公平原则是联邦通信委员会（FCC）的政策。FCC认为，广播许可证（广播和地面电视台都需要）是一种公众信任的形式，因此，许可证持有人应该对有争议的问题提供平衡和公平的报道。这项政策是里根政府放松管制的牺牲品。公平原则不应与平等时间规则混淆。

历史

这项1949年的政策是联邦通信委员会前身联邦无线电委员会的产物。FRC制定了该政策以应对无线电的增长（“有限频谱的无限”需求导致政府对无线电频谱的许可）。FCC认为，广播许可证（广播和地面电视台都需要）是一种公众信任的形式，因此，许可证持有人应该对有争议的问题提供平衡和公平的报道。

1937年《通信法》（1959年修订）第315节概述了公平原则的“公共利益”理由。该法律要求广播公司向“任何职位的所有合法合格政治候选人提供“平等机会”，前提是他们允许任何在该职位上竞选的人使用该电台。”然而，这种平等机会并没有（也没有）延伸到新闻节目、采访和纪录片。

最高法院确认这项政策

1969年，美国最高法院一致（8-0）裁定红狮广播公司（宾夕法尼亚州红狮）违反了公平原则。红狮广播电台WGCB播放了一个攻击作家兼记者弗雷德·J·库克的节目。库克要求“同等时间”，但遭到拒绝；FCC支持他的说法，因为该机构将WGCB计划视为人身攻击。广播公司提出上诉；最高法院判决原告库克胜诉。

在该裁决中，法院将第一修正案定位为“至高无上”，但不是对广播公司，而是对“观看和收听的公众”。拜伦·怀特法官代表多数人写道：

The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory [370] requirement of 315 of the Communications Act [note 1] that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office... On November 27, 1964, WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a "Christian Crusade" series. A book by Fred J. Cook entitled "Goldwater - Extremist on the Right" was discussed by Hargis, who said that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; that Cook had then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; that he had defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency; and that he had now written a "book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater."... In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and [401] ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional.[note 28] The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)

另一方面，该裁决的一部分可以解释为国会或联邦通信委员会干预市场以限制垄断的正当理由，尽管该裁决是针对自由的剥夺：

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

最高法院重新审视——仅仅五年后，法院（多少）改变了自己。1974年，SCOTU首席大法官Warren Burger（为迈阿密先驱出版公司诉Tornillo一案的一致法庭撰写，美国判例汇编第418卷第241页）说，就报纸而言，政府的“答辩权”要求“不可避免地削弱了活力，限制了公众辩论的多样性。”，当一家报纸在社论中支持一位政治候选人时，佛罗里达州法律要求报纸提供一种形式的平等访问权。

这两种情况有着明显的区别，不仅仅是广播电台被授予政府许可证而报纸没有。佛罗里达州法令（1913年）远比联邦通信委员会的政策更具前瞻性。从法院的判决来看。然而，这两项决定都讨论了新闻媒体的相对稀缺性。

Florida Statute 104.38 (1973) [is] a "right of reply" statute which provides that if a candidate for nomination or election is assailed regarding his personal character or official record by any newspaper, the candidate has the right to demand that the newspaper print, free of cost to the candidate, any reply the candidate may make to the newspaper's charges. The reply must appear in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type as the charges which prompted the reply, provided it does not take up more space than the charges. Failure to comply with the statute constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor... Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising.[note 24] The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials - whether fair or unfair - constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed.

关键案例1982年，梅雷迪斯公司（位于纽约锡拉丘兹的WTVH）发表了一系列社论，支持九英里II核电站。锡拉丘兹和平委员会向联邦通信委员会提交了一份公平原则投诉，声称WTVH“未能让观众对核电站有相互矛盾的看法，因此违反了公平原则两项要求中的第二项。”

FCC同意；梅雷迪斯申请复议，辩称公平原则违宪。1985年，在对上诉作出裁决之前，联邦通信委员会主席马克·福勒（Mark Fowler）发表了一份“公平报告”。该报告宣布，公平原则对言论产生了“冷却效应”，因此可能违反了第一修正案。

此外，报告断言，由于有线电视，稀缺性不再是一个问题。福勒曾是广播业的律师，他认为电视台没有公共利益的作用。相反，他认为：“广播公司作为社区受托人的观念应该被广播公司作为市场参与者的观点所取代。”

几乎同时，在电信研究与行动中心（TRAC）v。FCC（801 F.2d 5011986）哥伦比亚特区地方法院裁定，公平原则未编入1959年《1937年通信法》修正案。相反，大法官罗伯特·博克（Robert Bork）和安东宁·斯卡利亚（Antonin Scalia）裁定该学说不是“法定的”

FCC废除规则1987年，FCC废除了公平原则，“除了人身攻击和政治社论规则。”

1989年，特区地方法院在锡拉丘兹和平委员会诉联邦通信委员会案中做出最终裁决。裁决引用了“公平报告”，并得出结论，公平原则不符合公共利益：

On the basis of the voluminous factual record compiled in this proceeding, our experience in administering the doctrine and our general expertise in broadcast regulation, we no longer believe that the fairness doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interest... We conclude that the FCC's decision that the fairness doctrine no longer served the public interest was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion, and are convinced that it would have acted on that finding to terminate the doctrine even in the absence of its belief that the doctrine was no longer constitutional. Accordingly we uphold the Commission without reaching the constitutional issues.

国会无效1987年6月，国会曾试图编纂公平原则，但该法案被里根总统否决。1991年，乔治·H·W·布什总统也同样投了否决票。

在第109届国会（2005-2007年）上，众议员莫里斯·辛奇（D-NY）引入了H.R.3302，也称为“2005年媒体所有权改革法案”或MORA，以“恢复公平原则”。尽管该法案有16个共同提案人，但它毫无进展。