Gov. Walker), without allowing supporters of his Democratic recall opponent (Tom Barrett) any free airtime at all.[12]

gollark: I feel much more comfortable with pythonous longterm things.
gollark: It's entirely possible that sensibly done asynchronous python code would be faster.
gollark: I always just use preeeeeexisting HTTP libraries, due to bee.
gollark: I agree.
gollark: Why is this random free email service I selected to experience PURE bee nonfunctional?

References
  1. Anderson, Nate (17 January 2007). "Dennis Kucinich: Bring back the Fairness Doctrine". Ars Technica. Conde Nast. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  2. "Radio: Sinking of the Mayflower". Time. 13 June 1949. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  3. Oxenford, David (8 May 2014). "FCC Decides that it will No Longer Enforce the Zapple Doctrine – Killing the Last Remnant of the Fairness Doctrine". Broadcast Law Blog. Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  4. "Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the United States Congress, Volume 120, Part 17". U.S. Government Printing Office. 15 July 1974. pp. 23222–23223. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  5. "The Law of Political Broadcasting And Cablecasting: A Political Primer" (pdf). www.americanradiohistory.com. Federal Communications Commission. 1980. pp. 86–88. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  6. "In the Matter of The Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards of the Communications Act 36 F.C.C. 2d 40". myweb.uiowa.edu. FCC. 22 June 1972. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  7. Limburg, Val. "Fairness Doctrine". www.museum.tv. The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  8. Brancaccio, David (17 December 2004). "Politics and Economy: What Happened to Fairness?". www.pbs.org. NOW on PBS. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  9. Wilson, Sue (23 May 2012). "Formal Complaint to FCC re WISN and WTMJ". www.mediaactioncenter.net. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  10. Lake, William (8 May 2014). "In re: Capstar TX LLC" (pdf). apps.fcc.gov. FCC. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  11. "FCC Declares "Zapple Doctrine" Unenforceable; Affirms Broadcaster Discretion Regarding Programming Content". WileyonMedia. 8 May 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
  12. Wilson, Sue (15 May 2014). "FCC: No More Equal Time Requirements for Political Campaign Supporters Over Our Public Airwaves". Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.