FCC to Feel Unfamiliar Heat From Democrats

[cal04]

As congressional Democrats prepare to give the Federal Communications Commission its toughest scrutiny in years, a rivalry between the powerful agency's two most prominent Republicans is raising questions about its readiness to handle barbed questions and stiff challenges.

The Republican-controlled FCC -- which makes far-reaching decisions on telephone, television, radio, Internet and other services that people use daily -- has sparred infrequently with Republican controlled Congresses. But the Democratic-run 110th Congress is about to heat up the grill, starting with a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday.

Senators vow to press the chairman and four commissioners on matters such as media-ownership diversity, Internet access, broadcast decency standards and delays in resolving various issues. The hearing may cover the waterfront, Democratic staff members say, but there's little doubt that the agency will face a tone of questioning unseen in recent years.

"They've effectively emasculated any public-interest standards that existed" for radio and TV stations, said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a committee member who plans sharp questions on decency, media consolidation and other topics. "The entire Congress for years now has been devoid of any kind of oversight," he said, and the new Democratic majority is launching a process that will force the FCC to "beat a path to Capitol Hill to respond."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501736.html

[tnlefty]

1. Hang tough, Sen. Dorgan!!!

Give'em hell Byron!!!!

[truthisfreedom]

2. This is the best news I've heard all day!

We've waited years to get the FCC swept clean... we need all of the corruption removed and the fairness doctrine re-instated!

[momster]

3. Kick 'em Hard!

For years now, the FCC has been pandering to the Focus on Family/Dobsonites and ignoring the standards of the rest of the country. If they get 10 letters a year from anybody besides those commanded to write complaints, I'd be astounded. Take back our airwaves, reinstant the Fairness Doctrine, and tell the Dobbies that if they don't like something, they should turn it off.

[zbdent]

12. I once sent two letters to the FCC regarding an incident on WTAM1100

I mean, if they could hit Howard Stern for an obscure reference years before the "decency standards" were re-defined, then the fact that WTAM aired a staffer saying "It's f*cking great!" on the air (regarding the Anti-Art Modell march).

The first was met with asking for more details.

After I provided dates, the rules seemed to change ... they said that the complaint must be filed with a tape of the incident ...

:grr:

[Suich]

4. I hope Sen. Dorgan can rein those idiots in!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Bitwit1234]

5. Again...again....I ask when oh when

will they pass the Fairness Doctrine. I thought someone on the DU said that Kunich was going to introduce it....quick quick that's what they need.

[FormerDem06]

19. I don't want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated...

You'll have Republicans going after every show on CNN and MSNBC trying to force them into spewing out their Point of View. I prefer the way it is now, where they stay over on FOX.

Plus, Kennedy and Nixon BOTH admitted they used the fairness doctrine against political enemies, I don't think we should give ANY future president a tool with which to intimidate the media ever again.

[Judi Lynn]

20. Do you have any direct information on Kennedy and Nixon's admissions they used

the fairness doctrine against political enemies? You'd be helping to educate us all, obviously.

In the meantime, here are some quotes which don't support your point of view:

Published on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by FAIR
The Fairness Doctrine
How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

by Steve Rendall

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)

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.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[kestrel91316]

39. I can see why you, as a "former Dem", wouldn't want fairness in

media.........................

[melm00se]

21. the FCC

should steer completely clear of content regulations...any attempt to limit or guide content smacks of (or encourages) censorship.

[Heywood J]

28. Yeah,

Who needs censorship? Let the airwaves fill with hard-core pornography, partisan rancor, marketing vices to children, racial slurs, etc. Oh wait...

[melm00se]

32. well, let me rephrase...

the FCC, above and beyond the legal definition of obscenity (using the Miller standard):

<*> the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
<*> the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law
<*> Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


should apply as little content control as possible...especially on something a worthy of 1st amendment protection as political speech.

[pokercat999]

37. I would refer you to the on/off button.

[w4rma]

6. Very good. Btw, reinstate the fairness doctrine. (nt)

[melm00se]

15. and what is the expected

result of reinstituting the fairness doctrine?

[ProudDad]

25. Let's see

the end of faux "news"...for one...

[melm00se]

27. the fairness doctrine

was justified under a broadcaster's stewardship of the publicly owned airwaves. seeing Fox is a cable outlet, which is broadcast over a privately owned cable network, the Fairness Doctrine would not apply. If the FCC/Congress were to extend the language to cover such private networks, that would open the door for regulation of other private networks, something that might very will come back to bite back.

what it sounds like, to me at least, is that you would like the Fairness Doctrine re-instituted purely as a censorship tool for ideas, opinions and interpretations that you don't agree with or deem false. 2 things to remember here:

1) something like the Fairness Doctrine is a double edged sword - you can most certainly use it for your advantage but it can be used equally well against you.

2) The true measure of supporting free speech is fighting for and protecting the rights of people to say things that you do not agree with. From your comments, it appears that you might want to examine your supporting of the 1st amendment.

IMO, the FCC should be held to the fire for lifting the 20/20 rule of media ownership, that has had far more of an effect on chilling the diversity of opinion and content than the lack of the "Fairness" Doctrine. While an immediate cut back to 20/20 would be a chaotic event and should be done over time, slowly to allow the least disruption to that micro economy.

I liken this to weight gain/weight loss - people don't blow up from 175 to 350 pounds overnight, so you can't reasonably expect someone to reverse that trend overnight. it will take time and patience. in fact it'll probably take longer to go down than it did to go up.

[Heywood J]

29. Except...

seeing Fox is a cable outlet, which is broadcast over a privately owned cable network, the Fairness Doctrine would not apply.

... except for all those over-the-air stations they broadcast from as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fox_television_affiliates_%28by_U.S._state%29

[melm00se]

31. the version of

Fox you refer to is mainly the entertainment programming arm. See their schedule:
http://www.fox.com/schedule/

over than the State of the Union Address, nary a news program in sight, so very little, if anything, to fall under the fairness doctrine. Unless of course you want to have some balance to The Simpson's? (j/k as "entertainment" programming it is exempt from the Fairness Doctrine)

what most people mean when they talk about Faux news is www.foxnews.com, which, on TV is mainly sourced via private cable networks.

Granted Foxnews is also available via radio stations but the vast majority of the stations in their "network" subscribe to their "1 minute news" and "5 minute news" which are pure news reporting shows" "so and so did this", "so and so said that", "stupid male celeb married/divorced/slept with stupid female celeb" and the like, none of which falls under the purview of the Fairness Doctrine.

Again, under what justification would the FCC/Congress use the extend the Fairness Doctrine to a private network that provides content?

remember, TV delivery is expanding: when the original FD was implemented there was ONLY OTA the TV signals, since then cable, satellite, streaming video (cable, telco lines, wireless, cellular etc) and more more and more - - - ditto with radio and many of these delivery methods also deliver content in other forms. ready to have those fall under regulation as well? victims of the law of unintended consequences?

[Zhade]

7. KANDR

NT!

[quiet.american]

8. Now that's what I'm talkin' about. n/t

[Vidar]

9. Lots of work to be done in this direction.

[phoebe]

10. anyone hear Democracy Now this a.m. re Clear Channel

and their "performance" during a train derailment in N. Dakota in 2002? These guys should be prosecuted within an inch of their lives for their behavior. They are of course claiming no culpability.

In effect, due to consolidation,corporate greed, and centralized programming (computer transmitting "live" local" news)there was no emergency broadcast system available to local residents who were enveloped in a toxic anhydrous ammonia cloud for hours without the benefit of any information other than calling an overwhelmed 911. Emergency response was not able to broadcast any information to 6 communities affected as there was no-one live at any of the stations.

The FCC let Clear Channel off the hook completely..

The calls/article can be heard/read at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207

[NashVegas]

24. That's a Government Failure As Well

Radio stations went to voice-tracking/automation because with EAS, radio could do, legally, what it could not do under EBS - operate without a live body on site. The EAS is designed to allow the government to take control of broadcast content in emergencies.

[Hekate]

36. Same thing happened during a tornado, too. Affected residents got only canned music...

No information whatsoever that would help them with their emergency situation. This is all part of the Bush maladministration doctrine of "You Are All on Your Own Now, Suckers."

I hope to gods that our Democratic Congress can reinstate oversight of the FCC in the common good.

Hekate

[lligrd]

11. Does This Mean There Might Be Programs Worth Watching

once again? I sure hope so. I have a godzillion channels of nothing to watch.

[Javaman]

13. I bet Howard Stern is singing the zippity do dah over this. :) nt

[Judi Lynn]

14. Too bad it's going to be 2009 before we've got a chance to see a majority

on the FCC. It seems they've had control FOREVER, and it has been pure hell. They have done this country unbelievable harm, and the quality of what was once daily life-enhancing media has been eviscerated. Conduits which originally served the entire country have become outlets of shrill, dishonest, malignant, hate-filled propagandists around the clock, and music has almost disappeared altogether. What an accomplishment.

More FCC news:

FCC Removes Cable Price Controls in Verizon FiOS Markets
6:30 am on January 26, 2007

The Federal Communications Commission has removed cable television price controls in over 50 U.S. municipalities this week, including two New York communities where Verizon has fully deployed its 180-channel FiOS television service.

This deregulation is aimed at setting the stage for fair competition between Verizon Communications and cable incumbent, Cablevision Systems Corp.

The FCC normally only allows free market cable pricing in areas where a competing (satellite) television service reaches penetration of 15%, but in the case of competition from incumbent local telephone carriers, the FCC has demonstrated a willingness to remove price controls immediately.

To receive this exemption, cable companies need only to prove that a telecom rival has the capability and intent to compete on level ground for video subscribers.
(snip/)

http://www.teleclick.ca/2007/01/fcc-removes-cable-price-controls-in-verizon-fios-markets/

[gratuitous]

16. Public-interest standards for the public airwaves

What a concept. I can't wait for the predictable whining from certain quarters about how unfair the Democrats are being about all this.

[nolabels]

17. I am not going to get any hopes up

As of late, there has only been a lot of talk and not to much action in favor of the general public.

What does the FCC. stand for Fraudulent Corporate Cooperative

[Judi Lynn]

18. With media ownership rules on the line at FCC, research was withheld, economists say

With media ownership rules on the line at FCC, research was withheld, economists say
By Associated Press
Friday, January 26, 2007 - Updated: 07:16 AM EST

WASHINGTON - When the government decided to take a hard look at how well broadcasters were serving their communities, two economists at the Federal Communications Commission got a research idea: They would look at whether locally owned TV stations produced more local news than stations owned by companies based outside the area.

They found that local ownership resulted in more local news coverage. They also realized they had turned up what one of the researchers, economist Keith Brown, called ”inconvenient facts.” The findings were at odds with what their agency, under heavy lobbying from the broadcast industry, had endorsed.

The months-long study was spiked by the agency with ”no plausible explanation,” Brown says. He suspects it was because the conclusions were at odds with the shared position of the FCC and the broadcast industry: that media ownership rules were too restrictive and should be loosened.

Three years after Brown and the other economist, Peter Alexander, did their work, a copy of the study surfaced, sparking controversy. Its apparent suppression, and the alleged deep-sixing of a second research study, have prompted an investigation by the FCC’s inspector general.

While that review is not yet complete, interviews with past and present employees of the FCC by The Associated Press reinforce Brown’s account. Economic research reports were at times altered to reflect a more favorable view of lifting ownership caps, and at least in some cases they were spiked altogether, they said. Moreover, there are new concerns that an FCC management directive, issued shortly after the first television news report made headlines last fall, has had a chilling effect on research.
(snip/...)

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=179337

[MasonJar]

22. The Dems are doing a Grade A job so far. They must get on to

election reform really soon. Those of you lucky enough to have dem senators please continue to push them hard on the issue. My rep is a new dem and I am going to call him this week-end.

[madrchsod]

23. fitzgerald ,waxman, and the senate c s t committee ......

"A staunch Republican, Ms Martin was recruited to work for Mr Cheney by Mary Matalin, a close friend of Mr Libby and Mr Cheney. She is married to Kevin Martin, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and is currently the deputy director of communications for policy and planning for Mr Bush."

oh this is going to be fun to watch

[McCamy Taylor]

26. I hope that Congress dismantles the FCC and replaces it. Here it why.

This is what I posted at the WaPo, though I sort of doubt that they will let it appear online at their site.

There is another issue that needs to be addressed by this Congress. I believe that the current administration has been using a carrot/stick approach to control the corporate media. While Karl Rove was unable to deliver his 2000 campaign promises of unlimited media mergers, the FCC has found plenty of opportunity to make things very hot for the parent companies of some of the biggest news organizations in this country. These include Viacom, which has been out of compliance with an order issued in 2000 that it must divest some of its television holdings. This means that CBS News might find it a bit hard to be neutral when asked to choose between the president and an anchor with the highest name recognition and popularity of any in the country. Disney faced the prospect of the Republican Congress lead by Stevens and McCain passing something called a la carte cable back in 2004-5. This would have let millions of Americans opt of of the Disney Channel. The FCC was prepared to recommend the bill--then changed its mind, just about a month before ABC started production on The Path to 9/11. CNN had to wait an eternity in Republican administration time--18 months--for approval for its Adelphia acquisitions and even now these are on probation. The Tribune Co. which holds the LA Times also owns a TV station in LA--that is against the law. Good thing the FCC is so understanding.

An FCC which allows media corporations to skirt the law while reserving for itself the right to bring the hammer down any time it chooses would not be good for the free press even it were nonpartisan. And we all know by now that nothing which the current administration does is ever nonpartisan. The media giants I have mentioned above have all shown evidence of behavior that is "odd" to put it nicely---unless one hypothesizes that someone in a position to do tremendous economic harm is holding a loaded gun to their corporate head (in a figurative way) and saying "Dare me."

There is an easy solution. I respectfully suggest that Congress toss out the entire FCC board, since they seem to be incapable of enforcing federal media ownership rules, and replace them with some pencil pushers who know that "no" means "no" and 35% means 35%. Then there will be no temptation to twist arms or do special favors in return for special favors.

[dunn]

35. I think that is a very good idea. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

30. It would be hilarious to read that Senator Dorgan had repeated what

Karl Rove has been quoted saying:

We'll fuck (him, her, them, it, etc.) like (he's, she's, they'v, it's) never been fucked!"
(snip)

Somehow, I doubt we're going to hear that from Senator Dorgan!

[IWantAChange]

33. Oversight and Congressional Hearings - take note Repugs - Democracy is coming off life-support.

I can only hope that the MAJORITY of the American public can stop watching American Idol long enough to notice that the Democratic Party is fighting for their collective well-being.

[goforit]

34. ROFLMAO!!! The pedophile repugs may have to give up ther sites.

[DiverDave]

38. It's about goddamned time

open the windows of government, it stinks in there.

[Ignacio Upton]

40. First thing Dorgan should do: block Murdoch's bid for the Tribune

n/t.

[TellTheTruth82]

41. Enforcement

This doctrine is impractical to enforce. What does equal time mean and for who? If Rush Limbaugh runs a show for three hours, does that mean someone gets to blast his ideas for three hours, and if so, who? Does it mean that Franken gets three hours? If so, what about other parties? If you balance it by ideas then you have an even bigger problem. If you want to fix social security, then you would have to allow everyone with an idea to speak. If one is talking fairness, it can't be done. If you want to use it as a tool to get equal time with the Republicans, (selective enforcement), then you are no better than a Republican.