[Shendare]

>The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked.

I (a layperson) don't really follow this. It sounds to me like "while the rules were in effect, they were rarely broken".

>an era when there were only 3 stations. But this situation is different.

Lots of station numbers, run by just a handful of owners:

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-televis...

[gh02t]

OP's point was that Fairness Doctrine was never a hard and fast rule because the FCC was hesitant to actually enforce it due to free speech concerns. Broadcasters were generally willing to cooperate, but they got lots of wiggle room. Plus it was vague and easily sidestepped.

I worry it could do more harm than good nowadays if reinstated. Suddenly anti-vaxxers and people who think climate change is a hoax would have to be given more coverage, for example.

[jlarocco]

> >The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked.

> I (a layperson) don't really follow this. It sounds to me like "while the rules were in effect, they were rarely broken".

It means that the FCC rarely enforced the fairness doctrine unless it was being blatantly abused.

> Lots of station numbers, run by just a handful of owners:

> http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-televis....

The fairness doctrine doesn't make sense any more because anybody with a phone can publish their opinions to a global audience. It made sense at the time because media was centrally controlled and very expensive to produce.