FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PODCAST

The Fairness Doctrine, established in 1949 by the FCC, required broadcasters to present all views and avoid biases in news reporting. It was removed in 1987, leading to debates on media biases. In an interview, Kate Connolly discusses how cancel culture now acts as a form of the Fairness Doctrine, holding content creators accountable for their statements. She believes content creators should be cautious about spreading false information, especially regarding topics like COVID, where legal action may be necessary. They also discuss the changing media landscape and the impact of cancel culture. Hi everyone, I'm Madeline, and welcome back to The Madeline Show. We have a really interesting topic today talking about the Fairness Doctrine and how it relates to content creators, news, and the media today. If you're unfamiliar with what the Fairness Doctrine is, it was created in 1949 by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which was essentially rules that made broadcasters have to represent all views on media and important issues to help avoid biases and unfair reporting, and to basically represent all views on news and important issues. However, the FCC removed this rule in 1987, sparking debates on whether the media should show all points or if it was unfair to show biases. Different parts that the FCC said about in the Fairness Doctrine was they wanted to devote a reasonable portion of a broadcast time in the discussion and consideration of controversial issues to public importance, according to the Journal of Current Issues, Crimes, Law, and Law Enforcement. Today, we're going to interview Kate Connolly and understand her opinion on the Fairness Doctrine and how it relates to content creators today. Hi, Kate. Hi, thank you so much for having me. Yeah, of course. So how do you feel about the Fairness Doctrine and its removal in terms of news and media and content creators? Yeah, so I think that it's super interesting to learn about because, you know, there's a fine line in the media today. I think that, especially with cancel culture, I think that that almost acts as a Fairness Doctrine because, you know, creators can't really come out and say these crazy, crazy things that maybe the Fairness Doctrine prevented without experiencing repercussions from the public. You know, there's so many more ways for people to express their responses, I guess, such as Twitter and Instagram and TikTok. There are so many ways for people to respond to what, you know, certain creators who are coming on these podcasts or shows or radio shows or anything and saying. So I think that that's really interesting to think about and, yeah. That's super interesting. I totally agree, too. And I think the Fairness Doctrine should be seen in a completely different way with content creators because I feel like with social media now, there are thousands of different content creators for thousands of different topics. And while there are definitely a segment of content creators that produce their media on current events and topics, I feel like most content creators aren't necessarily talking about news and politics and don't necessarily have to show all sides of a topic if it has nothing to do with current events or anything like that. However, I think there should be something said about if a content creator is talking about hypothetically, say, a couple of years ago with COVID and they were maybe spreading false information, then maybe that is a time when legal action or the social media platform itself should come in and allow or not allow something when it is putting people in harm's way. If there was false information on masks or vaccines, that was creating a controversy in that kind of way. That's so true because I think there's a difference between, you know, freedom of speech and being able to express your opinions and also spreading misinformation. So I think that censorship is really important when it comes to, you know, these mass audiences and speaking to these mass audiences. I think, like what you said, I think that the fairness doctrine was a little bit extreme. And so it's really cool to learn about that and learn about that era of radio. But I do agree. I think that there should be legal action slash repercussions. That there needs to be, you know, a certain point to where the social media platform comes in and takes accountability. Yeah, that's super true. And I think it's interesting to talk about cancel culture because when the fairness doctrine was a thing in between 1949 and 1987, there was no cancel culture. There were no real platforms except for, I feel like, word of mouth and newspapers that people could be stating their opinions so publicly. So I think it's super interesting where now our media and our conversations over media are completely different than the way it was when the fairness doctrine was established. Totally. I so agree. Yeah, I think that that's, you know, the changing of the times. It hasn't even been, you know, that long, around, you know, 50, 60 years since the fairness doctrine was removed. So I think it's just very interesting to kind of weigh the times now versus the times then. Well, thank you so much, Kate, for joining us. This was a super interesting topic about looking at the fairness doctrine in regards to media, especially now with so many content creators on so many different social media apps and how cancel culture weighs into how people perceive media, for sure. Yeah, it's so interesting, and I'm really grateful that you gave me the opportunity to talk about this and have this conversation. Yeah. Thanks, everyone, for tuning in, and I'm so excited to talk to you again next week.