The fairness doctrine is dead and living in Israel.: An article from: Federal Communications Law Journal
Book Details
Author(s)Amit M. Schejter
ISBN / ASINB00098O0DQ
ISBN-13978B00098O0D7
AvailabilityAvailable for download now
Sales Rank99,999,999
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸
Description
This digital document is an article from Federal Communications Law Journal, published by University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law on March 1, 1999. The length of the article is 8325 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
From the author: broadcasters were to refrain from being partial in any way. In Israel, a hybrid solution was adopted: While the system was designed in the Western European way, the courts have been insisting for years that the American fairness doctrine is the norm for achieving political neutrality. This study describes this phenomenon and the way it emerged, and questions its contribution to free speech in a volatile democracy.
Citation Details
Title: The fairness doctrine is dead and living in Israel.
Author: Amit M. Schejter
Publication:Federal Communications Law Journal (Refereed)
Date: March 1, 1999
Publisher: University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law
Volume: 51 Issue: 2 Page: 281(1)
Distributed by Thomson Gale
From the author: broadcasters were to refrain from being partial in any way. In Israel, a hybrid solution was adopted: While the system was designed in the Western European way, the courts have been insisting for years that the American fairness doctrine is the norm for achieving political neutrality. This study describes this phenomenon and the way it emerged, and questions its contribution to free speech in a volatile democracy.
Citation Details
Title: The fairness doctrine is dead and living in Israel.
Author: Amit M. Schejter
Publication:Federal Communications Law Journal (Refereed)
Date: March 1, 1999
Publisher: University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law
Volume: 51 Issue: 2 Page: 281(1)
Distributed by Thomson Gale

