February 5, 2019

As he dissolved the FCC Fairness Doctrine, Reagan sought to destroy equality in American communications.

America is not to operate according to Lies, Injustice, and the Nazi Way.
Reagan put the US on that path, while waving the national  flag in front of your face.
This doctrine was part of the American Way, after gerrymandering was curbed and until
Reagan became president.  Implementing this doctrine is how to neutralize the propagan-
da being disseminated by the Koch Brothers (heirs of a massive fortune).  Their needs to
be a check and balance on all of the lying propaganda being tossed about by the right wing
and left wing and fear-mongering conspiracy theorists.  It has gotten ridiculous, as of re-
cent.  This included the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq fraud.

Implementing this doctrine can level the playing field that was hideously skewed on ac-
count of the Citizens' United case.

This doctrine is how to stop in his tracks the Marco Rubio who was allowed to lie on
the Fox Network, in telling America that he was against the shutdown, after it failed.

The same doctrine could have shut down Betsy McCaughey's "Death Panel" myth of
1994 that was resumed by Sarah Palin after her loss in the 2008 election, by which the
American electorate let her know that it does NOT want someone as dim-witted and
dishonest as her anywhere near the White House, except for taking tours of it.

The same doctrine would quickly let people know that the "substantive law" (minus
titles and subtitles) in the Affordable Care Act is shorter than Harry Potter and the
Order of the Phoenix

As recently as October 2013, the Red State question was asked

On national television, someone  asked why the poor of the red states vote against their
interests, thereby sabotaging their chance at the American dream.  An answer wasn't
given.  However, words of clear wisdom were spoken, in response.  None the less, the
reason why the working poor and other poor give their vote to those who keep them in
poverty goes as follows:

The undereducated who simply didn't have the money or time or giftedness to attend
college are told that, if the rich don't get richer, the working poor will lose their jobs,
along with their shopping plazas.  These poor individuals don't understand the concept
of Stock Ownership and Corporate Bond Distribution.  They don't understand that any
one corporation is owned by hundreds or thousands of people.  If the FFC Fairness Doc-
trine existed, counterpoint could be spoken on those right wingair waves that suppress
uninterrupted speech and unridiculed speech.  The cultic Koolaid culture of FoxNews
would be as neutralized as caustic acid.

In the 1970s, it was a nightly thing to see Americans exchange point/counterpoint on
even local television stations.  The time reserved for airing the pro and cons of a pre-
vailing issue was usually shortly before prime time and shortly after the 11 O'clock
news.  Depending on the station, such a thing was even aired close to signing-off time.
However, the last thing aired each night was the sermonette.  In the 1970s, television
stations were not 24 hour operations.

The practice of airing point/counterpoint was actually started in 1949.  Known as the
Fairness Doctrine, it was a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission.
Its purpose was to prevent the Big Four networks from holding a monopoly on pub-
lic opinion.

Keep in mind that the year prior was the publication of George Orwell's  1984.  The
Nuremberg trials began the year prior also, and it highlighted the intense repression
of freedom of speech.  Soviet Russia had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1948, and it be-
gan its blockade of West Berlin in the same year.  In 1949, Mao's communist revolu-
tion would reach fruition in October.  So, the U.S. Congress saw that, throughout the
world, freedom remained in jeopardy, despite the destruction of Hitler, Mussolini,
and Tojo in World War II.  Incidentally, in 1949, the Big Four networks were ABC,
CBS, NBC, and DuMont.

Now, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public im-
portance and to do so in a fair manner.   Twenty years later, in 1969, Red Lion Broad-
casting sued the FCC, because of being mandated to give equal time to a gentleman
whose reputation was severely attacked on a Red Lion station.  Red Lion refused to
give equal time to the man defamed, and the case found its way to the United States
Supreme Court.

The ruling of the court was that the FCC had the legal right to require the Fairness
Doctrine to be observed by Red Lion Broadcasting, for the sake of the civil rights
of the viewers.  Radio listeners and TV viewers have the right to hear both sides of
a controversial topic.   In addition, the court noted that there were not very many
broadcast stations at the time.   This meant that the FCC had the duty to prevent
the airwaves from being monopolized.

The Fairness Doctrine was seen as essential for the sake of the viewers.   So, there
was America in the 1960s and 1970s, openly exchanging a balance of opinions on
air, on a nightly basis.  Then came the Ronald Reagan presidency.   In 1987, after a
4-0 vote, the Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

This was anticipated.  So, the U.S. Congress passed the Fairness in Broadcasting
Act, two months prior to the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.  It was all for
naught.  Reagan vetoed it.  He tossed out the door a post-war American institution.

It is neither propaganda nor hype to claim that Reagan despised equality and fair-
ness.  After all, he was living comfortably in Hollywood, while men were dying
and risking their lives by the thousand, all the while not living a comfortable life.
That was not fair.  See:  (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. [1987]).

The importance of the Fairness Doctrine is that a person needs to hear the pros and
the cons of a topic in one sitting, due to the frailty of human memory ... in order to
prevent confusion of mind.  More importantly, the observance of this regulation pre-
vented the complete polarization of America. Today, America is extremely polarized,
in an Us vs Them scenario.  It has gotten to the point, where there has been the emer-
gence of neo-confederatism and talk of a second American civil war.

Ronald Reagan was the president of division.  George WMD Bush adhered to Rea-
ganomics unto the end, bringing to America the greatest economic crisis since the
Great Depression.  Its aftermath is still smouldering.  Occupy Wall Street proved
this to be the case.  Today, due to the policies of Reaganism, America is a house
divided.  A house divided will fall.