Selects: How the Fairness Doctrine Worked

Episode of Stuff You Should Know · June 13, 2026 · 53 min

Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant trace the history of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, from early radio regulation to its 1987 abandonment and debated legacy.

Summary

In this rerun of a 2022 Stuff You Should Know episode, introduced by Josh Clark as a "Select," Clark and Chuck Bryant explained the Fairness Doctrine, the 1949 U.S. policy requiring broadcast licensees to cover matters of public interest and air contrasting viewpoints. After plugging live tour dates, they traced the rise of radio from the 1920 KDKA broadcast of the Harding–Cox election results to near-universal household adoption by 1940, and described how the Titanic disaster led to the Radio Act of 1912, followed by the Radio Act of 1927, the Communications Act of 1934, and the 1941 Mayflower decision banning editorializing.

The hosts outlined the doctrine's components, including the personal attack and political editorial rules, and the concept of spectrum scarcity that justified treating broadcasting as a regulated privilege. Clark framed the doctrine as a dividing line between the right, which sees it as curtailing free speech, and the left, which sees it as protecting the public interest. They discussed its weaknesses, including case-by-case enforcement, stations avoiding controversy, false balance, and a 1967 ruling applying it to cigarette advertising.

They covered court cases upholding the doctrine, including Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC and the United Church of Christ challenge that led to WLBT losing its license, then the late-1970s shift illustrated by Harold Gross's WJIM-TV. With spectrum scarcity eroded by the 1980s, the FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in 1987 after Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill to codify it, and it was formally removed in 2011. Bryant argued its repeal contributed to polarization and degraded news standards while acknowledging it may have amplified anti-vaccine and climate denial views; Clark said he believed the current media landscape proved the doctrine's value while acknowledging conservative free-speech objections. The episode ended with a listener email about synesthesia and the colors of the hosts' voices.

Chapters

1:47
Selects introduction and live tour plug
Clark introduces the rerun and the hosts promote upcoming live shows, chiding Chicago for slow ticket sales.
4:42
Podcasts, the FCC, and cursing
The hosts note podcasts fall outside FCC jurisdiction and discuss their choice not to curse on the show.
7:17
The birth of commercial radio
Clark and Bryant describe the anarchic ham radio era, KDKA's 1920 election broadcast, and radio's rapid spread.
11:34
What the Fairness Doctrine was
The hosts define the 1949 doctrine, its public-interest rationale, its left-right ideological divide, and its component rules.
22:30
From the Titanic to the Radio Acts
The Titanic sinking prompted the Radio Act of 1912, followed by the 1927 act that created licensing enforcement and spectrum scarcity.
28:39
The FCC and the Mayflower decision
The Communications Act of 1934 created the FCC, whose 1941 Mayflower ruling banned editorializing before the Fairness Doctrine replaced it.
31:51
Flaws and false balance
The hosts discuss case-by-case enforcement, stations avoiding controversy, false balance, and the doctrine's application to cigarette ads.
36:25
Court victories for the doctrine
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC and the United Church of Christ case affirmed the doctrine and led to WLBT losing its license.
45:39
The tide turns: WJIM and the end of scarcity
Harold Gross's WJIM-TV case and the proliferation of stations undermined the doctrine, leading to its abandonment in 1987.
51:37
Legacy and the hosts' views
Bryant and Clark debate the doctrine's legacy, polarization, echo chambers, the 2011 repeal, and declining trust in news.
58:23
Listener mail: the color of voices
A synesthete listener describes the colors and textures she perceives in the hosts' voices.

Key points

What was said, by whom, with the exact words. Timestamps jump to the moment.

Josh Clark
Clark argues that the doctrine sits at the core of the left-right divide over free speech versus public interest, and that the two positions cannot be reconciled.
“And there's no way to reconcile the two. You can't. You have to choose a side”
Listen from 13:14 · Fairness Doctrine
Josh Clark
Clark contends that the personal attack and political editorial rules were not radical but simply the foundation of good journalism.
“the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule that were part of the Fairness Doctrine, that's just like the foundation of good journalism basically”
Listen from 17:43 · Fairness Doctrine
Josh Clark
Clark describes government regulation of naturally occurring airwaves as an artificial construct.
“It's an artificial idea that the government can say, we regulate these airwaves”
Listen from 22:59 · Spectrum scarcity
Chuck Bryant
Bryant says many people blame the doctrine for helping jumpstart movements like climate denial and anti-vaccine activism by presenting them without scientific context.
“a lot of people point to the fairness doctrine as like how these movements got jumpstarted to begin with because they didn't put those opinions in context”
Listen from 33:09 · False balance
Josh Clark
Clark reports that a 1967 ruling treated cigarette advertising as one side of a controversial issue, allowing anti-smoking groups to demand response time.
“There was a ruling in 1967 that found that cigarette advertising qualified as a presentation of one viewpoint of a controversial subject”
Listen from 34:35 · Fairness Doctrine
Josh Clark
Clark says that, as far as he could find, Lamar Broadcasting was the only company to lose a license under the Fairness Doctrine.
“As far as I could tell, Lamar Broadcasting was the one and only company to lose their license under the Fairness Doctrine”
Listen from 41:01 · Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC
Josh Clark
Clark argues that the end of spectrum scarcity and the unregulated status of print media removed the doctrine's remaining justification.
“spectrum scarcity going away and the fact that the newspaper industry, the print media was not regulated anywhere near the same way, really kind of removed any remaining foundation”
Listen from 49:45 · Spectrum scarcity
Josh Clark
Clark notes that Congress passed a bipartisan bill to codify the doctrine but Ronald Reagan vetoed it, effectively ending it.
“There was a bipartisan-supported bill that got passed in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by Reagan”
Listen from 50:39 · Fairness Doctrine
Chuck Bryant
Bryant argues that abolishing the doctrine opened the door to degraded news standards, underserved minority viewpoints, and polarization.
“You know, getting rid of it basically opened the door for what we have today, which is a degraded new standard, minority viewpoints that aren't necessarily covered”
Listen from 52:03 · Media polarization in the United States
Josh Clark
Clark says the current media landscape proves that a free-for-all market does not deliver good information to the public.
“And I think the current media landscape is just complete proof positive of that, that if you just let it all go free for all”
Listen from 53:35 · Media polarization in the United States
Linked moment · 54:16Skip to 54:16 using a listen link in the info box.
Chuck Bryant
Bryant credits the doctrine with giving a guaranteed platform to minority viewpoints such as the civil rights movement in the mid-20th century.
“without the Fairness Doctrine, we may not have gotten any of these minority viewpoints in the 1940s and 50s and 60s”
Listen from 54:16 · Fairness Doctrine
Josh Clark
Clark notes the doctrine was formally removed in 2011 by the Obama administration's FCC, which he considers symbolically significant.
“It was officially repealed in 2011. And if you'll think back, that was under the Obama administration”
Listen from 55:12 · Fairness Doctrine
Chuck Bryant
Bryant cites a Gallup poll finding Americans believe large shares of news are biased, inaccurate, or misinformation.
“They guessed, let me see, 62% of what they hear is biased, 44% is inaccurate, and 39% is misinformation”
Listen from 56:01 · Media credibility and independent journalism
Josh Clark
Clark says he understands conservatives and libertarians viewing the doctrine as censorship and government overreach.
“Like, ideologically, this is censorship and the prohibition of the exercise of free speech”
Listen from 56:36 · Fairness Doctrine
Josh Clark
Clark argues that requiring broadcasters to show opposing viewpoints alongside their own is nearly impossible to argue against.
“hey, you can say this viewpoint. You also have to show the other viewpoint. To me, that's almost impossible to argue with”
Listen from 57:15 · Fairness Doctrine

People

In the conversation

Josh ClarkCo-host of Stuff You Should Know
Chuck BryantCo-host of Stuff You Should Know

Discussed

Fred J. CookInvestigative journalist whose complaint led to Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
Billy James HargisEvangelist whose broadcast attacked Fred J. Cook
Barry Goldwater1964 Republican presidential candidate criticized in a book by Cook
J. Edgar HooverFBI director
Harold GrossOwner of WJIM-TV in Lansing, Michigan, whose license case signaled a shift against the doctrine
Ronald ReaganFormer US president to whom Pape compared Trump's political skill
Barack ObamaFormer president referenced in comparing 2010 midterm conditions
Warren G. HardingWinner of the 1920 presidential election reported by KDKA
James M. CoxDemocratic candidate in the 1920 presidential election
Jimmy HoffaTeamsters leader said to have intervened for Hughes's hotel stay

Topics

Trump's Explosive Diarrhea of the Mouth
Pod Save America · Jul 17, 2026 · 1 h 26 min
Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer dissect Trump's election-conspiracy prime-time address and administration scandals, then Alex Wagner interviews Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
Selects: 911 Is Not a Joke
Stuff You Should Know · Jun 6, 2026 · 54 min
Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant explain the history, technology, and problems of the U.S. 911 emergency system, from Haleyville, Alabama to Next Generation 911.

From the publisher

Back in the day, broadcasters were bound by law to provide contrasting opinions on political matters. Why? Because of the Fairness Doctrine. What happened to it? Listen to this classic episode and find out. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Summary, chapters and key points were generated from the episode transcript on September 29, 2026. Quotes are checked word for word against the transcript.

Categories: History·Government·Politics