http://mediamatters.org/items/200410130008The "equal time" doctrine is alive and well in current federal law. Here's what the law says:
If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided,
That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.
In 2003, the National Association of Broadcasters informed broadcast stations reaching California residents that in order to comply with the equal time provision, they were to refrain from showing movies starring then-gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The law contains exceptions for broadcasts that qualify as "bona fide" newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and live news events.
The Journal's editorial board is confusing this principle in current law with the "fairness doctrine," a policy the FCC abandoned in August 1987. The fairness doctrine required licensees to "cover vitally important controversial issues of interest in their communities" and "provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints." The doctrine also codified what became known as the "personal attack rule" and the "editorial rule." The personal attack rule required broadcasters to notify the subjects of on-air personal attacks that an attack had occurred and to then provide them with an opportunity to respond. Similarly, the editorial rule allowed political candidates to respond either to criticisms or station endorsements of another candidate. None of these provisions required "equal time" for candidates or issues.