Rep. Eshoo to push for Fairness Doctrine

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Peninsula Press Club

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast.

The doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration's Federal Communications Commission in 1987, and a year later, Rush Limbaugh's show went national, ushering in a new form of AM radio.

... Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

Read more: http://sfppc.blogspot.com/2008/12/rep-eshoo-to-push-for-fairness-doctrine.html

---

The original source, the Palo Alto Daily Post, does not post its news stories online, so this is the best online source for this story.

[blueclown]

1. I sure hope so!!!

It would be nice for our representatives not to be intimated by the right wing noise machine for once in their elected careers.

There is nothing but positives in bringing the Fairness Doctrine back.

[Joe Bacon]

34. That's a good first step, BUT

We need a comprehensive Media reform plan that contains all of these:

1) Amend the Communications Act of 1996 to:
2) Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine
3) Force divestiture
4) No entity may own more than a total of 5 media properties in the US. Period (Media properties include: newspapers, wire services, magazines, TV stations, Radio stations, Broadcasting companies, computer companies, motion picture studios, talent agencies, software companies, entertainment production companies, cable systems, web pages, advertising agencies, publishing companies, stores that sell books, DVDs, music, broad and narrowband companies, web hosting sites and webpages)
5) Media companies may not have interlocking directorates. Screwpert Murdoch has NO business sitting on the board of directors of the ASSociated Press!
6) No media company may own more than one media property in a market
7) Advertisers are held responsible for the content of media they purchase advertising for
8) Newspapers, and broadcasting companies are responsible for their content
9) All Media companies are taxed at 25% of their gross income, the funds derived will finance real public broadcasting with no corporate ties.
10) The airwaves belong to the American people, not to Murdoch, GE, Redstone or any other billionaire.
11) Enact a Three Strikes Rule in the media. Three lies and you're out. Freedom of Speech does NOT include the freedom to lie!

It won't take a week for the Pigboy and Mr. Teeney Weeney to get 3 strikes!

[Sex Pistol]

66. Good grief, that sure sounds like fascism to me.

[Joe Bacon]

72. Do you have any clue as to what fascism is?

It's what our "Media" is now!

[Sex Pistol]

73. Yes, I do; but obviously, you do not.

What we have now is private enterprise. What you have suggested is, strict and authoritarian regulations forced on a private enterprise by the government. Although the enterprise would remain in private hands, the owners would no longer have control. That is fascism.

If the government were to seize ownership of the enterprise and enforce your strict and authoritarian regulations--that would be socialism.

Both are opposites of freedom and both are bad.

[Leftist Agitator]

74. You need to take a few history classes, or maybe Political Science 101...

Because it is fairly obvious that you have no fucking clue as to what fascism actually entails.

Here are some starting points:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

If you bothered to read and comprehend the linked information, you'll have seen that a defining characteristic of fascism is pervasive DE-REGULATION of corporate activity, quite the opposite of your "strict and authoritarian regulations forced on a private enterprise by the government."

Whether you know it or not, you're spouting Republican rhetoric.

Just to reiterate, here are some quotations from Benito Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism:

"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production."

"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions..."

And, as Wikipedia tells us:

In 1923, soon after he was appointed as prime minister, Benito Mussolini promised that "the government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy." From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini allowed Finance Minister Alberto De Stefani to pursue a generally laissez-faire economic policy.<30> Some state assets were privatized, and inheritance tax was abolished along with other direct taxes.<31> However, De Stefani was replaced with Giuseppe Volpi in 1925, and from then on laissez-faire and free trade were progressively abandoned in favor of corporatism





The next time that you want to shoot off your mouth, kindly take a minute to consider whether or not you have any fucking clue as to the facts of the subject that you are addressing. If your post is any indication of a general trend, the answer is "Probably not".

[Sex Pistol]

77. Wow...! You must be the minister of disinformation.

Fascism relies on coercion and force to get its way. So, I am surely not "spouting Republican rhetoric," (that's what they do) I am simply coming down on the side of the First Amendment.

I like the fact that I have the FREEDOM to read any newspaper in the world, watch any television station in the world, surf the web to any place in the world; and listen to any radio station in the world.

You see, unlike you, I believe that FREEDOM of speech means the "other guy" gets to have his say too. (What are you afraid of?)


Here is more from your Wikepedia: (This clearly, demonstrates that Mussolini was not a believer in laissez-faire style economics. It also demonstrate the close relationship between fascism and socialism.)

<<< Mussolini launched several public construction programs and government initiatives throughout Italy to combat economic setbacks or unemployment levels. His earliest, and one of the best known, was Italy's equivalent of the Green Revolution, known as the "Battle for Grain", in which 5,000 new farms were established and five new agricultural towns on land reclaimed by draining the Pontine Marshes.>>>

<<<Later, after becoming involved in the socialist movement, he was deported to Italy and volunteered for military service...After initially writing on numerous occasions against the war in the socialist paper Avanti, Mussolini relented and he and his class were called up in August of 1915 for active duty.>>>

[Leftist Agitator]

85. Thank you for demonstrating that it is futile to argue with stupidity.

"I like the fact that I have the FREEDOM to read any newspaper in the world, watch any television station in the world, surf the web to any place in the world; and listen to any radio station in the world."

Um, how does reinstituting the fairness doctrine deny you the freedom to read, listen to or watch what you want? You can still watch etc. whatever the hell you want, but when it comes to political speech, both sides of an issue must be presented.

OH NOEZ! AM RADIO WILL HAVE TO AIR BOTH MALLOY AND RUSH!1!!1! AIEEEEE!

"You see, unlike you, I believe that FREEDOM of speech means the "other guy" gets to have his say too. (What are you afraid of?)"

Yes, the "other guy" gets to have his say. That's exactly the point, moran. What am I afraid of? Ignorami like you running shit.

"Here is more from your Wikepedia: (This clearly, demonstrates that Mussolini was not a believer in laissez-faire style economics. It also demonstrate the close relationship between fascism and socialism.)"

My Wikipedia?

"Mussolini launched several public construction programs and government initiatives throughout Italy to combat economic setbacks or unemployment levels. His earliest, and one of the best known, was Italy's equivalent of the Green Revolution, known as the "Battle for Grain", in which 5,000 new farms were established and five new agricultural towns on land reclaimed by draining the Pontine Marshes.

Later, after becoming involved in the socialist movement, he was deported to Italy and volunteered for military service...After initially writing on numerous occasions against the war in the socialist paper Avanti, Mussolini relented and he and his class were called up in August of 1915 for active duty."

Wow, there's a lot of stupid to cut through here... Let's take it point by point, yes?

Your first paragraph describes one of Mussolini's public works projects. What are you trying to say, that public works equal fascism? Because if so, you might want to know about this thing called the New Deal, lots of public works, TVA, CCC, rural electrification, and so on. Was the America that embraced those policies a fascist nation? No. In fact, that was the most liberal period in American political history.

YOU = FAIL.

And in your second paragraph, you appear to argue that because a young Mussolini dabbled in socialist thought, fascism and socialism are therefore inseparable. Um, what? That doesn't make any sense at all.

"This clearly, demonstrates that Mussolini was not a believer in laissez-faire style economics."

How is that agian? Because it seems to me that you didn't demonstrate jack shit.

"It also demonstrate the close relationship between fascism and socialism."

How? Is it through the virtue of that shoddy attempt of yours to insinuate that because Mussolini once wrote for a socialist publication that fascism and socialim are one and the same?

Whenever you want to make a cogent argument to defend your position, I'll gladly consider it. But as it appears that you are incapable of doing so, I doubt that I'll have the opportunity to do so.

Again, YOU = FAIL.

[Sex Pistol]

99. Mr. Misinformation, that is the most tortured attempt at explaining away fascism

that I have ever seen! Mussolini was socialist who fathered a hybrid brand of socialism that came to be known as fascism. That is a historical fact of reality.

I presented you with historical facts which clearly demonstrated that Mussolini implemented economic policies that were totally and completely the opposite of laissez-faire and all you offered in rebuttal were profanities and mindless insults.

Check mate.

[Abq_Sarah]

87. No offense....

But I don't think you understand the nature of fascism. It is not deregulation. In Fascism, the state is absolute. The state dictates every aspect of your life. I'm not making this up, it's straight from La dottrina del fascismo. The state dictates what products will be made, how many will be made and what they will cost. In order to prevent dissent, the state controls all forms of information from the schools to the media.

Can you imagine the fairness doctrine in the hands of the repugs? The "opposition voice" would consist of blue dog democrats being broadcast at 3 AM.

[Joe Bacon]

75. Love those Pigboy talking points!

Welcome to DU, Rush!

[Sex Pistol]

78. So, when you take over the media, will I still be able to watch the NFL?

Or will it be deemed to be politically incorrect?

(I can only imagine what you would do to my internet access):crazy:

[Joe Bacon]

79. I'm taking over the media?

I'm calling for busting up Big media into little pieces and you're alleging I'm taking it over?

Rush, you've eaten more than your usual share of Oxycontin pills, haven't you?

[Sex Pistol]

82. Have you looked at "Big Media's share prices lately?

They have already been broken up into little pieces.

You should try to educate yourself about these sorts of things. But then that would require you to think.

[Ignis]

105. Nice ad hominems. Why don't you go back to your home site?

In before the pizza.

[Sex Pistol]

109. I really can't make out the meaning of your post,

but as far as my home site goes, it's registered, but it's not up yet.

However, I'll keep you posted. :)

[No Elephants]

83. "What we have now is private enterprise?" LOL Gullible much?

[Sex Pistol]

84. Gullible...? Well, if she's pretty, I have to watch myself...

:)

Don't tell me you are another one of those folks who want to control what I hear, what I watch, what I read and where I surf.

I like my First Amendment rights. And if my assumptions are correct, there are quite a few others who revere that right too.

[No Elephants]

100. But, I did not comment on first amendment rights, only your statement about

private enterprise. Private enterprise doesn't use stuff that belongs to me, like airwaves, without sharing the profits with me. Nor does it make me bail it out to rescuse it from its own jaw dropping excesses. Or give them tax breaks when they run low on funds.

As far as the First Amendment, though, it has long been established that licensing of airwaves that belong to ALL of us gives the government greater leeway to regulate what is on the air than the government has when a medium is totally privately owned. Which is why, for example, people and stations can get fined when they say certain four letter words on the air, but authors and publishers don't get fined when the same words appear in a book, even though the printed word is a lot less ephemeral than one said on the air.

As far as whether I am drop dead gorgeous. All female posters are, aren"t they? (And never post before doing hair and makeup.) And all men are rich, powerful, strong and exceptionally well-endowed. Aren't they? And all posters of both genders have washboard abs. But, alas, they never come into any kind of contact with each other, except for posts, so it all goes to waste. At least as far as fellow posters are concerned.

Hey, for purposes of a message board, I'll gladly take smart and/or funny (any gender).

[Sex Pistol]

110. I think you have put your finger on the problem;

and that is government ownership of the airways. IMO, that is a matter which should be left to private enterprise. After all, private enterprise seems to do a pretty good job of managing the internet as well as other forms of communication and expression. In the early days of radio and television, the government was really the only entity that could manage the assignment of frequencies, but our society has progressed to the point where that sort of management is archaic.

I say let GoDaddy, Yahoo or something like that assume the responsibility. Having the government in control only increases the likelihood of fraud and corruption. And there are many examples of this in countries like Cuba and China, where you only get to see and here what the state wants you to see and hear. Heck, you can't even access the internet in Cuba and the right wing would like put the clamp down on it here in the US.

So, while I may not agree with what I hear on the AM dial, I am free to turn it off and come here to spend time with good folks like you. :)

[Craftsman]

104. The fairnes doctrine is a violation of the 1st Amendment

It is wrong plain and simple.

[Sex Pistol]

111. It's not only wrong, but it's a terrible waste of time.

For, I agree with your contention that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and would be found to be so by the Supreme Court.

[fascisthunter]

107. Fascism is the merger between gov and private industry

therein removing the citizenry's power and influence from it, yet placing that power and influence in the hands of the corporate wealthy class. The end game is for that corporate wealthy class to control everything and for "we the People" to have no influence whatsoever. We the people through our government are allowed to regulate the private sector... that IS NOT FASCISM, but a product of a representative democracy.

Governemnts have always regulated private industry, and due to the fact that private industry can have such a negative impact on the very people who participate in our democracy, it is a very good check on the balance of power. Allowing private industry or the corporate class to dictate all in order to emasse wealth, is very dangerous as we have seen it's effect on our government and market this very day. We see that in radio.... due to deregulation, monopolies have formed, dominating the air waves so that only one (right wing) point of view is heard. That's how wealth and corporate power influences our government and it's relation to we the People.

The Iraqi invasion is a direct result of corporate power and influence by the private sector on our government. Look at how many people died because of its influence.

Due to deregulation in the market place, in order for a small minority to emasse wealth, the American tax payer was forced to bail out Wall Street, and the very people who promoted and benefited from it. And yes, they have managed to utilize the media that seems so afraid of the Fairness Doctrine, not because it's "fascist", but because it doesn't give free-reign to promote political propaganda which is unchalleneged by an opposing point of view. That is the point of fascism.... for wealth to be the only means of power, influence and control.

Giving corporations more freedom to emasse wealth with no oversight for the purpose of protecting the people is fascism itself. Keeping media fair and balanced protects the people from misinformation by the very corporate class that owns the media. Checks and Balances on power are essential for a democracy.

[Sex Pistol]

112. The term merger implies a voluntary unification of two or more entities;

whereas fascism is defined by forced regimentation of enterprises and individuals. Therefore, I beg to differ with your theory.

It is true that governments have always regulated the private sector and there is no question that the private sector must be regulated. But when government regulations expand beyond the legitimate role of protecting individuals from force and fraud, it ceases to be a legitimate government.

And while it is also true that the right wing has created a niche for expressing their ideas on AM radio, most people agree that left wing ideology dominates what we see on the silver screen. The important thing to note is that both examples are the result of voluntary dealings. And voluntary relationships are always preferable to relationships based on force. But anyway, you and I are simply expressing our opinions.

Here are some definitions of fascism from some genuinely authentic definers of words.

From Webster's:
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascistic) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

From dictionary.com:
Fascism: (sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

From yourdictionary.com:
Fascism: a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.

[fascisthunter]

114. Nope.... you claim there is an implication when there is none

the merger is forced. I thought I made that clear....

The Fairness Doctrine is not fascist, sorry. You can spin it all you want but you are exagerrating and misuing a term for the purpose of this argument. Preventing media from spouting one point of view witout fairly representing others is not fascism.

By way of exagerating meanings of words attributed to a definition, you could apply your own definition of fascism to any form of regulation as it all could be redefined as a form of force.

"Here are some definitions of fascism from some genuinely authentic definers of words."

Not so.... most words in that quote could be applied to any form of totalitarianism.

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power" - former USSR

"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism" - former USSR

etc...


As for your point about media control: IT ALREADY IS CONTROLLED BY A CORPORATE CLASS who doesn't have to present any other point of view. There is a monopoly today therefore no dissenting opinions. You by default are actually supporting today's corporate control of the media by arguing against the people's influence on that media monopoly.

[gravity]

36. Doesn't setting up the fairness doctrine proves you are intimidated?

[Oregone]

57. Only if you believe in right wing lies

Doesn't allowing media-ownership censorship against contrasting viewpoints prove your argument is so weak it cannot stand on its own?

[gravity]

59. That is why the RW media has zero credibility

No one takes them seriously, except for the wing nuts.

Real journalism that strives for a neutral bias like the NY Times or CNN is a lot more dangerous.

[blueclown]

2. double post

double post

[jetphixer]

3. its called FAIRNESS

Fairness Doctrine is what it is called. Rush don't like the word it messes up his toxic talk Now talk about Cancer to be surgically removed Its called Rush Limb..... something

[Homer Wells]

4. K&R. nt

[Fovea]

5. K, and indeed R.

So many things depend on getting the right wing noise machine massaged with a sledge hammer.

[BR_Parkway]

6. Oh noes!!!! It'll be the death of our drive by librul media - how will

we ever stand up to those conservatives now if we have to give them equal time .......wait.

The Freepers dont' want a Fairness Doctrine? Rush is against it? I used to think freepers just believed things that I thought were wrong. But they don't - cause they don't believe in much of anything, they simply repeat the talking points.

At a chamber of commerce holiday party the other night, one of the local "self mades" was talking about how Obama was going to shove this Fairness doctrine down our throats, and he went on and on about how bad it was going to be - right up until I asked him why he didn't want to force the librul media to give equal time to conservative viewpoints. He just stared.

I'm still not sure if he made the connection that 2 of the talking points are 180 degrees opposed from each other. I've served on some committees with him, I know that he's not an unintelligent man, no matter how stupid I find his talking points. But if you somehow slip a thought in that Rush hasn't prepared them for, they either react angrily or shut down. It's like a cult that hasn't prepared them with all the answers, they can't function without Dear Leaders direction. My first thought was a a wind up toy that just wound down and was waiting for someone to make it go again.

[UpInArms]

16. they are the echo machine - similar to the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm

four legs baaaad - two legs good!

[pinto]

7. I remember when, and it worked pretty well. I like her stand to have a revised,

renewed Fairness Act cover cable and satellite outlets as well.

[melm00se]

8. I have said it before and will say it again

(and as often as necessary):

the Fairness Doctrine is an antiquated dinosaur of a bygone era with the added bonus for those who are wishing for it's return of: be careful of what you wish for.

The days of 3 TV stations and 15 radio stations in a market as the only electronic sources of information are long long gone. Today the average viewer/listener has significantly more electronic sources of information providing wide ranging points of view that government content monitoring and judging is not necessary.

If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, you will see a chilling effect on political broadcast content - broadcasters will be loath to risk being smacked by the FCC for not being "fair" and will just say "screw it" and carry non-controversial content so as to avoid the fairness police.

[blueclown]

9. So what's your solution to ending conservative domination of radio and TV? n/t

[Skelly]

11. solution?

Listening to and SUPPORTING liberal programs. In Columbus, Ohio we used to have Air America. I loved listening to it and all of the programs. Soon, I started noticing they would play music during times they previously had ads. Next thing you know, they were gone. Conservatives only dominate the radio because they have the financial support to do so.

[blueclown]

17. How the heck is Air America supposed to survive if they have such a problem syndicating

This is a structural problem at work. It has nothing to do with will. You make it sound like if more liberals listened to radio, it would succeed. Conservative radio programs have all the best signals and are syndicated at a much large rate than liberal radio programs. Rush Limbaugh's success is not based on the fact that he gets an extradionary amount of viewers per affliate. He doesn't. What he does have is a very large syndication network, where virtually every major radio station in this country carries his show. Liberal radio programs are not entitled to the same benefits.

[melm00se]

39. Air America

would fall under the same rules and regulations as Rush Limbaugh would. they would be forced to carry republican counterpoints or go off the air.

[blueclown]

43. They would also likely get the same syndication deals that Limbaugh does.

Which they don't currently get now.

[melm00se]

47. only if they made money (nt)

[hezekkia]

86. people don't listen to Rush because they HAVE to.

they listen because they want to.

If a liberal show were making gobs of money, it would be syndicated. MONEY TALKS.

[blueclown]

98. That's a lie.

That is simply not the case. Please quit repeating Limbaugh talking points... that is not the current structure of talk radio in the real world...

[CANDO]

68. If only Clear Channel would actually air liberal programming

I have to pay for Sat-Radio to get my liberal programming. Why is it that nearly all metropolitan areas around the country have almost no liberal voices on AM radio, while they are overwhelmingly liberal population bases? The cons say they aren't commercially viable. Bullshit! Corpo-media doesn't care about making money from liberal viewpoints because they don't want those viewpoints aired on their stations.

[Dennis Donovan]

27. Simple - re-regulate the media - BUST the CORPORATE MEDIA TRUSTS!

:thumbsup:

[melm00se]

41. THAT is the 1st sensible

comment. reinstate the ownership rules from the pre-Clinton days...mix things up a bit with local ownership

[Dennis Donovan]

44. The rise of RW media came about with the initial de-regs of the 80's...

...and EXPLODED with the Telecom act of 1995.

As much as I love the Big Dog, THAT was fucking STUPID!:thumbsdown:

[groundloop]

10. Gotta agree - be careful what you wish for.

Can you imagine MSNBC being required to let Rush Limpballs have a half hour right after Rachel? Maybe someone could come up with a better idea, maybe some sort of "truth doctrine" so that these talking heads have to think twice before spewing their hate camouflaged as fact.

[ellenfl]

32. but they have scarborough and tweety! eom

[Oregone]

53. They wouldn't be required to give him 30 minutes!

The FD would maybe be enforced by her having him on to comment on an issue for 2 minutes, and then she could spend the other 28 minutes shredding him behind his back. It requires contrasting viewpoints, not equal time for them. Contrasting viewpoints can only enhance a news broadcast, not detract from it.

[Lorien]

89. Just how old are you????

The Fairness Doctrine worked extremely well, thank you very much, for 60 YEARS until Ronny Reagan got rid of it-which gave rise to talk radio nutjobs like Limbaugh. America's mainstream media was FAR, FAR more honest before Reagan destroyed the fairness doctrine.

[melm00se]

96. i am old enough to remember

and in fact I worked in radio under the FD and know what? we never carried or discussed anything of controversy. In fact we avoided those topics like the plague as the owner adamantly refused to go through all the record keeping and the inevitable FCC complaints and investigations that followed that kind of coverage. We were not alone, the only stations that covered "controversial" topics were the local public and college radio stations (they had tons of unpaid volunteers and students to do all the scut work on keeping records and files and responding to complaints plus their livelihood wasn't on the line if they screwed up).

Plus, as I have said earlier:

1) the days of this being a necessary doctrine are gone. there has been an explosion of electronic media outlets available with far more points of view than were available.

2) re-instituting the FD is putting a gun in the hands of a child - or in this case, control over what content is fair and unfair in the hands of unelected bureaucrats (would you trust the Bush administration, or its descendant, to decide what is "fair" and what isn't? that is the dice that you roll with re-instituting the FD).

3) This will have a chilling effect on "new" sources of alternative political points of view. Outlets like Air America, contrary to what folks here would wish for, would have never gotten off the ground with the Fairness Doctrine in place.

4) Finally, once you give the FCC (or any government agency) a hammer, they start looking around for nails. It is not too far of a stretch for the FCC to say "hey, we have been given regulatory power over the airwaves (both traditional as well as satellite) and we have regulatory power over telecomm lines (the ones over which the internet operate) and more and more electronic media streams across the internet, so we can, legally, apply the Fairness Doctrine to content that is fed across the web!". 3 guesses how long it will be before a complaint is filed with the FCC about DU and the FCC files a notice of investigation with the owners of this site and, in an effort to avoid punitive action, you see quasi-Hannity's and quasi-Limbaughs being allowed (under the threat of government action) to post here.

if that is where you want to go, please, by all means stand on the sideline and be a cheerleader for a piece of legislation like this but understand that those of us who cherish our 1st Amendment rights will pull a Horatio and stand at the bridge for as long as it takes to hold the mob at bay.

[w4rma]

14. What did broadcasters do when the Fairness Doctrine was in place? Did they carry non-controversial

content, only? No, they didn't. The doctrine was in place for many many years and it appeared to work well. Bring it back, now.

[melm00se]

37. yes they did

they bailed and relegated their non-news public affairs programming to sunday morning god squad.

[Doremus]

18. No. Facts aren't difficult to obtain, nor are facts "commentary."

Sure, the 24/7 propaganda spewers will have to reformat. How about 24/7 FACTS, aka NEWS?

If you're saying the corporate media would rather serve 24/7 Britney and JLo than straight news, perhaps.

Or perhaps, like the financial industry, they'll gripe and moan but in the end conform to the law and serve a product to a waiting market.

I bet it's the latter.

[melm00se]

60. Which facts

you choose to cover are in fact commentary

[Dennis Donovan]

26. I just can't see it being effective anymore...

As I said downthread, BUST the MEDIA TRUSTS!

[Somawas]

40. A far superior idea.

The fairness doctrine does nothing to solve the corpocratic issue. Diversifying ownership does.

[ellenfl]

30. maybe then they will just REPORT the news as they should now. eom

[melm00se]

45. nope

they won't even do that...pre-repeal, the only all news stations were, in most markets, not-for-profit stations as all news stations couldn't turn a profit. with the repeal of the fairness doctrine, the threat of having your license pulled went away so the format options exploded (which had the secondary effect of saving AM radio) and it wasn't just talk radio that opened up but just about any information formats.

[LanternWaste]

51. No more nor no less than any political content...

"broadcasters will be loath to risk being smacked by the FCC for not being "fair" and will just say "screw it" and carry non-controversial content so as to avoid the fairness police."

No more nor no less than any political content aired on our publicly owned airwaves prior to the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

If one wishes to watch editorialized news programming that better suites their own political agenda, there are, as you implied, enough cable stations that would be exempt from the regulations and free of balance to satisfy them.

That being said, I do not think that mandating equatable time for controversial political issues on publicly owned airwaves to be antiquated at all-- indeed, a balanced news program is now more relevant and salient than ever in this age of guilded and disingenuous "news" programming.

[machI]

65. Right now, there is nothing fair about talk radio where I live

There are three right wing talk radio stations where I live. The only thing that comes close to balance is the local College Radio station that plays NPR 12 or so hours a day.

Even on Saturday, when NPR is playing Click and Clack, the local Clear Channel station has their automotive guru on who mixes his right wing views in with information about oil changes.

The right wing message is strong on the radio where I live, and there is no progressive balance to it.

[depakid]

67. Your "analysis" has been proven wrong

The Fairness Doctrine(s) was studied repeatedly FOR DECADES in an attempt to find chilling effects- none were ever noted.

In addition, not only did regulations require broadcasters to air issues of public concern to their communites (and keep logs) -but in fact a MUCH greater proportion of time was devoted to such matters when the Fairness Doctrine(s), licensing and renewal requirements had teeth than today, where stations not only AVOID substantive state and local issues- but have the gall to sellentire blocks of time to hucksters and in many markets multiple stations air their infomertials at the same time -say on Saturday and Sunday afternoon.

The result is that in MOST communites- there is very little informative content, and no accountability mechanisms to enforce balance or accuracy. Rather than a marketplace of ideas, what you have is a monopoly of far right hate speech and propaganda- unlike anything you'd find in any other western nation.

It's a profoundly dysfunctional system- and one that desperately needs to be reformed- especially in these trying times.

[w4rma]

12. Extremely good! This will help cut down on corporate liars! on TV/radio. (nt)

[Froward69]

13. Gosh, please dont tell me

the republican paranoia is accurate... I mean I agree with the fairness doctrine. but I hate to think the rethugs can be paranoid over actual future occurrences...

[gravity]

15. I hate this push for the fairness doctrine

It seems like it is more motivated by shutting up your political opponents than actual merits of the law. The fairness doctrine was introduce originally when their were limited media outlets, but times have changed are there are plenty of choices out there now.

If you don't like Rush Limbaugh, change the channel. IMHO, that guy is doing the GOP a disservice anyways.

[UpInArms]

19. do you have memories of life before the microwave oven?

if not - you have spent your entire life without any media balance.

[WriteDown]

I do and still think the fairness doctrine is a bad idea

in TODAY's world due to the wide variety of media that now exists. Also, I can see an argument made that it should apply to the internet and podcasts.

[UpInArms]

22. but there you see - you have a differing point of view than I and I can - in real time -

come in and disagree with you.

:toast:

[WriteDown]

23. Haha...

Good point, but I suspect we agree on enough other points.

[blueclown]

20. These are right wing talking points.

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with shutting your political opponent up.

[gravity]

25. The fairness doctrine gives the GOP legitimate talking points

and they will just get around it by getting an Alan Colmes on their shows.

[blueclown]

29. The Fairness Doctrine gives the GOP illegitimate talking points.

And even if there is Alan Colmes on their show, who cares? He's a Democrat, so it's a better situation than what is happening right now.

[melm00se]

64. while that may not

be the intent, in the wrong hands, that is exactly what the FD will be used to do.

The FD will put directly in the hands of unelected government bureaucrats the ability to decide what is and is not fair coverage of events and extending that out to coverage of political events/policies it is quite easy to see how this could be abused.

Far better to never put that gun in their hands than to have to perform surgery to undo the damage caused by narrow minded political hacks.

But, hey, if folks have such a low opinion of their 1st amendment rights and are willing to give them up far be it for me to stand in their way.

[Viking12]

52. There still are limited (broadcast) media outlets

I can't go out and start my own radio station, the Feds will throw me in jail. If you believe that broadcast media aren't scarce, how would you account for the outrageous price of a FCC broadcast license?

[Oregone]

56. The Fairness Doctrine PREVENTS the shutting up of political opponents

So its probably what you actually want. Its function is to fight against censorship (from the media ownership), rather than fight for it. Requiring contrasting viewpoints is requiring MORE views than is currently allowed at the table. What is possibly wrong with that?

[Laelth]

21. Although the "fairness doctrine" is better than all-right media all the time ...

It's still not "fair." It still forces the media to give equal time and weight to right-wing lies and distortions that are divorced from reality. In the current media climate, of course, restoration of the "fairness doctrine" will at least give reality some voice. Ultimately, though, I want the media to expose truth. I don't want the media forced to give equal weight and time to the clear un-truths spouted by the right wing noise machine.

:dem:

-Laelth

[groundloop]

31. Good point Laeith .....

I can envision a news program on global warming, followed by some nut head spouting propoganda about it being an unproven theory. I can see a news report about coal mining's pollution, followed by a coal industry spokesman crying about the cost of cleaning up their act putting people out of work.

[Laelth]

38. Welcome to DU!

Your observations are spot on. A large number of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York ... just because the Republicans said so, and the media echoed their obvious lies. The fairness doctrine has problems, but, as I said, right now the media (mostly) just echoes Republican lies and self-censors the actual truth. With the return of the fairness doctrine the truth will at least get equal coverage.

Thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dennis Donovan]

24. I think a FAR more effective way to restore balance to our airwaves is to bust the media trusts...

Re-regulation of all public media systems (including cable). If competition is supposedly good for capitalism, then BUST the CORPORATE MEDIA TRUSTS!

[ellenfl]

28. i think it should be called the 'fair and balanced doctrine'.

republicans could not possibly object to their own flagship's motto. :evilgrin:

that said, i agree that monopoly busting is a possibility. however, that does not mean that corporation-owned media . . . and it will all still be corporate-owned . . . will not still be biased. it will just come from more sources and conglomerates will form unofficially by ideology. breaking up the big 6 may not make the reporting any more fair.

perhaps, 'news' and 'commentary' should be more definitive.

ellen fl

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Wow. Limbaugh went on a year after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed?

I guess conservatives learned the lesson of propaganda early.

[Dennis Donovan]

35. It was coincidence. There were conservative commenators before the FD repeal...

What gave Limbaugh the advantage was the stripping of media regulations under Reagan and then under Clinton, allowing him to syndicate and propagate his show on corporate-owned stations.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. So, Olberman will only get a 1/2 hour, so that the oppsoing view gets the other 1/2 hour?

:shrug:

[Oregone]

55. No, that is equal time rules, which is seperate from the Fairness Doctrine

So many people do not understand this. The FD requires contrasting views presented on important public issues, but does not require those views to be given equal time or even presented in the same way (could be editorials, interviews, etc).

[melm00se]

97. equal time and the Fairness Doctrine are

2 completely different animals.

Equal time is part of election law. It requires that a station, if they carry paid political advertisements, to offer the same amount of time, in the same type of time slot, for the same price per spot.

the Fairness Doctrine was the requirement by the electronic media to carry countervailing points of view on commentary and editorial pieces. it does not apply to news stories or entertainment pieces

[melm00se]

46. to those who have

rose colored nostalgia glasses about pre-repeal Fairness Doctrine days: the doctrine drove most broadcasters to avoid controversial subjects. Covering a controversial subject or even appearing to voice an opinion on one drove broadcasters to have to allow, track and keep records on opposing viewpoints, all of which takes time, effort and money. It was far easier to avoid those issues all together.

[Dennis Donovan]

48. I have warm-fuzzies recalling shows preceded with the "Seal of Good Practice"

http://www.tvhistory.tv/SEAL-Good-Practice.htm

But, what gives me even warmer fuzzies is remembering when the local station in my hometown was owned by a local family, and the broadcasters were people you knew when you passed them on the street.:thumbsup:

[melm00se]

49. ahhhh

the old NAB blue stamp.

ever read those guidelines? very 50's.

[Dennis Donovan]

50. Yeah, but it showed an attempt by the NAB to use the airwaves for good...

Murdoch would melt into a steaming green puddle if he was forced to read them.:D

[Oak2004]

69. I seem to remember, in those "bad old days"

watching a local program in Chicago called "underground news", that covered the movement and counterculture.

Yep, the airwaves sure stayed away from controversial ideas back then.

I also remember broadcast media covering this news event... oh, what was it called... hmmm... Watergate, I think. I remember them covering it daily, as events unfolded. I'm sure glad we've gotten rid of the Fairness Doctrine, otherwise the media wouldn't give the much more thorough coverage it's been giving the Bush scandals.

Oh. Wait. They haven't.

[Lorien]

91. Oak2004: 1, Freeper kid: 0

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

70. That is absolutely FALSE

And has been proven false repeatedly over years and years of study.

Unfortuately, that hasn't prevented the dishonest and the ignorant from repeating the same tired old talking points over and over again.

Ad infinitum.

[Lorien]

90. You're fucking delusional and too damn young to remember anytime pre-

Reagan. Turn off Faux news for a change and learn a little history with your free time.

[Festivito]

54. Back? No. SOMETHING STRONGER ON FAIRNESS.

A fairness doctrine that extends further, that handles all media whenever there is singular control of a topic. That can even include the internet, especially its sites.

[davepc]

81. So postings on DU would be followed by Freeper comment for "fairness"?

[Kingofalldems]

58. I like the Fairness Doctrine --freepers are against it

[randr]

61. The Fairness Doctrine is a sticky wicket

Not only hard to enforce but restrictive to all political sides.
IMHO--The best solution is to put teeth in libel laws.
Make it illegal and mandate real punishment for slander, lies, passing on unproven information, or just making shit up like Faux news.
Networks should have ombudsmen positions that would be required to correct distortions and lies within a time framework or suffer legal consequences.

[melm00se]

62. there are teeth in libel

laws...as long as you aren't a public figure.

[Lorien]

92. Worked for 60 years. Nothing "sticky" about it. n/t

[truthisfreedom]

63. ANYTHING the pubes are against, I am for.

It's a simple sorting process.

[Igel]

71. I understand the rationale for imposing the Fairness doctrine on broadcast media.

Public airwaves, so the Congress has a say on how it's used.

Cable? Satellite?

Congress controls the wires? What, through the Commerce clause?

Sounds sketchy.

[melm00se]

76. because they can

and fools stand by and cheer them on to silence "enemies to the cause" like fox news.

They just don't get it that the Fairness Doctrine put limits on our 1st amendment rights and when the FD was repealed in the 80's it was a rare moment when the government gave back a right it took away...

Folks shouldn't be in such a rush to give away even a smidgen of their rights as they never know what that 1st step will used as precedent to take another step and then another and then another and then another.

[wroberts189]

80. It was great when we had it.. both sides got a voice. k&r

[robcon]

88. I still believe in the 1st amendment: 'Fairness Doctrine' is awful

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Lorien]

93. You don't get it; the fairness doctrine ENSURES free speech to ALL

without it only a small segment of the corporate elite have access to the mainstream media; ONLY their voices get heard.

When we had a fairness doctrine we had Watergate. Without the Fairness Doctrine BushCo will get away with EVERYTHING, and it has!

[robcon]

95. That's a ridiculous point, Lorien.

An editorial writer who thinks, for example, Rod Blagojevich is a crook must allow an opposing point of view.

Nothing could be more inimical to the 1st amendment right to say whatever the hell you want in the press. The press is protectying precisely from government interference in political speech. They can say anything.

The 'Fairness Doctrine' is opposed to press freedom. Forcing a press outlet to publish a particular point of view is what the 1st amendment outlawed.

[depakid]

101. A unanimous majority of the Supreme Court disagrees with that shallow restatement

And as I recall, I've posted the rationale AND the case for you to review on one of these threads before.

RED LION BROADCASTING CO., INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

1. No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency;

2. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio 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 and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

3. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place 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.

4. The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment.

(a) The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

(b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others.

More: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=367

[robcon]

102. You mean ownership of airwaves trumps the 1st amendment?

Just saying the 1st amendment is not valid when a resource is "scarce" is hardly justification for nullifying the freedom of the press.

[depakid]

103. No, the court held that there's no right to private censorship on a public resource

AND that the 1st Amendment rights of listeners (or viewers) are paramount to those of broadcasters operating under a license requiring that they operate under the public interest standard in retrun for their lucrative monopoly.

Currently, that standard is not being met- indeed it's a farce. In most communities all across America, there ia no diversity of viewpoints- and there are no accountability mechanisms in place to ensure accuracy of information or the ability to respond to vile personal attacks.

Consequently, much of America has been subjected to a dysfunctional corporate culture of lies and far right propaganda and hate speech, to the exclusion of anything else- a result that's inimical to the goals of the 1st Amendment.

Hence:


Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03).

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

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

[woo me with science]

94. It will never happen.

Fortunately, our new President is a Constitutional Law professor.

[John Kerry VonErich]

106. Have to stand against this one.

Cable and Satalite are seperate entities altogether. Radio personalities are moving to satalite because of more freedom (some of the best progressive programing I heard is coming from Sirius Left). Public airwaves, thumbs up.

[fascisthunter]

108. good

there needs to be regulations in place to keep the media fair and balanced.

[Synicus Maximus]

113. Be careful what you wish for

Sooner or later the Repubs will come back and use it against us.

[classysassy]

115. THE OFF

switch,turn off faux,cnn,rush,hannity,billo and all of the other lying whores of big media.