Another blow to the public interest requirements came after Fowler left office, when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Established in 1949, it guaranteed air time to both sides of a controversy.
The doctrine was routinely used by advocacy groups to get their points across. For example, after Pacific Gas & Electric Co. spent $8 million on TV advertising to promote a pro-nuclear power ballot initiative in California, a court ruling in the early 1980s forced the FCC to compel broadcasters that aired the PG&E commercials to provide the equivalent of $2 million in advertising time for anti-nuclear commercials.
But in 1987, in the case of Meredith Corp. vs. FCC, the courts ruled that the doctrine was unenforceable because Congress had not mandated it and because the FCC is charged with administering rather than making laws.
For some, the demise of the Fairness Doctrine marked a final breakdown in the social contract between government and broadcasters.
"Where there is no fighting or opposition in viewpoints," said Herbert Chao Gunther, chief executive of the nonprofit Public Media Center in San Francisco, "there is no democracy."
Whether concerns over broadcasters' living up to their public interest obligations will prompt more critics to argue for simply selling off the spectrum remains to be seen. Many of those who express disgust at the broadcasters' public interest record have focused on tightening content rules, not scrapping the free-TV system.
But at least a few observers say it is time to start questioning the whole free-TV model.
"The public interest has been replaced by the commercial interests of powerful media," said Lawrence K. Grossman, a former president of NBC News and PBS.
"Things that don't make money -- coverage of the arts, culture, civic issues -- don't get any attention."
Given that, Grossman wonders whether the spectrum should remain in the broadcasters' hands. The way it is now, he said, "it's probably one of the greatest wastes to society."
