Selects: How the Fairness Doctrine Worked

Summary

Stuff You Should Know: Selects - How the Fairness Doctrine Worked

Hosts: Josh Clark & Charles W. “Chuck” Bryant
Date: June 13, 2026 (original content from 2022)
Podcast: iHeartRadio

---

Episode Overview

In this "Selects" episode, Josh and Chuck take a deep dive into the Fairness Doctrine—an influential and controversial regulation in U.S. broadcast history. They unpack its legal and cultural origins, the broad societal debates it triggered about free speech and public interest, the role it played in journalism, and how its eventual abolition reshaped the American media landscape. Josh’s distinct passion for the topic is front and center, with Chuck providing context, questions, and wry interjections.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Introduction: Why the Fairness Doctrine?

• Context: Josh re-introduces the 2022 episode because of renewed contemporary interest in the Fairness Doctrine.

  “It's been coming up all over the place lately, so I thought it was high time that we released it as a select.” (01:35, Josh Clark)

• The hosts joke about live show ticket sales and segue into the relevance of broadcasting regulation.

What is the Fairness Doctrine?

• Core Definition: Introduced formally in 1949, it mandated that radio and TV broadcasters must:
  • Cover issues of public importance
  • Present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues

    “The overall goal was…to make sure that all the information on the radio waves was good information and true and fair and enriching.” (12:09, Chuck Bryant)

• The rationale was “frequency scarcity”—a limited number of broadcasting licenses meant public interest had to come first.

  “Public interests outweigh private interests and the public has a right to really good information, over the free speech of the broadcaster even.” (12:49, Chuck Bryant)

Ideological Divide

• Left vs. Right:
  • Liberals/progressives viewed it as a public service obligation
  • Conservatives/libertarians saw it as government censorship infringing on First Amendment rights

    “This idea, the Fairness Doctrine, sits right at the heart of the difference between the right and the left...” (13:02, Josh Clark)

Mechanics and Rules

• Main Components:
  • Fairness Rule
  • Personal Attack Rule: Must notify and offer reply time to those criticized on air.
  • Political Editorial Rule: Must offer rebuttal time to other candidates if one is endorsed.
  • Not to be confused with the Equal Time Rule (for campaign airtime).
• Practicality Problem: Much of the Doctrine was enforced only if complaints were filed, making it "capricious and arbitrary".

  “It was also a weakness because…the FCC [said], ‘We’ll leave it to you, the broadcasters, to police yourselves.’” (29:59, Josh Clark)

History & Legal Foundations

The Titanic & Early Regulation

• Origin Story: The Titanic disaster (1912) exposed the need for orderly radio communication, leading to the Radio Act of 1912 and frequency allocation.
• Radio Act of 1927 & FCC Formation: Spectrum scarcity was formalized; the federal government began licensing and policing broadcasters.

The Mayflower Doctrine & Editorial Neutrality (1941)

• Mayflower Decision: Forbade broadcasters from editorializing altogether.
• Shift to Fairness: Later, the Fairness Doctrine allowed editorializing, with the requirement for airing opposing viewpoints.

Legal Landmarks

• Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969): Supreme Court ruled the Fairness Doctrine’s enforcement was constitutional.

  “The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC applying this Fairness Doctrine was good and fine and constitutional, which is a big deal.” (36:02, Josh Clark)

• Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC (1966–69): Citizen standing to petition for the revocation of a broadcaster's license was affirmed; ultimately, Jackson, MS’s WLBT lost its license (transferred to a majority Black ownership group)—the Doctrine at its activist best.

False Balance & Flaws

• Problems Emerged: Ill-defined terms led to “false balance,” where scientifically unsupported viewpoints gained equal airtime.

  “[It] opened the door for opposing viewpoints…on equal footing with scientific ones, which created what's called the false balance problem.” (31:09, Josh Clark)

• The Doctrine even applied to advertising (e.g., cigarette commercials), creating headaches for stations and sponsors.

Decline and Fall

• Technological Change: By the 1980s, “spectrum scarcity” was eroded by cable/satellite proliferation—eroding the doctrine’s foundational argument.

  “By the mid-1980s, there were more than 10,000 radio stations, 1,300 TV stations, about 1,700 newspapers...” (44:09, Chuck Bryant)

• Regulatory Change: A bipartisan congressional effort failed to codify the doctrine (vetoed by Reagan). The FCC stopped enforcing it in 1987; by 2011, it was purged from regulations.

The Modern Media Landscape

• Consequences of Repeal: The end of the Fairness Doctrine led to the rise of partisan, opinion-driven talk radio and news, fostering media echo chambers and polarization.

  “Getting rid of it basically opened the door for what we have today, which is a degraded news standard, minority viewpoints that aren’t necessarily covered, and how polarized we are.” (47:12, Chuck Bryant)

• Silver Lining: The doctrine allowed civil rights, women’s rights, and public health movements to get airtime in the mid-20th century, but flaws also amplified anti-scientific fringe views.
• Current State: Public trust in the news is historically low.

  “A Gallup poll…found Americans don’t trust the news. They guessed…62% of what they hear is biased, 44% is inaccurate, and 39% is misinformation.” (51:25, Chuck Bryant)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• The Crux of the Debate:

  "This idea, the Fairness Doctrine, sits right at the heart of the difference between the right and the left, between conservatism and libertarianism and liberalism." (13:02, Josh Clark)

• On False Equivalence:

  “It opened the door for opposing viewpoints that put them on equal footing or equal ground with other viewpoints that were, say, scientifically backed, which created what's called the false balance problem.” (31:09, Josh Clark)

• On Repeal Context:

  “It was officially repealed in 2011. And if you'll think back, that was under the Obama administration. So the Obama administration’s FCC was the one that officially took the Fairness Doctrine off of the books…” (50:35, Josh Clark)

• On Today’s Media:

  “You end up with what we have, that this is what the market offers us: Echo chambers, polarization, and a huge division in the country…” (49:24, Josh Clark)

• Poignant Summation:

  “If you want to know more about the Fairness Doctrine, just go outside, see how you like things.” (53:36, Josh Clark)

---

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Event | |-----------|---------------| | 01:35 | Josh introduces the episode and Fairness Doctrine’s renewed relevance | | 11:22 | Radio's rise and the context for needing regulation | | 12:09 | Definition/Goals of the Fairness Doctrine | | 13:02 | The central right/left political split on the issue | | 16:05 | Breakdown of the key rules (personal attack, political editorial, equal time) | | 21:12 | Backstory of regulation: The Titanic & radio chaos | | 29:33 | Mayflower Doctrine and shift to Fairness Doctrine | | 34:40 | Landmark case: Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC | | 37:17 | Landmark case: United Church of Christ et al. v. FCC—civil rights struggle | | 44:09 | 1980s explosion of media and scrutiny of “spectrum scarcity” | | 46:02 | FCC moves to repeal the doctrine; Congress tries to intervene | | 47:12 | Discussion on the Fairness Doctrine’s legacy and impact on polarization | | 51:25 | Modern poll results reveal dire public opinion about news media | | 53:36 | Final thoughts and contemporary relevance |

---

Tone & Style

• Conversational, Wry, and Analytical:
  True to “Stuff You Should Know,” Josh and Chuck balance explanation with humor—riffing on historical trivia, reflecting on their own media habits, and frequently pausing for side jokes before returning to the issues. Josh’s passion for the doctrine’s legacy is palpable and Chuck provides an accessible counterbalance.

---

Further Reflection

The episode is a nuanced look at how a mid-20th century rule bore out enormous consequences for American democracy, journalism, and free speech debates. The hosts encourage listeners to connect the Fairness Doctrine’s history to the polarized, divided media terrain of today—suggesting that no regulatory solution is perfect, but some past structures at least tried to bridge widening divides.

Listeners finish with a deeper appreciation for why media regulation remains a recurring debate—no less relevant amid our fractious, fragmented information landscape.

---

For more in-depth reflection:

• Listen to the full episode or research case law like Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC
• Consider contemporary regulatory proposals for misinformation/algorithmic bias in social media—a new twist on old debates

---

Transcript

[Josh Clark]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.

[Podcast Announcer]

I turned off news altogether.

[Chuck Bryant]

I hate to say it, but I

[Josh Clark]

don't trust much of anything. It's the rage bait. It feels like it's trying to divide people.

[Chuck Bryant]

We got clear facts.

[Josh Clark]

Maybe we could calm down a little.

[NBC News Announcer]

NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the Facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News reporting for America.

[HomeServe Advertiser]

A burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? Homeserve is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal price void in Florida.

[Chase Sapphire Advertiser]

When you own your own business, you need to keep things moving. Need to book a last minute flight? Earn a $300 travel credit to cover that. Need to take a meeting before takeoff? Do it from the comfort of the Chase Sapphire lounge by the club. Need to catch your breath before you board? Done. Chase Sapphire, reserved for business. The business card that gives back all you put in. Visit chase.com ReserveBusiness to learn more. Cards issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank. Any member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply.

[Josh Clark]

Hey, guys, it's me, Josh. And for this week's episode, I've chosen our 2022 episode on the Fairness Doctrine. It's been coming up all over the place lately, so I thought it was high time that we released it as a select. And I went back and listened to this one and I found that Chuck just kind of sat back and really just let me go. And I really appreciate him for that because this one really got my goat. Enjoy.

[Podcast Announcer]

Welcome to Stuff youf Should Know, a production of iHeartradio.

[Josh Clark]

Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark, and there's Charles W. Chuck Bryant, and there's Jaredog, the Roland of all time over there. And this is stuff you should know. Wow. I gotta pep it up a little bit, you know?

[Chuck Bryant]

Is that what that was?

[Josh Clark]

Oh, you gotta screw it up a little bit. That's what I meant to say.

[Chuck Bryant]

Speaking of screwing up, Chicago, Illinois is screwing up.

[Josh Clark]

It is. I was. I was trying to think about this, like, which approach should we take? Should we. Should we just outright lie and say, like, there's very few tickets left, so you better go get them Now, No. Or should we shame them and say there are plenty of tickets left. A disappointing amount of tickets left.

[Chuck Bryant]

I think we should just be honest and not shame them, but express our disappointment. Nothing works better than disappointment.

[Josh Clark]

You know, Chicago, we really expected a little more from you than this.

[Chuck Bryant]

So if you're confused about what we're talking about, probably because you haven't heard and that's our fault about our live shows coming up all around the country to cities we've never been to before.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, yeah. We've never been to Orlando before. We've never been to Portland, Maine before.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. But we are going to Chicago again because we thought Chicago loved us. On July 24th at the Harris Theater. And then Toronto the next night on July 25th. They're buying a lot of tickets. They love us up there.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah. At the day and fourth.

[Chuck Bryant]

And then Boston, August 29th. Portland, Maine, August 30th. Orlando and New Orleans, October 9th and 10th. And then Brooklyn the 23rd through the

[Josh Clark]

25th of October, three night run at the Bell House in Brooklyn, which is gonna be great. That's right. But again, Toronto, you're doing great, guys. Keep it up. Chicago, you could stand to step it up a little bit. You got a little bit of time, but why wait, you know? Yeah.

[Chuck Bryant]

I mean, the seats are only gonna get worse.

[Josh Clark]

True dat, Chuck. True dat.

[Chuck Bryant]

So just go to Sysklive for our home, our touring home on the web, thanks to our buddies at Squarespace.

[Josh Clark]

Oh, yeah.

[Chuck Bryant]

And now let's talk about the Fairness Doctrine.

[Josh Clark]

Okay, we actually need to. If this were, say, pre1987, we would need to have Jerry come in and say, so here's all the reasons why you shouldn't buy tickets to stuff you should know live. If we were going to follow the Fairness Doctrine, but it's not 1987. And as a matter of fact, I wonder how podcasting would. How this would apply or have applied to podcasting if it had still been around, or if podcasting would have been one of those things that kind of grew up around the Fairness Doctrine. Who knows? But it's a fascinating. What are those called? When. Sure, there's another word for it, when it's something that just can't possibly happen. Kind of like speculative fiction or something like that. I can't remember.

[Chuck Bryant]

But, you know, since podcasts don't fall under the fcc, then I doubt if it would have mattered.

[Josh Clark]

Oh, yeah, I guess that's true, huh?

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, we could, if we wanted to right now. We could say every Curse word. Every awful thing in the world under the sun. We elect not to do that. Everyone.

[Josh Clark]

I heard a radio DJ the other day say, I know you want to curse so bad right now. This is why we're getting a podcast. And I was like, yeah, I guess we could. I guess we could curse. But I like that we don't. Chuck.

[Chuck Bryant]

I do, too. And if you want to hear me curse, just A, you can come to a live show.

[Josh Clark]

True, true. Yeah.

[Chuck Bryant]

Because that happens a little bit. Or B, you can just join me over at Movie Crush. I cuss a lot over there.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, I think at first people were like. And then now I think people go listen in part to hear you curse. They like to hear that blue streak

[Chuck Bryant]

coming out of that real me.

[Josh Clark]

Oh, I like to think that both sides are the real you.

[Chuck Bryant]

Put together well for roughly two and a half hours a week. This is the real me.

[Josh Clark]

Do you find it difficult not to curse on the show?

[Chuck Bryant]

No, I mean, I'm fully used to it by now.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, same.

[Chuck Bryant]

But I definitely am not as fully freewheeling as I normally am.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, I guess I should say. I don't want to give the impression that I'm like some Flanders type or whatever. I curse pretty routinely myself in regular life. But I guess I find it kind of comforting just knowing that there's a safe space where I don't say the F word a lot.

[Chuck Bryant]

You should start another podcast just called Filth Florin Filth with Josh Clark.

[Josh Clark]

Okay, that's a pretty good idea.

[Chuck Bryant]

But none of this has to do with the 1920s, except for the fact that people did not curse on the radio back then either. Because there weren't a lot of people on the radio in the 1920s.

[Josh Clark]

No, actually, pre or early.

[Chuck Bryant]

Early, early 1920s, that is.

[Josh Clark]

Right. Pre November 1920, there was not much going on on the radio aside from Morse code. Some ham radio operators. And remember, we did a pretty good episode on ham radio. Let us hear if I remember correctly. Yeah. But one of the things I remember about that ham radio episode is that there was a kind of a whole hacker anarchic ethos surrounding the early days of radio. You know, it's just a total free for all. You could broadcast on whatever station you wanted to and get in arguments with, you know, the government, if you wanted to, who cared. There was not a lot of ways to trace anybody. So there was a lot of anything goes mentality among the early ham radio operators. But. But that was basically all you would hear is people saying, like, hey, how's it going kind of thing, you know, maybe some heavy breathing. And then in November 1920, a station called KDKA actually organized itself. And the first broadcast that it put out was reading the election results from the. James Cox. James Cox. Oh my gosh. Almost just violated FCC rules, all this dirty talk. James COX, Warren Harding. 1920 presidential election. It was the first commercial licensed radio broadcast in the world, I think.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, I think that's a great trivia question. If someone were to say what city hosted or whatever was part of the first radio commercial radio broadcast. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And the follow up would be, and what did they broadcast? A presidential election outcome, which was a big deal because it's weird to think about in 1920 that people all over the country were waiting for that morning paper to come out. Except in Pittsburgh, they knew, right?

[Josh Clark]

They did know. And not everybody in Pittsburgh, just the people who had basically built their own radios because that was the radios that were around.

[Chuck Bryant]

There were like eight people in Pittsburgh pretty.

[Josh Clark]

Pretty much. But the fact that this happened and word spread pretty quickly. Yeah. Some people in Pittsburgh knew the election results because they were listening to the

[Chuck Bryant]

radio and they ran around yelling that out and said, we heard it on our radio. And everyone's like, these people lock them up.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah. And also other little known fact, the first song played on the radio was Radio Killed the Newspaper Star.

[Chuck Bryant]

Did you just make that up or did you have that prepped?

[Josh Clark]

I just made it up.

[Chuck Bryant]

Okay, good job.

[Josh Clark]

Thank you, man. I'm glad I got like that grudging good job. Because there was almost contempt in that first initial laugh.

[Chuck Bryant]

Well, because off the cuff, that's a great joke. But if you workshop that over a few hours, then I don't know when's

[Josh Clark]

the last time I workshopped a joke.

[Chuck Bryant]

I don't know. You don't let me in your workshop.

[Josh Clark]

No. Keep it a closely guarded secret. So. Okay, so here's the point. This is the reason we're even talking about that first broadcast is because that was November 1920. By 1924, I think there in 1920, there are like 20,000 radios. 1924, there are one and a half million radios in the United States by 1930. 80. No, 1940, 83% of every household in America had a radio. And so there was this massive transition from distributing news and making sure everybody was up to date on all the information they needed to be like a smart voter or hold like political or social or cultural opinions. Opinions. That transition moved from newspapers, from print, which still hung around.

[Chuck Bryant]

Sure.

[Josh Clark]

But over to radio. Radio became much, much more prevalent as far as the spread of information to an increasingly large number of people went in the United States in a very short time. In like 20 years.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. So in the 1940s, the FCC and, you know, there's some background to all this that we'll get to, but we haven't even really said what the Fairness Doctrine is yet.

[Josh Clark]

No, no.

[Chuck Bryant]

Finally, in 1949, the US government said, you know what, we need some help here. We're a little bit worried that, geez, somebody could, some private citizen who's wealthy could go and buy all the radio stations and essentially propagandize the news and there's nothing we can do about it.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah. So basically what they said was this. There is one thing we can do about it. We can flex our muscle as the government and specifically say, you broadcasters can't do that.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. Via something called the Fairness Doctrine, which had the overall goal of basically, and it's very kind of cute to look back at this time period, but its initial goal was to make sure that all the information on the radio waves was good information and true and fair and enriching. And there's only so much space on a radio dial and this is very critical that there were a limited number of frequencies available.

[Josh Clark]

Yes. Frequency scarcity, I think.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. Just put a pin in that, because that's a very big deal, is how this weighed in the favor of the Fairness Doctrine and then also kind of help kill it in some ways.

[Josh Clark]

Sure.

[Chuck Bryant]

But basically the very progressive view that public interests outweigh private interests and the public has a right to really good information over the free speech of the broadcaster even.

[Josh Clark]

Yes. So you just hit it right on the head. Like that is the crux of the Fairness Doctrine. And it seems like, okay, depending on your viewpoint, either like the most vile idea ever or just a completely sensible idea, and the reason that it can present the same. These two totally different opinions is because this idea, the Fairness Doctrine, sits right at the heart of the difference between the right and the left, between conservatism and libertarianism and liberalism. Right. And it comes down to this, like, if you, if you have to promote public intercourse, like people understanding, not doing it in public, but I mean, like discourse, public intercourse. So, yeah, I guess doing it in public, if you're going to promote public discourse and protect it as a government saying, like, it's the role of government to say, we need to make sure that the quality of the information that's getting out there is protected and that we have to do that. We have to limit what broadcasters can say. We have to curtail free speech to people on the right, like, right there, full stop. That's a problem. That's an issue. It has. Fatally flawed, because you are curtailing the free speech of somebody, whether it's NBC or Joe Schmo who wants to say something on the radio. It doesn't matter. You're curtailing free speech. And therefore that is wrong. The people on the left say, well, whoa, whoa, this is a privilege to broadcast on the radio. And in order to protect the larger public and its interests, we have to curtail that free speech of the very narrowed, moneyed interests that can afford a license to broadcast. And there's no way to reconcile the two. You can't. You have to choose a side. You have to form an opinion one way or the other. And whatever you choose is your larger view of whether you're a liberal or whether you're conservative.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, it fell along those lines back then and still does today. Even though the Fairness Doctrine isn't around, the ideology is.

[Josh Clark]

Well, it keeps getting brought out and kind of, you know, forced along like an angry parade route in order to kind of say, like, look, look, look what the government's capable of doing. Look at the overreach they really want to do. Don't let them do it again with X.

[Chuck Bryant]

Right.

[Josh Clark]

You know, so it is. It's a huge flashpoint, and it's understandable why it seems, like, so kind of limp and bureaucratic and boring, but when you dig into the history of the whole thing and even the contemporary idea behind it, it's a huge flashpoint politically in the United States.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. So it had a couple of main components, and then within that, a couple of big, big rules. Very important rules. The first the components were. They were known together as the Fairness Rule, which is private broadcasters must report on matters of public interest.

[Josh Clark]

Like, it's a responsibility of you as a broadcaster.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. And private broadcasters must cover opposing perspectives regarding that public interest.

[Josh Clark]

That's a big one.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's a big one. And then the little rules there, the personal attack rule, said that if you're a broadcaster and you are gonna run a neg on somebody or something prior to that, you have to let these people know or this organization know and give them time to respond on the air. And then the political editorial rule, which is private broadcasters that air editorial programming that endorses a political candidate must inform other candidates and offer them time to respond on air. Not to be confused with the equal time rule. That's different.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah. The equal time rule is why debates are supposed to have all candidates. Because you're supposed to, if you give one candidate time, airtime to say, hey, here's my platform, you're supposed to give all other candidates the equal amount of time. And that political editorial rule, kind of, it's close to it and it follows in the same tradition and principle. But really 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. It was not. They're not radical ideas.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's a good point.

[Josh Clark]

So the idea though, that public or that private broadcasters have to talk about issues and then have to air opposing viewpoints, that is kind of controversial because it's saying like we, the government are saying, you have to do this. This is your responsibility. And the idea that the government even has control over airwaves is. Is in dispute. But it actually dates pretty far back. And we'll talk about the background, the backstory behind the Fairness Doctrine after a message. How about that?

[Chuck Bryant]

Sounds good.

[Podcast Announcer]

I turned off news altogether.

[Chuck Bryant]

I hate to say it, but I

[Josh Clark]

don't trust much of anything. It's the rage bait. It feels like it's trying to divide people.

[Chuck Bryant]

We got clear facts.

[Josh Clark]

Maybe we could calm down a little.

[NBC News Announcer]

NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the Facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News reporting for America.

[Chase Sapphire Advertiser]

When you own your own business, you own every decision.

[Chuck Bryant]

Catch the red eye or take the

[Kohler Advertiser]

6am Make a new hire or promote internally.

[Chuck Bryant]

Celebrate a win with the toast at the gate or unwind at the lounge. Big props to this team.

[Chase Sapphire Advertiser]

Some decisions are a win win like earning eight times points on Chase Travel. Chase Sapphire reserved for business. The business card that gives back all you put in. Visit chase.com ReserveBusiness to learn more. Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank. Any member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply.

[Podcast Announcer]

If you're feeling off fatigue, mood changes, skin shifts, yet your labs say everything's normal. You're not alone. Meet Oestra from Inner Balance. The first all in one prescription strength bioidentical hormone cream that's natural and effective and only takes one drop 10 seconds a day. Oester replaces five to six products women typically use to treat symptoms and is third party tested to ensure the highest quality. Visit innerbalance.com today to start feeling like yourself again. That's innerbalance.com.

[Josh Clark]

Okay, Chuck, so there. There's one thing to really understand what we're talking about here, initially, we were talking about radio waves, and then eventually TV waves, and then that eventually turned into the Internet. But all these things, especially something like air airwaves for radio and tv, these exist naturally, right?

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah.

[Josh Clark]

There's not like a government factory that produces radio waves, and then the government can say, well, we produce these so we can divvy them up.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's what you think, man.

[Josh Clark]

It's an artificial idea that the government can say, we regulate these airwaves because it's citizens listening to the stuff that's broadcast on the airwaves, and it's private companies broadcasting on the airwaves using equipment that's manufactured by other private companies. So the government is insinuating itself and saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, that this is too important to leave to the market. We have to regulate this in some ways, and we're going to do that. And the whole thing actually started with the Titanic, to tell you the truth.

[Chuck Bryant]

The Titanic ship.

[Josh Clark]

The Titanic ship. The very one, Chuck.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. Leading up to the Titanic, you know, radio was being used and quite a bit in maritime communication. In fact, we even passed the ship act of 1910, which required ships leaving the United States to have radio equipment to know how to use it, and sort of laid out some basic broadcasting standards. But what they didn't do was say, all right, we're gonna assign radio frequencies and we're gonna, like, reserve a channel for emergencies only. This kind of stung them because a couple years after that, a little boat called the RMS Titanic.

[Josh Clark]

The ship, the Titanic, it wasn't a little boat.

[Chuck Bryant]

It was a ocean liner.

[Josh Clark]

Sure.

[Chuck Bryant]

I used to know the difference between an ocean liner and a cruise ship. I think ocean liners are transatlantic. Is that the deal?

[Josh Clark]

I've never heard the difference.

[Chuck Bryant]

I think that's the deal.

[Josh Clark]

I just figured it was one and the same or something.

[Chuck Bryant]

Nah, I think an ocean liner specifically can cross two different continents.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah. I guess a cruise ship could just hug the coast or something like that.

[Chuck Bryant]

Like a cruise ship. But I might be making all that up.

[Josh Clark]

I gotcha.

[Chuck Bryant]

So the Titanic sank. There was a lot of radio traffic going on as the disaster breaks out, obviously. So even though this. In Newfoundland, they heard very early on and picked up this distress call, they couldn't really get it out because everything was all clogged up.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, there were a lot of ham radio operators screwing things up at the time.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. And that's what prompted the radio act of 1912, which was sort of the beginnings of the foundation of what would eventually become the Fairness Doctrine, because what it did was it established spectrum allocation. And the FCC basically said, hey, listen, if you want to broadcast, you can't just broadcast. You got to come to us and get a license.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah. Initially, it was the Commerce Department that was issuing licenses, and then came the radio act of 1927 that formed the Radio Commission, and they started handling licenses. But not only did they start saying, okay, you're a broadcaster, here's your license. This is the frequency that you can broadcast on. Prior to that, that was around in the Radio Act. That was the Commerce Department that did that. But there was no way to police it. And so if you were, say, NBC Radio, and there were a bunch of people broadcasting on your frequency at 7pm you'd just switch to. Yeah, well, no, you'd just switch to a different frequency and start broadcasting. And so there was no way to police it. Well, with the radio act of 1927 and the creation of this Radio Commission, there was a way to police it, because you could have your license revoked, and if you kept broadcasting, guys would come to your house and kidnap your family.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. But the really important thing. And this is how it. Not your family.

[Josh Clark]

Right.

[Chuck Bryant]

The really important thing was that it established what we talked about before, which is spectrum scarcity. There's only so much space now if everyone has to apply for a license, who wants to broadcast. It was very key in the setup. And then, like I said, eventual downfall of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, because it says this like, okay, here's the full spectrum, the radio spectrum that we can broadcast on, and we're going to carve it up, and each person gets a specific frequency to broadcast on. That means that there's a finite number of frequencies, so there's a finite number of licenses, which means that not everybody can have a license to broadcast, which means that the people who do have that license to broadcast have a very important privilege afforded to them. And because it's a privilege, because the government has insinuated itself and said, we're doling out these privileges, we've decided. We, the government, have decided that. That you have a responsibility to present fair and balanced reporting to the public, including basically all sides of an issue, like, you have a responsibility that supersedes your right to free speech as a broadcaster. That's what spectrum scarcity created.

[Chuck Bryant]

Right. The 1927 Radio act, while it did establish that, it kind of made some errors basically in how they set it up.

[Josh Clark]

There were a lot of misspellings.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, there were a lot of misspellings. But they would say, basically to the broadcasters, you have to air content in support of, quote, public convenience, interest or necessity, end quote. But they didn't really define what that was.

[Josh Clark]

Which, by the way, I looked it up, I was like, what does public convenience mean? Apparently in the UK it means a public toilet. And that's the only definition I could ever find for it. So somebody just made that up. Yeah.

[Chuck Bryant]

Air content about public toilets.

[Josh Clark]

Right?

[Chuck Bryant]

That'd be great, actually.

[Josh Clark]

Like that part from Naked Gun, it's just nothing but the sounds of people peeing.

[Chuck Bryant]

But this is a big problem because if something isn't clearly defined, then it can't be enforced. Right. You know, so in 1934, they knew that this was a problem. This was how many years later? Like seven years later. And they said, you know what? We need to issue another act because we're the federal government. And so the Federal Communications act replaced the Radio Act. The FCC was born, replaced the Radio Commission. And the FCC said, all right, the first thing we gotta do is define what this public interest thing is all about, right?

[Josh Clark]

Because not only does it make it difficult to enforce, it makes it difficult to follow. So, like, even if you're a broadcaster and you're like, I totally agree with this. I do have a right and responsibility. What's this public. Public convenience thing again? Like, how do I do this? What am I supposed to be doing?

[Chuck Bryant]

Everyone's like, I don't know.

[Josh Clark]

And if it's not defined. Yeah. You can't enforce it. You also can't follow it if you want to follow it. So there was just too much gray area. And so the fcc, when this was created, this idea of, okay, we're going to set about defining this stuff and really generating this idea of what it means to be a responsible broadcaster. It happened at a really liberal time in America's history, right after the New Deal had really kind of come along and changed the complexion of America pretty dramatically. And liberalism and progressivism had really set in and was entrenched in the fabric of American politics. And so there was this idea that the best way to prevent broadcasters from asserting an overbearing influence on public discourse, because they had the loudest voice, because they had the radio licenses, right? Was to just say, you guys can't editorialize at all. And this became known as the Mayflower Decision or the Mayflower Doctrine. It was a 1941 FCC ruling that basically said, you know what? You guys. You guys have to basically be neutral in that. You can't. You can't say anything. You can't present any particular side. If we find out that you guys are promoting say the policy agenda or the favorite politics of like your station owner or your parent company or something like that, you're in trouble. And that was kind of like the line that they drew. No editorializing whatsoever.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. And that really sort of laid the groundwork in a big, big way for the Fairness Doctrine. Even though the Fairness Doctrine sort of undid that it did and said, well, you know, you can editorialize, but you just have to do it on both sides.

[Josh Clark]

Right. You have to present, present prevention, present both sides. And like on the one hand, that was a gift to the, to the broadcasters. Right. They were saying, okay, you can, you can use your own voice, you can state your own opinion, you can support your own political candidate, but you have to give airtime to the other political candidate. You have to give airtime to people with an opposing view of what you just said. So it was kind of like a compromise, but it was also a weakening of the progressivist agenda, I guess.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. And the broadcasters did not like it for sure because again, they were still sort of confused about what does public importance mean. We're not even sure, you know, everything's decided and applied on a case by case basis. In other words.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, that's a big one.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. In other words, if somebody just files a complaint, basically they will take up that complaint and hear that complaint. But it wasn't like some like big sweeping thing.

[Josh Clark]

No, but it was also Chuck. So that means that it's capricious and arbitrary, basically applying the rule on a case by case basis rather than a sweeping regulation. But it's also a weakness because it means that the FCC's saying, We'll leave it to you, the broadcasters, to police yourselves. We're only going to act when somebody complains.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. So what happened in a lot of cases was some radio stations were like, you know what, I'm not even going to go there. And I'm gonna avoid controversy altogether because I don't think we pointed out it wasn't just about politics. It was basically covered controversial issues in general. And this will play a big part. Like everything from climate denial to the anti vax movement in the 1980s, they all had to have equal time under the Fairness doctrine. And a lot of people point to the fairness doctrine as like how these movements got jump started to begin with because they didn't put those opinions in context. They were just like, you know, they didn't say this is very scientifically valid. And now here's the opposing viewpoint, which has no science to back it up.

[Josh Clark]

Right, exactly. And that was the fact that they didn't do that. They were erring on the side of caution over editorializing, but also probably they were trying to make sure that everybody was. Was not offended. They didn't offend either side because they didn't want to be boycotted with advertising, too, or fined. Sure, yeah. So that was a big problem with the Fairness Doctrine, is that it was ill defined. It was. It opened the door for opposing viewpoints that put them on equal footing or equal ground with other viewpoints that were, say, scientifically backed, which created what's called the false balance problem. And then there was opposition to it, to basically the Fairness Doctrine from the outset. Not just the broadcasters who thought they didn't want any kind of restriction on their speech, but also, interestingly, it represented a loophole to combat advertising too, which I think the FCC hadn't thought of. But they said, yeah, this actually applies when it, when it came up. There was a ruling in 1967 that found that cigarette advertising qualified as a presentation of one viewpoint of a controversial subject. Basically, cigarette smoking is great. Go smoke some cigarettes. And so some consumer groups petitioned the FCC and said, hey, we should be able to give the opposing viewpoint. Don't smoke cigarettes. It's bad for you. And the FCC said, you're absolutely right. And advertisers were like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is a big deal. And now they jumped in to back up the national association of Broadcasters, which was opposed to the Fairness Doctrine in general.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. And it also, you know, that kind of thing, if advertising counts, that opens the doors. And it did for, you know, like, and we'll get to this more specifically later, but like, if a power company wanted to do an ad about their great new nuclear power plant that they were gonna build, like a liberal group can come forward and say, no, no, no, like, that's not an ad. I know they're paying for airspace, but that means we need to talk about the ills of nuclear power.

[Josh Clark]

Right, right. And I mean, even if it was an ad, the opposing group could say, we get free airtime to say that this is the opposite of that. And so if you're a broadcaster, especially if you're successful market, that, you know, 1530, 60 second spot is important. You don't want to give that away. But it may also, you may have like an interest in whatever the other group is protesting. So just on that in that respect as well, you don't really want to air the opposing view. The problem with the Fairness Doctrine, if you're libertarian or conservative, is that it said you have to do that, you have to air this opposing view. The FCC says so.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right. So you got to think this is going to end up in court at some point.

[Josh Clark]

Sure.

[Chuck Bryant]

And it did quite a few times over the years, not surprisingly. And for about a 20 to 30 year period, US courts basically supported the FCC in fulfilling this mandate. There were some real highlights. In 1969, there were a couple of big court rulings that affirmed this enforcement. One was Red Lion Broadcasting Company Incorporated. The fcc. It's a little mouthy.

[Josh Clark]

It is.

[Chuck Bryant]

So this one was sort of two cases. In One, the Supreme Court was able to kill two birds. One case was an FCC appeal of a lower court ruling that said the personal attack and political editorial rules, those two big rules were unconstitutional. And the second was a broadcaster appealing of a lower court ruling that said the FCC's application of those rules was constitutional. So he said, all right, you guys, let's just combine this into one thing and we'll hear the case. And in the latter one, there was an investigative journalist named Fred J. Cook, and he filed a complaint. And like we said, it was case by case stuff. So this complaint made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Fred Cook filed a complaint against Redline Broadcasting, who owned wcgb, because they had a broadcast with Reverend Billy James Hargis that claimed that Cook, who was an author and wrote a very kind of salacious expose about the FBI. And this Reverend said, you know what? This author worked for the Communists and he attacked J. Edgar Hoover. And it turns out they didn't contact Cook to give him that equal chance to respond. And they denied him his demand for that, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said, you know what, Red lion, you're wrong. You gotta do this right?

[Josh Clark]

So. And since the Supreme Court ruled that Cook could have equal airtime, this is like, I think 12 years or nine years later. I could not find anywhere if he actually took him up on it or not. But the whole thing was just like a. It was an ad hominem attack, an attack on him on Cook, because Cook had written a book against Barry Goldwater, who was a presidential candidate at the time. And the people who ran Red lion didn't like it. So they attacked Cook. But he. So they. In this ruling, though, and this is the whole point, not that Cook got his time, his airtime, but that the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC applying this fairness doctrine was good and fine and constitutional, which is a big deal. They ruled that the SEC could constitutionally exercise this fairness doctrine, which is. That was just enormous.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, it was a very, very big deal. The other big kind of landmark case was that same year, the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, et al. The FCC. Another scintillating title.

[Josh Clark]

Right.

[Chuck Bryant]

There was a U.S. appeals court who overturned the FCC's decision not to consider a petition to revoke the license of Lamar Broadcasting, wlbt. So these citizens got together, civil rights groups, and they were like, you know what? This station is awful. First of all, they're not covering the civil rights movement and they're flat out racist and segregationist.

[Josh Clark]

Right.

[Chuck Bryant]

And so we're gonna petition this. And the FCC denied the petition in 1964 and said, Citizens don't have the standing to file a petition like this.

[Josh Clark]

Which is pretty surprising because the citizens are the ones the FCC have always been like, fighting for.

[Chuck Bryant]

Right. It was a little hinky. Hinky is the word that we used to use. So the petitioners appealed. And in 1966. Yeah, 66. The Petition Court of Appeals for D.C. said, you do have standing to petition the FCC to revoke a license, because that's all about protecting the public interest, which is what the FCC was supposed to be doing in the first place.

[Josh Clark]

So get back to work.

[Chuck Bryant]

And finally, in 1967, the FCC revisited that petition, rejected it again because they said, hey, this station is actually kind of taking some steps since then, and we think they're doing the right thing. Petitioners still weren't happy. They appealed that. And in 1969, the FCC actually revoked Lamar Broadcasting's license.

[Josh Clark]

They did. As far as I could tell, Lamar Broadcasting was the one and only company to lose their license under the Fairness Doctrine, like permanently. Yeah, right. They never got it back. And chuck a little cherry on top, because Lamar Broadcasting lost the license of WLBT in Jackson, Mississippi. It was up for grabs and it was taken by a majority black owned group that. That took over the station at that point.

[Chuck Bryant]

Nice.

[Josh Clark]

Isn't that nice? Yeah. So things seem to be going smoothly for the Fairness Doctrine. What could go wrong? Well, we'll tell you what could go wrong after a break. How about that?

[Podcast Announcer]

I turned off news altogether.

[Josh Clark]

I hate to say it, but I don't trust much of anything. It's the rage bait. It feels like it's trying to divide people.

[Chuck Bryant]

We got clear facts.

[Josh Clark]

Maybe we could calm down a little.

[NBC News Announcer]

NBC. NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News reporting for America.

[Chase Sapphire Advertiser]

When you own your own business, you own every decision.

[Chuck Bryant]

Catch the red eye or take the

[Kohler Advertiser]

6am Make a new hire or promote internally.

[Chuck Bryant]

Celebrate a win with the toast at the gate or unwind at the lounge. Big props to this team.

[Chase Sapphire Advertiser]

Some decisions are a win win like earning eight times points on Chase Travel, Chase Sapphire Reserve for Business, the business card that gives back all you put in. Visit chase.com ReserveBusiness to learn more. Cards issued by JP Morgan Chase Bank. Any member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply.

[Podcast Announcer]

If you're feeling off fatigue, mood changes, skin shifts, yet your labs say everything's normal. You're not alone. Meet Oestra from Inner Balance, the first all in one prescription strength bioidentical hormone cream that's natural and effective and only takes one drop, 10 seconds a day. Oester replaces five to six products women typically use to treat symptoms and is third party tested to ensure the highest quality. Visit innerbalance.com today to start feeling like yourself again. That's innerbalance.com.

[Josh Clark]

Okay, Chuck, so one thing that I've learned is it's not necessarily like the Supreme Court is their decisions are final forever. They kind of shift and move over time, over long enough periods of time. And the Fairness Doctrine is a really good example of that because in the 60s, the Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly the FCC was constitutional. But by the end of the 70s, the Supreme Court started to side with broadcasters instead. The winds of change kind of blew through there. And there was one case in particular that the supreme court heard in 1979 that signaled a real change for the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC applying it. And it was a case that involved WJIMTV in Lansing, Michigan, which is owned by a guy named Harold Gross.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. So the complaint here was that he, or the station, rather, via Harold Gross, had abused their broadcasting power to the detriment of the public. So what he did was he denied airtime to political rivals in some cases. In other cases, he censored coverage of local businesses if they didn't advertise with them.

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, he was accused of clipping, which is taking like when a network delivers a show, it has commercial breaks in it. He would have his editors go through and add even more commercial breaks, which you're not supposed to do. That was a big one. Didn't cover the Jimmy Hoffa disappearance because he didn't like Jimmy Hoffa's politics, even though it was a national and a local story.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. So in 1975, a hearing by the FCC said, you know, you violated the Fairness Rule. We're taking your license, buddy. But he appealed it, and this time he won the appeal. And like you said, this was a big shift in the way things were being thought about as far as the Fairness Doctrine went.

[Josh Clark]

Hey, one more thing about Harold Gross before we move on. This guy, he was such a businessman that when he started his TV station in 1950, WJIM, he was actually one of the first 108 license holders to broadcast on TV. But he wasn't sure that TV was gonna stick around, that it was gonna take off as a technology. So he built the WJIM facilities so that it could be converted into a motel if TV didn't go anywhere. So the original WJIM TV station had a pool out back.

[Chuck Bryant]

What is it now, do you know?

[Josh Clark]

What is what?

[Chuck Bryant]

The building, the pool.

[Josh Clark]

I don't know. I looked up to see if there was anything recent about it, and I didn't find any. Any new stuff, but I saw a picture of the station, and there's definitely a pool out back from back in the 50s.

[Chuck Bryant]

Kind of a nice perk, I guess.

[Josh Clark]

So I wonder if he let anybody swim in it or not.

[Chuck Bryant]

I don't know.

[Josh Clark]

Maybe if you advertised, he would have let you.

[Chuck Bryant]

So this was mid to late 70s. And then things really, really started changing in the 1980s, because that whole thing about. Remember when we said putting a pin in spectrum scarcity, that was no longer a problem. By the mid-1980s, there were more than 10,000 radio stations, 1300 TV stations, about 1700 newspapers. And the whole sort of drumbeat was like, wait a minute, there's not a problem here anymore with scarcity, we should be able to do what we want. Because you told newspapers from the very beginning that their free speech was protected and they could do whatever they want. Why are we any different?

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, that's a really big point that a lot of people pointed to over the years is why does this just apply to electronic media? Like, the print media literally has an editorial page where they come out with positions on candidates and all this stuff. Why doesn't it apply to them? And for years and years and years, it was. Any schmo can basically go get a newspaper printed. Radio's different because of that spectrum scarcity. But, yeah, as the satellite people came along and as cable came along, that just kind of went out the door. So 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 for the Fairness Doctrine to stand on.

[Chuck Bryant]

Ye. Yeah. So in 1985, the FCC kind of got their gears turning and said, you know what we think this is? We want Congress to review this. Basically, we're gonna institute a public comment period even, and we think we should abandon the personal attack rule and end this case by case thing.

[Josh Clark]

Right? Yeah. And they did this for, like, two years. And while the FCC's holding, like, these public hearings on it, Congress at the same time was saying, well, we don't really want the Fairness Doctrine to go away. And not just the left. There was a bipartisan supported bill that got passed in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by Reagan. And so after that, that was basically it for the Fairness Doctrine. Yeah.

[Chuck Bryant]

The FCC voted unanimously to just get rid of it.

[Josh Clark]

They did. And so they didn't actually get rid of it. They just stopped enforcing it or some parts of it. They kept enforcing, I think, the personal attack and political editorial provisions up until like, 2000, for, like, another 13 years. But the idea that you had to promote opposing viewpoints on your television station or your radio station, that went away starting in 1987, and. And a lot of people say that really changed the American media landscape big time.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. I mean, you know, depending on who

[Josh Clark]

you are, I'm just gonna sit back and watch this.

[Chuck Bryant]

I know I'm trying to dance around this. Depending on who you are, you probably have a very strong opinion about the Fairness Doctrine one way or the other, or you may think it was a mixed thing. It was definitely a flawed policy. I think everyone agrees that it wasn't perfect, but the legacy is really complex. 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, and how polarized we are, because people dug in and they said, all right, I'm going to start my super conservative radio stations. And then people said, I'm going to start my super conservative liberal website and radio shows, and liberals are going to listen to theirs, and conservatives are going to listen to theirs, and never the tweens shall meet.

[Josh Clark]

Right, right. And so especially if you have, like, each side promoting a viewpoint or an agenda to the detriment of the other side, there's like, the middle ground is lost. Which, I mean, some people. I know some people aren't very hip on centrism these days anyway, but, I mean, you can keep a pretty decent sized society together when you. When you kind of follow a Centrist axis upward and onward, you know, And I think that, to me, the Fairness Doctrine showed that. I mean, like, I don't think it's a big surprise where I fall on whether the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea or not, but I just don't think it's like, I can see saying all these people out here need good information, and it's probably not going to just get out there on its own if we, the government, don't step in and say, here's how we need to get good information out. And I think the current media landscape is just complete proof positive of that, that if you just don't, if you just let it all go free for all, then you end up with what we have, that this is what the market offers us.

[Chuck Bryant]

Echo chambers.

[Josh Clark]

Echo chambers, polarization and a huge division in the country without anybody saying, well, wait, wait, wait, yes, over here you guys are right. Over here you guys are right. And things are really messed up. But also, what about this other stuff? We kind of all agree on this part. And what about this part? Yeah, we have a lot of common ground here. No one's talking about that. And that used to be the role that the media played before.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. I mean, one thing we can say is without the Fairness Doctrine, we may not have gotten any of these minority viewpoints in the 1940s and 50s and 60s. People might not have been as well informed, except maybe via newspaper, about the civil rights movement, women's rights movement, how bad smoking is, about nuclear power plants. Like, all of these things that were sort of in the shadows now had a guaranteed platform. But like we mentioned earlier, because they didn't really. They had to give these opposing viewpoints. He also could have possibly borne the anti vax movement and the climate denial movement and stuff like that. So it was flawed to be sure.

[Josh Clark]

Sure. Yeah. From what I understand, like any Democrat to the right of Ralph Nader, which is almost everybody says, yes, Fairness Doctrine, what a terrible idea. Terrible idea. It was officially repealed in 2011. And if you'll think back, that was under the Obama administration. So the Obama administration's FCC was the one that officially took the Fairness Doctrine off of the books, removed it.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, but I mean, that was a purge. That was just like, there's a bunch of rotten food in the fridge and why has no one thrown it out yet?

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, but it was also pretty symbolic. You know, it was a symbolic act, whether they intended it or not. But the idea that it was removed by a Democratic lefty president's administration is. I don't know. It's saying something, I think.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. Here's where we are today, though. There was a poll, a Gallup poll just last year in 2018 that found Americans don't trust the news. They guessed, let me see, 62% of what they hear is biased, 44% is inaccurate, and 39% is misinformation.

[Josh Clark]

Those numbers seem low to me.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's not a great place to be in as a country, though.

[Josh Clark]

No, it's a terrible place. It's a scary place. How is this country still together? You know? And the other thing is, we're going to get so much guff because we didn't come out and just stay completely down the middle. But I mean, I want to say, like, I understand where people on the right are coming from with this, like, ideologically, this is censorship and the prohibition of the exercise of free speech. And that is a core founding value of conservatism and libertarianism. So, like, I can understand how you'd look at the Fairness Doctrine and be like, this is government overreach and it's worst in its worst examples, you know?

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah, but it's like it wasn't like state run radio, you know, it wasn't like the government, the federal government, propagandizing their agenda.

[Josh Clark]

Right. But yeah, it was saying like, hey, you can say this viewpoint, you also have to show the other viewpoint. To me, that's almost impossible to argue with.

[Chuck Bryant]

Yeah. And I think, don't newspapers of high standing still on their editorial page kind of print the two opposing opinions side by side?

[Josh Clark]

Yeah, that's what op Ed stands for, is opposite the editorial page. So the editorial page will be the newspaper's opinion, their editorial board, and then on the literal opposite page is basically the opposing opinion of that. Yes. Yeah, it's just a high journalistic standard. But this is the government saying this. Newspapers do this on their own, I guess, just out of tradition. Whereas electronic media is a little more Wild Westy than that.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's right.

[Josh Clark]

So here we are today, pretty interesting times we live in. And it's all because the Fairness Doctrine went away. Anyway, thanks for listening to this episode of Stuff. You should know, if you want to know more about the Fairness Doctrine, just go outside, see how you like things. And since I said that, it's time for listener mail.

[Chuck Bryant]

I'm going to call this the sound of our voices, or I'm sorry, let me say this, the color of our voices.

[Josh Clark]

Oh, yeah, I know. What. My voice is colored.

[Chuck Bryant]

This is good. In fact, yours isn't even Color. This is more of a feel thing.

[Josh Clark]

Okay, so.

[Chuck Bryant]

Hey, guys. I listened to the episode on Perfect Pitch. You mentioned that synesthetes are often good candidates for having perfect pitch. I fall into the category of being someone who possesses both. I've been serious about my musicianship since my earliest recollections in life. And that's when I began involuntarily hearing all the individual musical notes in their own unique, unchanging colors. For example, the sound of the note F I should have brought in. Dude, I bought one of those little. What do you call it?

[Josh Clark]

Pitch pipe.

[Chuck Bryant]

I bought a pitch pipe.

[Josh Clark]

Why didn't you bring it in?

[Chuck Bryant]

No, I should have brought it in.

[Josh Clark]

The one note harmonica.

[Chuck Bryant]

I should have bought two. I'm gonna buy you.

[Josh Clark]

I would love it. Can you have it engraved, too?

[Chuck Bryant]

Sure.

[Josh Clark]

Okay.

[Chuck Bryant]

So the sound of F for Allison has never not caused a rush of the color orange to sweep over her from head to foot. I also hear people's individual voices and colors. What's unique about voices? To me, they're incredibly textured in and of themselves. You guys have voice colors and textures.

[Josh Clark]

I love mine. Read mine.

[Chuck Bryant]

Josh's voice, anytime I hear it, sounds like suede. If suede. Suede could make a sound painted medium to dark brown with a tiny hint of Easter egg purple.

[Josh Clark]

That's your voice. That is a lovely combo, if you ask me.

[Chuck Bryant]

Chuck's voice, on the other hand, has zero fuzz to it at all. Chuck's voice is very metallic, almost shimmery, like you're gazing upon a deep, deep blue green body of water and you can see straight to the bottom.

[Josh Clark]

Nice. That's a nice voice right there, Chuck.

[Chuck Bryant]

These are both great voices. Yeah, I'm very happy that. I mean, who knows what. What could have come out of this email?

[Josh Clark]

Yours smells like puke.

[Chuck Bryant]

And yours sounds like nails on a chalkboard. The end. I've come to find out that no two voice colors are exactly the same. Kind of like thumbprints and snowflakes. A person's voice color does not morph into something else either if they suddenly start speaking in another language. And it also has nothing to do with his or her particular personality type. So they're not saying you're smooth like suede as a person.

[Josh Clark]

Oh, yes, clearly, I think.

[Chuck Bryant]

Or that I'm shimmery as a person.

[Josh Clark]

Sure.

[Chuck Bryant]

The point of the matter. I delight in hearing both of your voices nearly every day as a tune in to the show. It's become a staple in my daily existence. Keep on being wonderful. That is from Allison, who is at our Salt Lake City show. She interacted with us from the crowd.

[Josh Clark]

That's great. Thank you for interacting with us, Alison.

[Chuck Bryant]

We appreciate that it's illegal at our shows, but I think I asked a question. She answered it.

[Josh Clark]

It's against the rules.

[Chuck Bryant]

That's what they say.

[Josh Clark]

Well, thanks, Alison. That was one of the more interesting emails we've ever received. Frankly. If you want to be like Allison and go to one of our live shows, you will never regret it for a single moment in your entire life. And if you want to get in touch with us like Allison did too, you can go onto our website Stuffyou Should Know dot com, follow our social links there. Or you can send us an email. Send it off to stuffpodcastheartradio.com

[Podcast Announcer]

Stuff youf Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts My Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

[Josh Clark]

I'm U.S. transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. The sound of a seatbelt. It's one of the most important sounds in our car. It means everyone is ready and everyone is safe. Make it a priority. Buckle up every time. Hear the sound. Make it a habit.

[HomeServe Advertiser]

Paid for by NHTSA now streaming on Paramount, the acclaimed series from executive producer Lena Waithe reaches its final chapter. The Shy for seven seasons, these stories, these streets, this community have stayed with us. Now it all leads to this. As friendships are tested, families evolve, and secrets refuse to stay buried, one thing is certain. The Chi is more than just a series. It's a legacy. Don't miss the final season of the Chi. Now streaming on the Paramount Premium Plan.

[Kohler Advertiser]

When Kohler, global design leader in luxurious kitchen and bath products, asked me to be their ambassador for timeless, elegant, durable cast iron, I said, I'm in. Soon after, I was in their Kohler, Wisconsin foundry watching molten iron, poured, enamel applied by hand, and the beautiful finished pieces ready to ship. Since 1883, Kohler cast iron has been crafted by incredible artisans, and seeing it firsthand gave me a whole new appreciation for their craftsmanship. Now I'm proud to lend my stamp of approval to my favorite Kohler cast iron products for their durability, beauty and enduring style. Shop my curated [e-mail] as the Kohler Cast Iron Ambassador, I say long live Cast Iron.

[Josh Clark]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.