EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES

EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES

Congress enacted the "equal time" requirement to ensure that broadcasters provide equal treatment to all political candidates. Unfortunately, newscaster candidates are not treated equally. When a newscaster candidate reports the news on the air, the broadcaster must provide equivalent air...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Loyola Entertainment Law Journal 1989-01, Vol.9 (2), p.283
1. Verfasser: Naylor, Karen Sue
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 283
container_title Loyola Entertainment Law Journal
container_volume 9
creator Naylor, Karen Sue
description Congress enacted the "equal time" requirement to ensure that broadcasters provide equal treatment to all political candidates. Unfortunately, newscaster candidates are not treated equally. When a newscaster candidate reports the news on the air, the broadcaster must provide equivalent air time to the newscaster candidate's opponents. Since broadcasters are unwilling to afford newscaster candidates' opponents equal time, the newscaster must choose between abandoning his campaign or taking a leave of absence from his job. In "Branch v. Federal Communications Commission", a newscaster candidate challenged the "equal time" requirement, but the court enforced the requirement. In this casenote, the author discusses the evolution and application of the "equal time" requirement, and argues that under an alternate interpretation, a newscaster candidate's opponents should not receive equal time if the newscaster candidate is merely doing his job.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1297689138</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1297689138</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_12976891383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDcx0LU0NjfgYOAqLs4yMDA0NDA24WSwcQ0MdfRRCPH0dVUAM4MVQv2gYkGujiG-rn4hCiH-Cn6u4cHOjsEhrkEKzo5-Lp4ujiGuwTwMrGmJOcWpvFCam0HZzTXE2UO3oCi_sDS1uCQ-K7-0KA8oFW9oZGluZmFpaGxhTJwqAPn8MR8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1297689138</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Naylor, Karen Sue</creator><creatorcontrib>Naylor, Karen Sue</creatorcontrib><description>Congress enacted the "equal time" requirement to ensure that broadcasters provide equal treatment to all political candidates. Unfortunately, newscaster candidates are not treated equally. When a newscaster candidate reports the news on the air, the broadcaster must provide equivalent air time to the newscaster candidate's opponents. Since broadcasters are unwilling to afford newscaster candidates' opponents equal time, the newscaster must choose between abandoning his campaign or taking a leave of absence from his job. In "Branch v. Federal Communications Commission", a newscaster candidate challenged the "equal time" requirement, but the court enforced the requirement. In this casenote, the author discusses the evolution and application of the "equal time" requirement, and argues that under an alternate interpretation, a newscaster candidate's opponents should not receive equal time if the newscaster candidate is merely doing his job.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0740-9370</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0273-4249</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, Calif: Loyola Law School</publisher><ispartof>Loyola Entertainment Law Journal, 1989-01, Vol.9 (2), p.283</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27846</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Naylor, Karen Sue</creatorcontrib><title>EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES</title><title>Loyola Entertainment Law Journal</title><description>Congress enacted the "equal time" requirement to ensure that broadcasters provide equal treatment to all political candidates. Unfortunately, newscaster candidates are not treated equally. When a newscaster candidate reports the news on the air, the broadcaster must provide equivalent air time to the newscaster candidate's opponents. Since broadcasters are unwilling to afford newscaster candidates' opponents equal time, the newscaster must choose between abandoning his campaign or taking a leave of absence from his job. In "Branch v. Federal Communications Commission", a newscaster candidate challenged the "equal time" requirement, but the court enforced the requirement. In this casenote, the author discusses the evolution and application of the "equal time" requirement, and argues that under an alternate interpretation, a newscaster candidate's opponents should not receive equal time if the newscaster candidate is merely doing his job.</description><issn>0740-9370</issn><issn>0273-4249</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDcx0LU0NjfgYOAqLs4yMDA0NDA24WSwcQ0MdfRRCPH0dVUAM4MVQv2gYkGujiG-rn4hCiH-Cn6u4cHOjsEhrkEKzo5-Lp4ujiGuwTwMrGmJOcWpvFCam0HZzTXE2UO3oCi_sDS1uCQ-K7-0KA8oFW9oZGluZmFpaGxhTJwqAPn8MR8</recordid><startdate>19890101</startdate><enddate>19890101</enddate><creator>Naylor, Karen Sue</creator><general>Loyola Law School</general><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>SAAPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19890101</creationdate><title>EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES</title><author>Naylor, Karen Sue</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_12976891383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Naylor, Karen Sue</creatorcontrib><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 42</collection><jtitle>Loyola Entertainment Law Journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Naylor, Karen Sue</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES</atitle><jtitle>Loyola Entertainment Law Journal</jtitle><date>1989-01-01</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>283</spage><pages>283-</pages><issn>0740-9370</issn><issn>0273-4249</issn><abstract>Congress enacted the "equal time" requirement to ensure that broadcasters provide equal treatment to all political candidates. Unfortunately, newscaster candidates are not treated equally. When a newscaster candidate reports the news on the air, the broadcaster must provide equivalent air time to the newscaster candidate's opponents. Since broadcasters are unwilling to afford newscaster candidates' opponents equal time, the newscaster must choose between abandoning his campaign or taking a leave of absence from his job. In "Branch v. Federal Communications Commission", a newscaster candidate challenged the "equal time" requirement, but the court enforced the requirement. In this casenote, the author discusses the evolution and application of the "equal time" requirement, and argues that under an alternate interpretation, a newscaster candidate's opponents should not receive equal time if the newscaster candidate is merely doing his job.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, Calif</cop><pub>Loyola Law School</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0740-9370
ispartof Loyola Entertainment Law Journal, 1989-01, Vol.9 (2), p.283
issn 0740-9370
0273-4249
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1297689138
source Alma/SFX Local Collection; Periodicals Index Online
title EQUAL TIME EQUALS UNEQUAL TREATMENT TO NEWSCASTER CANDIDATES
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T07%3A52%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=EQUAL%20TIME%20EQUALS%20UNEQUAL%20TREATMENT%20TO%20NEWSCASTER%20CANDIDATES&rft.jtitle=Loyola%20Entertainment%20Law%20Journal&rft.au=Naylor,%20Karen%20Sue&rft.date=1989-01-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=283&rft.pages=283-&rft.issn=0740-9370&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1297689138%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1297689138&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true