The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced. The Doctrine was abolished in 1987 which contributed to the massive growth in what has come to be known as talk-radio.

Many are currently calling for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

(The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.)

In Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine. But much has changed since this 1969 decision.

Should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated? If you were on the Court this year, would you up-hold the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine?

Assuming that the Doctrine was reinstated, discuss who could determine what is fair and what objective standards could be applied.

If a radio program had a guest who supported the expansion of civil rights, would the station be forced to provide equal time to the KKK? Why or why not?

Assume that two radio stations exist in a market have identical power and geographical coverage. One station hires mostly conservative hosts while the other hires mostly progressive hosts. The conservative station has ten times the listeners that the progressive station. Should the conservation station be required to provide equal time to the progressives? Why or why not?

Attempt to limit your answers to constitutional considerations rather than political views.