General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture? [View all]onenote
(42,675 posts)I think the perception of how well the FD worked in the old days is somewhat romanticized. There were some pretty nasty folks on radio back in the day: Joe Pyne, Morton Downey, to name a couple. Plus, the FD allowed stations a considerable amount of leeway in deciding how they would cover "conflicting viewpoints" -- it couldn't be a sham, but at the same time they didn't have to allow all comers to get a say on their stations (otherwise the "conflicting viewpoints' would be so numerous as to create gridlock).
Over its history, the FD wasn't successfully invoked all that often and there is someevidence that it had the effect of causing some stations to shy away from covering controversial issues.
I don't think it would have that effect today (although if it did, maybe we'd go back to having good music stations again!). But assuming that coverage of controversial issues would continue, I suspect that the enfocement would be rather meager -- it was hard enough in the old days to make out an actionable FD complaint.
In the end, I think bringing it back would probably create some new opportunities for progressive viewpoints to get airtime and thus would be a good thing. But realistically, given where the President, the Chairman of the FCC, most of Congress and, I suspect, the courts, are on the FD, I doubt we will see it brought back any time soon. (Even if there was the political will to begin the process of bringing it back, that process will, as previously mentioned, almost certainly take a couple of years).