Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

By JIM ABRAMS – 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.

President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZo8HqKUQ5LkGkTf0CiQtS7WQlQQD96JF8V00

[Blue Meany]

1. They could and should still demand some amount of

public issues programming--and not the kind that they put on at 3:30 am when no one is watching or listening.

[Jkid]

4. That's simple

The broadcast networks can reschedule their Sunday Morning political interview shows from Sunday to weekday primetime. The BBC does it and ITV does it in the United Kingdom, the main thing is that entertainment is more profitable than political information.

[DBoon]

14. Expand NPR

and give public broadcasting a piece of the AM dial

And maybe require that commercial broadcasters offer a certain amount of public service time

[nebenaube]

24. NPR is not 'all that balanced' anymore. n/t

[Zhade]

28. National Petroleum Radio? Pffft.

NT!

[Jkid]

49. Expand it to provide music and talk.

NPR 1- Popular Music of all Genres
NPR 2- Adult oriented popular music of all genres
NPR 3- Classical, jazz and world music, culture, drama
NPR 4- spoken-word programs
NPR News- 24/7 news
NPR Rock and Alt
NPR Sport
NPR Latino
NPR Black Sounds
NPR Archive, Drama, Children and Youth Programing.

Of course, the commercial radio channels will hate this as it will provide real competition and will have to, *gasp* improve programing!

[EFerrari]

66. NPR was captured a long time ago. n/t

[karynnj]

36. The Durbin amendment which also passed (on a party line vote)

seems to do that. The purpose is given as "To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest." (The normal detail is not in Thomas yet)

[No Elephants]

55. "Encourage and promote" is a long way from "require." Democratic legislators at the

federal level seem to lost their spines, or handed them to the PUbs.

[karynnj]

68. After actually watching the CSPAN.org coverage, I agree with you

I went to CSPAN because there was no information on what the Durbin amendment. I was disappointed.

[ldf]

78. encourage and promote = suggest

that's like "suggesting" the rich and powerful deciding on their own to do what is good for america....

it ain't gonna happen.

[rhett o rick]

112. Encourage and promote is non-regulatory language. You either regulate or you don't

Apparently we are going to allow the corporations to "self regulate". Kinda like Enron.

[Blue Meany]

2. They could and should still demand some amount of

public issues programming--and not the kind that they put on at 3:30 am when no one is watching or listening.

[kestrel91316]

3. Bastards. GIVE US BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

[depakid]

5. Our hero Harry Reid!

Enabling and legitimizing Republicans and their supporters to the bitter end!

Bottom line however is that the FCC can proceed with evidence based rulemaking irespective of what the cowardly DINO's and Republican have to say.

Takes either Obama's signature or a veto proof majority to overturn an administrative rule where the agency has followed the APA.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Reid voted with the majority of Democratic Senators on this issue:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00071

[depakid]

11. Don't try to cover for Reid- he's the "leader" -and he controls the agenda in the Senate

Without his cowardice and complicity, this wouldn't have seen the light of day.

And if the shoe were on the other foot- if Republicans (who actually HAVE political fortitude and stand up for their "principles") were in control -it wouldn't have.

Therein lies the difference. Republicans actually know how to play the game AND win on the policy level, whereas Democrats repeatedly look weak and foolish.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. The Senate isn't a dictatorship--The majority controls the agenda

Democrats are in the majority. A majority of the Democrats in the Senate supported this.

Are you saying that you want a 'Majority Leader' who not only thwarts the will of the majority, but also that of his own party?

[depakid]

25. Sorry- but the majority leader is supposed to control the agenda

and keep his members in line.

In Reid's case of course- that's proven time and again to be a role he's utterly unsuited for.

And my guess is that his continual bumbling will both hurt the nation AND cost him his seat in 2010.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. So, you want a Majority Leader who forces Democratic Senators to vote a certain way?

Why even bother have a Senate, you can just have a dictator?

[Hawkeye-X]

82. He should have tabled ALL Repuke amendments for further review.

Period!

Hawkeye-X

[onenote]

86. how does the majority leader "table" an amendment?

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. Even if it was something that a majority of Democrats wanted?

:shrug:

[Zhade]

30. LIE. He could prevent this from coming to the floor at all.

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. A Majority Leader who frequently stymies his own Party would be replaced by his party rather quickly

[depakid]

40. ROFLOL

Please.

That's been Harry Reid's M.O -and that's been his sorry record since day 1 as "leader.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. And the Senate Democrats must like it, as they keep reelecting him as Leader

[No Elephants]

56. Leaders don't stymy, but they do lead.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. And that is exactly what Senator Reid is doing

A majority of the Democrats in the Senate wanted to stop the Fairness Doctrine, and he enabled them to do that.

[onenote]

48. please explain how he could do that?

I'm most interested in hearing your expertise in senate procedure

[Zhade]

29. Stubbs is a conservative. Always happy to piss off liberals.

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. I am a moderate, and apperently most of the Demcrats in the Senate are too

[rhett o rick]

42. Yeah, you "so called" moderates are killing us. Republicans are not moderates.

If yu support republican policies you are not a moderate.

Funny how many right wing nuts call themselves moderates.

The airwaves are totally dominated by the right wing nuts. Is it "moderate" to support that??

[onenote]

51. so your position is that Feingold and Boxer are "wingnuts"

Interesting. Also, I presume, you would attach the "wing nut" label to William O Douglas since he was opposed to the Fairness Doctrine.

[rhett o rick]

52. Did I say they were wingnuts? Are you happy when Democrats line up and support republican

policies? I am so sick of Democrats supporting republicans, the Iraq War, the MCA, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc etc.

The Fairness Doctrine may have problems, but I'd be damned before I'd vote in support of the American fascists.

[onenote]

53. here's exactly what you said:

If yu support republican policies you are not a moderate.

Funny how many right wing nuts call themselves moderates.



I took this to suggest that you think someone supporting a repub policy position (e.g., opposing the reinstatement of he Fairness Doctrine) is not really a moderate (and, presumably, not a liberal either). Now, if its your position that its possible to be opposed to the FD and be a moderate -- or even a liberal like Feingold, Boxer, and Douglas -- maybe you should say so, and explain exactly what it you meant when you suggested someone opposed to the FD isn't a moderate.

[rhett o rick]

81. What's your take on the republican sponsored bill?? nm

[onenote]

100. On balance, it strikes me as not making much of a difference

Particularly in light of the Durbin Amendment that also passed. That amendment reads as follows:

SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

``(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.--The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

``(b) Construction.--Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''

Seems to leave a lot of room for the FCC to act so long as they don't characterize their actions in fairness doctrine-style terminology.

[rhett o rick]

111. I agree that the FD is not the best, but a hell of a lot better than what we have know.

After eight years of weak Democratic leadership I am still skeptical.

[Freddie Stubbs]

98. Opposing the Fairness Doctrine is not a 'Republican' policy

It is one with strong support in both parties.

[rhett o rick]

108. Thanks i feel so much better. nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

116. Glad to help

;)

[No Elephants]

57. Justice Douglas, however, opposed the FD on the ground that airwaves could not

be treated differently than newspapers. The RW does not dispute AT ALL that airwaves can be treated differently than newspapers. You could not regulate content in newspapers, such as profanity or sex, but that is done with the airwaves all the time.

BTW, don't believe everything the right wing says about Justice Douglas's position on this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. Being killed? Which party has picked up 55 House seats, 14, Senate seats, and the White House in

the last four years?

[rhett o rick]

109. Yeah and how many vote lock step with the republicans. I notice that you have

a blue dog. Do you consider yourself a blue dog democrat?

[rhett o rick]

113. You call them moderates and I call them republican-lites. How is fairness on the airwaves a

far left issue? Funny how far right "moderate" has become.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. You get to determine 'fairness on the airwaves?'

The government? Would you have liked for the Bush administration to have had that power?

[rhett o rick]

128. Very interesting how you framed that. First of all, yes I would like to be involved

in the determination of fairness on the airwaves. Better me than Rupert Murdock, don't you agree? And I AM THE GOVERNMENT. Your fear of government control is very telling. The purpose of government is to regulate businesses to protect us people from their abuse. And bytheway bush did have the power for eight years and that's why rightwing propaganda shows out number progressive shows 12 to 1.

Curious, do you support PBS?? do you think it is progress, conservative or neutral?

[Freddie Stubbs]

139. Would you have wanted the Bush administration to have had that power?

Do I support PBS? No, as I don't watch that much TV anymore. I really don't know what its political bent is.

[Kingofalldems]

62. Agreed. Been observing this for years on an almost daily basis

I can picture the passive aggressive giggling as he sits by his computer. Reminds me of Joe Lieberman.

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. There is nothing passive about my championing Democratic causes

[rhett o rick]

110. I applaud you for supporting "Democratic" causes. I assume you support a

national health care system? Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? The establishment of tariffs? Pulling out of the WTO?
How do you stand on "Free Trade"?

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. I support the President's health care reform plan. Do you?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. And I support the President plan of withdrawl from Iraq and increasing troops in Afghanistan

[rhett o rick]

129. I prefer withdrawl from both. nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

138. But that is not the Democratic Party position

[Freddie Stubbs]

121. Where in the Democratic Platform does it call creating new tariffs?

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

130. I asked if you support tariffs? nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. I support some tariffs

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. The WTO? I agree with the President that we should honor the treaties which we have signed

[rhett o rick]

131. That's a side step if I ever heard of one. All treaties are capable of being renegotiated. nm

[Freddie Stubbs]

135. There is a big difference between renegotiating a treaty and withdrawing from it

[rhett o rick]

142. You're saying we can withdraw from the World Trade Organization?

Free trade is killing this country. I do appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

[Freddie Stubbs]

143. There is no mention of withdraw from the WTO in the Democratic Party Platform

And for good reason, as many American jobs are dependent on international trade.

[camera obscura]

83. Feingold is a DINO now? You learn something new every day.

[rhett o rick]

133. Strawman. Of course Feingold is not a Dino. But he is one of the many Demo

Senators that bowed to the will of the republicans. He could have voted against this bill w/o supporting the FD. It wasn't an up or down vote on the FD. He should have told the republicans that we Democrats will decide on the FD not let the republicans run the show. While the republicans vote against each and every bill the Democrats propose the Democrats just roll over and take it.

[shraby]

6. Put restrictions on how many news sources can be

owned by one person or company. That would help a whole bunch.

[maseman]

12. Yes

No one can ever enforce a "Fairness" doctrine.

Research has shown that if local owners are the people who run radio and TV stations they tend to be more "fair" than if corporations are running the same broadcast outlets.

let's force more local ownership.

[depakid]

15. Care to back up any of your assertions?

[maseman]

71. Here's my source on my above point

Here's a clip from the paper that is at this link from the Center for American Progress.

>>Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

[karynnj]

37. The Durbin amendment which also passed (on a party line vote)

may do this. I can't find the detail - it's not in Thomas, but the purpose included increasing diversity of ownership.

[No Elephants]

58. "Encouraging greater diversity" is not the same as increasing diversity.

[karynnj]

67. I agree - I went over to the CSPAN site

and now realize that Durbin's amendment does not do enough. I really disagree with his conclusion that having 200+ cable stations mean that there are now so many channels the fairness doctrine is not needed. Given that the vast majority of those channels have nothing to with news or politics, 200+ is no a fair measure.

Here was a summary I wrote on a different thread:

"Here is a link to today's Senate floor speeches http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77539&hors=s# - on Durbin's amendment, which DeMint opposed and on DeMint's. Durbin explains that he is not for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine because he says there are now many possible channels. (My opinion - this assumes everyone has cable and though there are 200+ channels, there are NOT 200+ channels that have news content - it is MUCH lower. There really are not substantially more than in the 1970s - in Chicago we had 5 channels and they all had news - now in Chicago there are those 5 channels plus CNN, MSNBC, and FOX - that is not that many.) Durbin says no one is even trying to reinstate the fairness doctrine. He then speaks of things in DeMint's bill that he thinks would cripple the FCC in insuring the public interest - because it is poorly written. (I wonder if it changed because Durbin voted for DeMint's amendment. Watching the clips from then until the votes, there is nothing to suggest that DeMint changed anything.)

Demint followed him and he is seriously scary and a demagogue - saying that across America people can here on Rush's and other shows what is really in these 2 amendments.

Durbin has a good speech explaining his bill at 12:15. (I'm listening now) Durbin speaks again at 14:00 before the vote. He restates the same argument in favor of his amendment - later Demint speaks in favor of his amendment and NO DEMOCRAT opts to speak against it - DeMint pretty much says Obama and Durbin are against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. (You are right - the leadership - Reid/Durbin and Leiberman who was the sponsor of the bill that these amendments were on and who ceded his time without speaking - did little to stop it.)

[No Elephants]

60. Yes, they'd BOTH help and Congress is doing neither. Not only are they

doing neither, they're letting the Cons call the tune and require them to vote saying they are NOT going to allow the Fairness Doctrine. Tell me when Congress ever passed a law saying what laws it would not pass in the future? Tell me what the PUb Congress 2004 to 2006 did remotely like this to appease the minority party?

(Sorry. I am mad, but not at you.)

[acmavm]

7. Not at all surprised.

[byeya]

8. The Fairness Doctrine worked for nearly 40 years and

in the twenty years without it, democratic discourse has gone down the tubes. How can this be a positive step?

[onenote]

23. the FD was overrated

Did the FD stop the media from essentially destroying Carter's presidency by running "America Held Hostage" every day?

Did it stop CBS from replacing the Smothers Brothers with Hee Haw?

Remind me of the names of the liberal talk shows that countered Paul Harvey and Morton Downey Jr back in those days?

[No Elephants]

59. The FD did not require giving the Smothers Brothers a show. Or having a show to

counter Morton Downey's show. However, if Downey lied about me, I had a right to get equal time to rebut the lie in a time slot of reasonably equivalent prominence.

[onenote]

74. i have no problem with restoring the personal attack rule

which was one of two corollaries of the Fairness Doctrine (along with the Political Editorial rule). . But most of the discussion here about the FD was about the broader FD rule. By the way, none of those rules would give you "equal time" to respond to an alleged "lie" about you. The Personal Attack rule, to be precise, said that if an attack is made on someone’s integrity during a presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, the licensee must inform that person or group of the attack and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. (Sec 73.1920 of the FCC's former rules).

[Doremus]

46. Thank you. Fairness Doctrine opponents haven't been able to answer that question.

They stand in their ivory towers and cry "free speech!" unconcerned that the public airwaves have been almost entirely conscripted for RW spew.

IMO, this issue was THE most important to take on now, while we (still) have majority, which miracle only happened because the world fell apart, NOT because a liberal mindset miraculously swept the nation.

Once this crisis is past I have no doubt we will be back to another 20 years of conservative rule, thanks mainly to this.

I'm extremely disheartened. :(

[agent46]

10. At the very least

At the very least they could make the programmers and producers responsible for identifying verifiable facts as facts, opinion as editorializing, and stark speculation as gossip or entertainment. A rating system along the lines of the ones used for rating movies, video games and music would do nicely. For TV, the running banners at the bottom of the screens could rate commentary and "reporting" in real time!

[No Elephants]

13. Conservative talk show hosts are now running the agenda of the Democratic Senate? I'll

retire to Bedlam.

[catrose]

16. I don't understand why the Democrats are doing this

Oh, and I quit watching TV and reading my local (Cox owned) newspaper. If both didn't feel free to spew hate speech at me, I might look at them.

Too bad "liberal" and "progressive" aren't racial or ethnic categories. Their abuse wouldn't be tolerated. And newspapers and TV might actually be a source of information instead of propaganda.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. Biggest mistake for President Obama and Dems to date

Of course the Republicans want even further guarantees that their leader and spokesperson Rush Limbaugh as well as his peers Savage, Ingram, Hannity etc..have free reign over the "public" airways, with no other competition by liberal hosts who would call him out on his daily lies and embarrass him.

Could the feckless Democratic senators lead by the hapless Harry Reid please explain to us, especially those in rural areas of the mid-west and south who are drowning in Republican propoganda, why they are opposing this?

Yes the giant media corporations, who are owned by Republican supporters, have Harry by the balls, whatever is left of them, but you have to break the cycle sometime, and if not now then when? The cycle I refer to is the fact that a politician needs the media, needs to be seen and heard, and so the senate D and R bend over backwards to accommodate their wishes, whether it is monopolization in single markets, or centralization of the news - taking away local opinions. Poor Harry won't get invited on to those Republican owned networks if he so much as thinks about bringing back a fair system and proper coverage of the issues from both sides, especially in peak listening time periods. But if he keeps capitulating, it just gets worse and worse, with more rightwing infotainment and less real information in getting out the Democratic message or even getting out any counter response to the daily lies the right is throwing out there.

Now with another wingnut Republican as head of CBS News, it will continue to slide even further to the right with a GUARANTEE from Harry that they will not interfere in the total domination of Democrat bashing blowhards.

Just tell us why? Its a simple request. I am really curious why you think its ok the way it is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Even liberals like Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold voted for this

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue.

[depakid]

27. No- this a responsibility and accountability vs. corruption and dishonesty issue

This is precisely why we have federal agencies- because Congress lacks the expertise to deal effectively with policy details.

(though thanks the Reagan the Bush's and Bill Clinton- the deregulatory, corruption and dishonesty disease also became epidemic at the agencies- as well as those industies they once regulated).

Hopefully, the Obama administration will have the courage and political fortitude to address the problem- becaase the appalling stae of the American corporate media is the single greatest impediment to meaninful change in America.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Are you suggesting that Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold corrupt and dishonest?

:shrug:

[depakid]

41. If they're supporting dishonesty and lack of accountability in the media as you seem to be then yep

The shoe fits.

Seems to me that this is yet another instance of DYSFUNCTIONAL American exceptionalism- a strange phenomena that I warn Aussies about when they start talking about adopting some practice or another from the states.

Of course, Aussies (like every other western Democracy) have nothing like the American corporate media- or your consequent lack of universal health care to compare and contrast with- and since most have never heard (or wouldn't believe without hearing for themselves) the proliferation of hate radio and outright dishonesty in what passes for "news" they often have difficulty comprehending.

Trying to explain the bizarre, undemocratic and often self-destructive and counter productive behavior in the US Senate is even more difficult- because it defies rational notions of how governments work- and should work.

[No Elephants]

61. Are you suggesting that, if Boxer and Feingold voted for it, it must be great? Let's

start with the fact that this vote should not have been taken in the first place. There was absolutely no need to take a vote to say what you are NOT going to reinstate. There are probably millions of things that were once law, statutory or regulatory or both--that are now repealed. Is Congress going to take a vote promising not to reinstate all of those? No, of course not. Than why take this vote promising not to reinstate something repealed in, was it 1982? Well, according to the lead article, they did it to koow tow to--wait for it--conservative talk show hosts.

How about focusing on the pros and cons of the issue rather than on who voted for it?

[onenote]

75. please share with us how this vote could have been avoided?

given the rules of the Senate

[rhett o rick]

44. Here, here. nm

[karynnj]

31. But all the people who voted no - are Democrats, including some liberals

I think that there may be some who are liberal/libertarian who don't like the government controlling this - that might include Feingold.

The people who voted against it are:
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

(Rockefeller heads the commerce committee and Kerry heads the Commerce committee sub-committee on Communications. It may be that they can do something to address this via oversight - that is not prohibited by the DeMint amendment.)

They also passed the Durbin amendment that seeks to do this in a different way. The purpose is given as: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest. This passed on a strict party line vote.

It is possible that Democrats think that passing this gives the RW an issue. Passing it might have the affect of making DeMint a Republican party star - something they severely lack.

[rhett o rick]

43. Then what kinda issue is it???

[Freddie Stubbs]

118. A freedom of the press issue

[orleans]

19. yeah...we wouldn't want those "liberal opinions" to get equal time.

ugh.

[Judi Lynn]

20. The right wing is not going to win in this country, ultimately.

Their will to control everyone will finally be overcome. Sorry to break it to you, but it will happen.

The scum will lose, in time, and sink to the bottom.

[seafan]

21. The real issue is breaking up the huge media consolidation that grips us by the throat.

IMHO, the Fairness Doctrine is small potatoes.

The answer is to break up media consolidation by the 4 or 5 individuals now controlling everything we see, hear and read in the papers, TV and radio.

We must return ownership of media to many competing entities again, each with their own reporters, investigations, news organizations, advertisers. That is how we will truly return to the public airwaves.

[harun]

26. I think you are 100% correct.

[onenote]

38. you are right that there isn't enough diversity but can we stop repeating the myth that a handful

of individuals control everything we see, read and hear from the media?

Usually, the claim is that five or six companies control 90 percent of the media. Whether its four or five or six and whether its 90 percent, everything, or even "most" its a ridiculous, easily disproven claim that does not help us in making the valid argument that there is insufficient diversity in the media. So once again, let me debunk this claim:

First, the companies alleged to control everything are usually identified as:

GE/NBC
Disney/ABC
CBS/Viacom (or national amusements)
Time Warner
News Corporation
Clear Channel

Now, let's take a look at these companies and what they do and don't control with respect to what we read, see, hear:

Four of these companies (GE, Disney, Natl Amusements, and News Corp) control the four major broadcast television networks. Leaving aside the fact that the networks share of the viewing audience has for some time been dropping like a rock, that is no small thing. But does it represent 90 percent of all media? Well, let's consider that these four companies own a total of around 50 television stations (out of more than 1700 fulll power stations in the US). Their networks of course have lots of affiliates -- around 850 -- closer to 1000 if you toss in the CW Network, MyNetworkTV and Telemundo). That leaves around 700 stations that aren't owned or affiliated with these companies, including over 350 full power stations affiliated with PBS. And, it should be noted that most of those 1000 or so affiliates that aren't owned by the networks typically offer, in addition to the nightly network news programming, local news programming that they produce themselves (or acquire from sources other than the networks.)

Those four companies have other media interests of course. News Corp in particular owns a number of cable networks, including Fox News. Most of the other networks are sports or entertainment oriented. News Corp also owns the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. They have no radio stations but do have a syndicated Fox radio network. Not sure how many radio stations carry it. GE owns a lot of cable networks, including several news-oriented networks (CBNBC, MSNBC). GE has no newspapers, no news magazines, no radio properties. ABC also has a lot of cable networks, although almost all are sports and entertaintment oriented, not news. They sold all their radio stations and their radio network a few years ago (its still called ABC radio network but they don't own it anymore), they do still distribute syndicated ABC News radio programming. ABC also doesn't own any newspapers or news magazines. Nat'l Amusements owns around 140 radio stations and the CBS radio network which has around 1000 affiliates (out of the 11,000 commercial radio stations in the US). They have no newspapers, no news magazines. They have (through Viacom) a bunch of cable networks like Showtime and MTV, but no cable news programming.

Based on the above, it seems pretty hard to figure how one gets to the 90 percent control claim. And looking at Time Warner and Clear Channel help you get there. Time Warner owns a lot of cable networks, including CNN. It also owns Time Magazine. But it owns no newspapers and no radio properties. It also owns a lot of cable systems, but it will stop owning those sometime in the next few weeks under a spin off that will leave Time Warner and Time Warner Cable completely separate companies -- no overlap in management. Clear Channel is the biggest radio station owner in the country, but it has no television properties, no news magazines, no newspapers. I'm not sure exactly how many radio stations Clear owns -- last I saw it was between 900 and 1000. That's a lot, but not exactly 90 percent of the 11,000 commercial radio stations licensed in the US (there are also between 1500 and 2000 full power noncommercial radio stations in the US).



If that isn't enough to debunk the 90 percent myth, consider the following: of the top ten newspapers in the US, only two are controlled by any of the six companies identified as cotnrolling 90 percent of the media -- the WSJournal and the New York Post, both controlled by Murdoch's News Corp. Even more noteworthy, if you look at the list of the top 100 newspapers in the US, you discover that none of them are controlled by the six companies listed, except for the aformentioned WSJ and the New York Post. There also are three natianal news magazines -- only one, Time, is controlled by the six companies identified. Also, in considering what constitutes the "media" we shouldn't ignore cable systems and DBS companies. Only one of the six listed companies owns cable systems and/or DBS companies. Out of the close to 100 million pay tv subscribers in the US, Time Warner Cable (soon to be independent of Mr. Bewkes and Time Warner Inc) has around 13 million subscribers I think. (Its smaller than both Comcast and DirecTV and about the same size as Dish Network).

My point isn't that everything is hunky dory in the media business. Its definitely not. However the claim that six companies control 90 percent of everything is nonsense and making nonsensical claims doesn't help address the real issues. Even you buy the notion that the Chairman of GE spends his day overseeing what gets reported on affilates of the GE owned Telemundo network, media diversity has been an issue in this country a long time -- even when there was an FD.

For example, when I was a kid in the 60s there were only three networks and around 700 stations -- (a thousand less than today). Newspapers were definitely healthier back in the 60s and 70s and there is too much newspaper/television cross ownership today, but there was more cross ownership back in the 70s and today there are two national newspapers (USA Today and WSJ) whereas back in the 70s there was only one. There were around 5000 fewer commercial radio stations and half as many noncommercial stations as today. There were no cable networks back then, and virtually noone had any access to foreign sources of news and information. I grew up in a very large (top ten) market and could choose between three network stations, a pbs station and one "independent" station that featured mostly syndicated re-runs. Today, via cable, I have access to around a dozen local stations, including multiple PBS stations. There were three daily newspapers back then, although only one was worth a damn. Today I can choose between two papers, only one of which is worth a damn. There are more radio stations today, including a lot more foreign language stations. There was one all news radio station. Today there are two or three and while I think all of them are commonly owned, at least they're no longer owned by the local newspaper, as was the case when I was a kid.

Again, I'm not saying that the lack of diversity in the media isn't a problem. Just that its not a new problem and exagerrating it isn't the route to actually dealing with it

[No Elephants]

63. So, if 40 corporate Cons own the airwaves instead of 5, everything comes up roses? And

what is wrong with BOTH the FD and greater diversity of ownership? It's not either/or.

[onenote]

76. thanks for making my point for me

If its really 40 (and I'm not saying that's the right number) and you claim the problem is that only five control you've undermined your credibility and made it sound like the problem is 1/8th as bad as you claimed -- not a great strategy for getting things changed

[Lorien]

80. No, it's not. I'll say it again:

.

Many here maintain that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is not needed as long as media monopolies are broken up. While most here would agree that monopolies have caused us harm, it is also important to remember that corporations have historically not done a very good job of policing themselves. Witness the current economic crisis; many different banking institutions of all sizes were involved, and they all engaged in questionable practices because that's simply how business was being done. Bottom line; they could get away with it. Corporate entities will always align themselves with political parties or candidates who will promise deregulation, union busting, lack of environmental oversight and the like, so they cannot be expected to give fair and equal time to those who do not promote their corporations agenda. Like banks, the media requires a bit of oversight. Had it not been for that oversight during the Vietnam war it's hard to say how much longer the war would have dragged on; pressure from the public put an end to the madness. Had the Fairness Doctrine existed during the build up to the iraq invasion would it have been allowed to proceed? Voices were raised against it here and around the world, but were they heard by mainstream Americans? If not, do we still have free speech, or are we all relegated to "free speech zones" where only our neighbors can hear us? The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine muzzled those who would speak against corporate interests, and the results of this censorship has been devastating.

[onenote]

88. you give the FD more credit than it is due

I would like to see the personal attack rule and political editorial rule reinstated (both adjuncts to the FD). But the FD itself was not the world changer that some seem to think it was. To use your example: Would the Iraq invasion been allowed to proceed if there had a been an FD? Obviously its all speculation, but history suggests yes. The FD certainly didn't stop the Vietnam War from proceeding or from that war from continuing to escalate (with troop levels increasing over a four year period). WIth an FD, a majority of Americans continued to believe going into Vietnam was not a mistake for around four years. A majority of Americans came to the view that the Iraq war was a mistake much more quickly. THe problem wasn't the lack of a FD, it was that we had an ideologically driven, who gives a shit what the public thinks group running the country. And while it took longer than you or I would've liked, we got them out.

[ananda]

39. Sputter!

Words fail.

This is SO insane. What are the Dems thinking
with? It's definitely not their hearts and
brains.

[The Stranger]

45. Holy mindfuck.

The Right Wing Extremist War-Mongering Hate Cult is on 24 hours a day fucking the nation into oblivion, and the Democratic-controlled Senate is preventing them from revisiting the Fairness Doctrine?

Holy mindfuck.

[No Elephants]

64. Worse. The Democratic Senate is promising the con talk show hosts that

the Democratic Senate won't revisit the FD. Why? Bc the con talk show hosts said so.

I demand a full list of every other repealed law and administrative regulation since 1789 that Congress does not intend to revisit. And then I want Congress to pass a law promising not to revisit any of them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. Is Air America part of "The Right Wing Extremist War-Mongering Hate Cult?"

:shrug:

[The Stranger]

105. No, but didn't it go bankrupt?

At least once? I haven't been keeping track.

Also, was it on AM radio, or was it on some kind of super high density definition electronic pay-as-you-go satellite high-tech radio system?

That makes a difference, you know.

[philly_bob]

47. This blogger expresses my view of Democratic cave-in on Fairness Doctrine:

(I am not the blogger, and I've never read the blog, but what he says makes sense to me.)

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2009/02/how_they_win.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

92. Democrats didn't cave, they supported freedom of the press

[philly_bob]

101. and they supported Rush Limbaugh, Religious Right, and Clear Channel. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. And Air America and Pacifica Radio

[philly_bob]

104. Did Air American & Pacifica actually oppose Fairness Doctrine?

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. I don't know. Do you want to hear conservative opinion on those stations?

:shrug:

[philly_bob]

125. Of course not. Silly reply to an honest question. End of discussion.

[struggle4progress]

50. "added to a bill giving Congressional voting representation to District of Columbia residents"

February 26, 2009 5:03 PM
Senate Votes To Ban Fairness Doctrine
Posted by Brian Montopoli
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4832248.shtml

[Mr Generic Other]

54. it is becoming clear that we need a revolution in this country

since those who are supposed to be on our side don't even want us to get the information we need to make good decisions in our "democratic" society.
it is us against them, whether they call themselves democratic or republican.
the airwaves are public property in the United States and all of us should be represented in the broadcasts.
the reasoning that there are other avenues for information sounds very similar to the argument made by the banking community that the publics increased knowledge of the markets, made available through "other" sources of information, would lead to fair and honest self-regulation by the banking community.
it seems clear that a lack of rules for telecasting has led to imbalance in the very same way in the television industry as it did in banking. this is in need of re-regulation too.
when did americans become incapable of learning from our mistakes?

[No Elephants]

65. We need dramatic change. I don't know if it has to be a revolution. But, we do have to do

more than debate, post or email. I am not sure what, but almost nothing we've been doing has worked.

One definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.

[Mr Generic Other]

69. you are right about the futility of continuing to approach reform

in the ways that we have tried in the past. its clear that our voices and faces need to loud enough and always present if we hope to hold government officials accountable.
while i am personally against violence and would prefer a gandhi like revolution to a more bloody one, anything short of a revolution won't do the trick. one can not tweak the corruption out of this system. we are everything evil we ever accused the soviets of being and worse. the ideas of our founding fathers exist only in propaganda.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. You want the government to dictate to the media what information citizens need?

:shrug:

[classysassy]

70. Turn off

your tv and radio.Take a brisk walk with your dog,watch the beautiful sky and mountains,wave at a stranger,look ahead to a brighter tomorrow,be happy, and God bless us all.

[Jkid]

72. That's if you able to...think of the people who live up in the suburbs or in the boonies.

Don't mind me, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate.

[w4rma]

73. Idiots. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

77. This is insane --- reinstate the Fairness Doctrine . .!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. Not going to happen anytime soon. Most Senate Democrats oppose it

[defendandprotect]

132. Let's find new Senate Democrats --- !!!

[Lorien]

79. Holy crap. They either drank the Right Wing Kool Aid, or want (for whatever

reason) to keep the RW in power!

Let's make it simple to understand:

News reporting today:

"Some say that the so called Fairness Doctrine created a police state that curtailed our first amendment rights to free speech"

News reporting when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced:

"Republicans say that the Fairness doctrine curtails free speech, while Democrats maintain that the Fairness Doctrine is needed to restore balance to opinion in the mainstream media, where conservative voices dominate the airwaves. John Doe from the independent non partisan think tank says " our research into this issue does indicate that there has been a substantial narrowing of opinion in the mainstream media since President Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Conservative opinions on the issues are now voiced nine times as often as more left leaning opinions on both network and cable outlets. The voice of the left is nearly nonexistent on talk radio in most markets, with left wing commentators making up less than 10% of the market share. It is possible that by limiting the Left's access to the media the Right has profited politically over the past 22 years".

Another difference between then and now; political opinion was labeled as such. If Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann read a news story about a woman giving birth to eight children nothing would change. If either went into a tirade about how irresponsible the mother was the word "opinion" or "editorial" would appear somewhere on the screen. Back in 1949 the FCC did understand that television and radio were powerful mediums that do have the capability helping to form public opinion. The fairness doctrine was enacted to ensure that these forms of communication would not become propaganda tools for a single party or group. The FCC understood that it was important to differentiate between FACT and OPINION. Most news programming was broken into two segments; the FACTUAL reporting (see the sample, above) which attempted to present as many sides of a story as possible, as factually as possible, and the EDITORIAL segment; usually at the end of the news hour in which different commentators were given a few minutes to voice their views on a news item while the word "opinion" or "editorial" was left on the screen (usually below the commentator or in the upper right hand side of the screen). This reminded viewers that they were watching a biased take on the news-something that would not even occur to most self proclaimed "dittoheads" today.

Many here maintain that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is not needed as long as media monopolies are broken up. While most here would agree that monopolies have caused us harm, it is also important to remember that corporations have historically not done a very good job of policing themselves. Witness the current economic crisis; many different banking institutions of all sizes were involved, and they all engaged in questionable practices because that's simply how business was being done. Bottom line; they could get away with it. Corporate entities will always align themselves with political parties or candidates who will promise deregulation, union busting, lack of environmental oversight and the like, so they cannot be expected to give fair and equal time to those who do not promote their corporations agenda. Like banks, the media requires a bit of oversight. Had it not been for that oversight during the Vietnam war it's hard to say how much longer the war would have dragged on; pressure from the public put an end to the madness. Had the Fairness Doctrine existed during the build up to the iraq invasion would it have been allowed to proceed? Voices were raised against it here and around the world, but were they heard by mainstream Americans? If not, do we still have free speech, or are we all relegated to "free speech zones" where only our neighbors can hear us? The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine muzzled those who would speak against corporate interests, and the results of this censorship has been devastating.

[onenote]

87. or maybe some of them don't believe it would be constitutional

maybe some of them share the views of noted jurists like William O. Douglas, David Bazelon, J. Skelly Wright, etc. who viewed the FD as constitutionally suspect.

[rhett o rick]

117. Well I think it is Constitutional suspect to allow the rich to buy all access to broadcasting. nm

[onenote]

124. and 62 percent of the people think newspapers should be subject to "fairness" regulation

which is why I'm glad when people like Douglas, Bazelon and Wright get appointed to the courts, instead of people like that

[rhett o rick]

126. The rich should not be allowed to buy up our freedom. It isn't freedom when the rich

own and control all the media outlets. I want equal representation, not representation prorated on how much money you have. Who's side are you on for this issue? Do you think the status quo is healthy?

[onenote]

134. I think the status quo is in some ways better and some ways worse

At least going back several generations if not longer.

The major media outlets in this country -- newspapers, magazines, broadcast media -- the ones reaching the largest audiences-- have always been disproportionately owned by the wealthiest segment of the population.
Media mogul is by no means a new term -- in the pre-broadcast days, the dominant voices in the media were people like William Randolph Hearst. In the broadcast era, radio and television were dominated by people like Sarnoff, Paley and Goldenson -- guys that may not have started out as the wealthiest folks in the world (although hardly penniless) but who became mega rich and who ultimately turned over their networks to other mega rich folks, like Tisch or Eisner. More than forty years ago, FCC Commissioner Nick Johnson was writing about the Media Barons.

Where things are worse today, imo, is the trend towards relaxing local ownership caps and local cross ownership restrictions. I honestly don't care that the networks have affiliates in every market. That's always been the case. Horizontal ownership (i.e., the number of stations one entity owns nationwide concerns me because there are only so many opportunities for someone to own a broadcast station, but its not as significant a concern as local ownership diversity and restrictions on cross ownership/multiple ownership in the local market.

Obviously, the situation is not good with newspapers -- many have gone out of business; others have consolidated to stay afloat.

On the other hand, cable, satellite and the Internet have opened the doors for more access to more diverse points of view than at any point in history, imo. I can watch the BBC, al Jezeera, indian programming, asian programming, etc etc. I can go to an almost infinite number of websites to get information and opinion. And many of these new outlets are not controlled by the mega rich (while many are, of course).

One of the interesting things to me is that for several decades, cable operators have been required to make capacity available for "public access" programming. Such programming has with rare exception never caught on with the public. But the opportunity to present a different view and to do so without having to be mega rich exists through this outlet in a way that has never existed with respect to the broadcast media and only existed in a limited way for the print media.

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. Democrats won the Presidency and Congress without the Fairness doctrine

[Festivito]

84. They go out of their way to insure a lack of FAIRNESS in media.

That's just petulant.

Which dweebs did this?

[eringer]

85. One less topic for Rush and Sean to rant about

Killing the Fairness Doctrine is so unfair. Imagine how many ratings points these creeps will lose. This, in turn, will precipitate the loss of several of those quality sponsors that will help you out of bankruptcy, scan your colon or help you lose your money buying gold at inflated prices.

[NashVegas]

103. Horse Trading

Likely:

NAB drops the fight against the newest round of RIAA demands, and gets this in return.

[dysfunctional press]

107. good! it's just a distraction that's not needed.

let's focus on the important stuff.

[rhett o rick]

114. Prepare yourselves for more right wing propaganda every single day. nm

[2feeedle2]

123. re-implementation of the doctrine is the perfect straw man.....

for the Right to get the base hyped up

[rhett o rick]

127. I am slow but not stupid. It just occurred what the OP is doing with this thread.

This wasn't a vote to enact the FD or not, it was a bill introduced by the republicans to show who runs the Senate. A vote against this bill would not have brought back the FD. The Democrats could have voted this bill down to show the obstructionist republicans that that sword can cut both ways. This was a victory for the Senate republicans. Add it to the huge pile.

Besides I think the threat of the FD would go a long way in the negotiations for fairness on OUR airwaves.

[960]

137. Good. Now let's get something important done

[high density]

140. Great

Now it would be nice if the FCC could take up the net neutrality issue and stop these cable operators from butchering internet connections so they can sell their own on demand video products in place of online video.

[Laelth]

141. DeMint needs a guarantee? He can shove it.

These people are hubris incarnate. Where does he and his 39 compatriots get off demanding a "guarantee" that they will be allowed to continue to dominate the airwaves?

"mad:

-Laelth

[librechik]

144. Republicans demand guarantee that liberal views will not be heard on the radio

Otherwise, they fear, Democrats would ban Republican views from the radio.

Uh huh. They are completely nuts. Both sides.