Conservative Greed and Hate Destroyed our Free Press

[Q]

- Beginning around the time of the Nixon scourge...the Neocons were looking for a way to control the American media. They needed a way to sell their anti-government, pro-corporate agenda while making their opposition seem like the enemy.

- Nixon used threats and intimidation to keep 'most' of the media in check. Reagan 'improved' on Nixon's tactics by creating a staff of taxpayer funded propagandists within the White House to feed false and misleading stories to the press. But that wasn't enough: the opposition still had access to the media through the Fairness Doctrine.

- Reagan used his 'popularity' and presidential bully pulpit to convince enough members of congress to abandon the Fairness Doctrine and replace it with...nothing. The result was that networks were no longer required to report both sides of a story or offer equal time to opposing points of view. They could report one side of the story 24 hours a day without the FCC able to interfere with their corporate dreams.

Information + Entertainment = Infotainment

- Investigative journalism and reporting the actual news was replaced with something called "INFOTAINMENT": reporting information 'as they see it' in an entertaining way. This trend in journalism was helped on its way with Conservative Interests buying up most of the media during the 80s and 90s.

- Talking Head Pundits can now be partisan, take sides, distort facts and make things up all in the name of 'infotainment'. It's the new breed of 'journalism' brought to you by the likes of Murdoch, Rev. Moon, Scaife, Limbaugh, Hannity and the New Republican party.

- The Republican Party owns the American media. They will never report the 'news' in such a way that will harm their own interests. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[lindashaw]

1. Then we have to go around them.

Truth is like money, you have to do something with it, just can't park it somewhere. If nothing else, the Dark Ages show us that truth isn't lost: delayed, yes, made more difficult, yes. But it does come out at some point. We should all live so long!

[Q]

3. The Neocons have owned the media for nearly two decades...

...and now they own the FCC.

- Buying up mass communications in America was only part of the plan. They also needed the ultimate trifecta: White House - Congress - Senate. Now the Bushies are able to lie with complete abandon and know they can get away with it. They can pass laws and legislation that hurts America and Americans...and their media will guarantee a positive spin.

[goddess40]

2. Greed and hate continue to destroy America.

Nixon was the last Rep president that was allowed to think for himself. Since Nixon all the conservatives install in the White House are front men.

[Iverson]

4. you're sure it wasn't Greens?

I mean are you absolutely sure that Greens, anarchists, anti-war protestors and other marginal groups didn't take away a free press?
Are you sure that the very existence of Greens didn't force through the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

You fool! The vast center wants infotainment and media consolidation. whisper no more your intransigent pieties. And while you're wising up, disable your left turn signal in your car. Anything less is ideological intransigence.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. ROFL

That was funny. Included in marginal groups is the far left fringe no doubt. :D

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. Q we have you...to fight the good fight

:toast:...i distribute much of what you post here far and wide....hope it's okay with you :7

[Q]

6. Good morning...

...sure...quote anything you like and make (much needed) corrections as necessary.

-----------

Meanwhile...here's an interesting article about the Doctrine:

June 30, 2002

Commentary / Edward Monks: The end of fairness: Right-wing commentators have a virtual monopoly when it comes to talk radio programming

By EDWARD MONKS
For The Register-Guard


 http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/06/30/1f.ed.col.monks.0630.html
 
ONCE UPON A TIME, in a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest. That generally accepted principle was reflected in a rule known as the Fairness Doctrine.

The rule, formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, required all broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial matters of public interest. It further required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine arose from the idea imbedded in the First Amendment that the wide dissemination of information from diverse and even antagonistic sources is essential to the public welfare and to a healthy democracy.

The FCC is mandated by federal law to grant broadcasting licenses in such a way that the airwaves are used in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, expressing the view that the airwaves were a "public trust" and that "fairness" required that the public trust accurately reflect opposing views.

However, by 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was gone - repealed by the FCC, to which President Reagan had appointed the majority of commissioners.

That same year, Congress codified the doctrine in a bill that required the FCC to enforce it. President Reagan vetoed that bill, saying the Fairness Doctrine was "inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." Thus, the Fairness Doctrine came to an end both as a concept and a rule.

Talk radio shows how profoundly the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has affected political discourse. In recent years almost all nationally syndicated political talk radio hosts on commercial stations have openly identified themselves as conservative, Republican, or both: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Reagen, Bob Grant, Ken Hamblin, Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, Robert Dornan, Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing - there is virtually nothing else...."

[Q]

7. A 1994 article about the END of the Fairness Doctrine...

November/December 1994

The "Hush Rush" Hoax:

Limbaugh on the Fairness Doctrine
By Jeff Cohen

"I, Rush Limbaugh, the poster boy of free speech, am being gang muzzled."

The broadcaster was crying censorship (Limbaugh Letter, 10/93) over congressional efforts in 1993 to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine -- which he labeled "The Hush Rush Bill," "The Get Limbaugh Act" and "The Rush Elimination Act of 1993." Limbaugh's daily on-air crusade generated thousands of calls to Washington, and helped derail congressional action. As usual, Limbaugh's followers were mobilized through misinformation and deception.

The Fairness Doctrine -- in operation from 1949 until abolished in 1987 by Ronald Reagan's deregulation-oriented Federal Communications Commission -- calls on broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover some controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views.

Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine can hardly be a "Hush Rush" plan aimed at silencing him, since it was broadly and actively supported on Capitol Hill well before anyone in Washington had ever heard of Limbaugh. In 1987 (when he was still the host of a local show in Sacramento), a bill to inscribe the Fairness Doctrine in federal law passed the House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Voting for the bill were such "commie-libs" as Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).

In 1989 (when Limbaugh was just emerging as a national host), the Fairness Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again held on the doctrine, but interest waned due to Bush's ongoing veto threat. Yet when the same Fairness Doctrine emerged in 1993, with a new president who might sign it, Limbaugh egotistically portrayed it as nothing but a "Hush Rush Law." And his followers believed him.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. Q agains , thanks

[Q]

9. Welcome...I think it's true that most Americans have never studied...

...American history. If they did they'd know how important a free press is to a Democracy...and just how easy a democracy is destroyed in the absense of a free press.

- Note to moderators: the following is public policy informaton:

- More information on the Fairness Doctrine:

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

 http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

[Q]

11. One more: Media Deregulation

MEDIA DEREGULATION

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/deregulation/deregulation.htm

When applied in the United States this general concept describes most American electronic media policy in the past two decades. Largely a bi-partisan effort, this fundamental shift in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) approach to radio and television regulation began in the mid-1970s as a search for relatively minor "regulatory underbrush" which could be cleared away for more efficient and cost-effective administration of the important rules that would remain. Congress largely went along with this trend, and initiated a few deregulatory moves of its own. The arrival of the Reagan Administration and FCC Chairman Mark Fowler in 1981 marked a further shift to a fundamental and ideologically-driven reappraisal of regulations long held central to national broadcasting policy. Ensuing years saw removal of many long-standing rules resulting in an overall reduction in FCC oversight of station and network operations. Congress grew increasingly wary of the pace of deregulation, however, and began to slow the FCC's deregulatory pace by the late 1980s.

Specific deregulatory moves--some by Congress, others by the FCC--included (a) extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981; (b) expanding the number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985 (a situation under consideration for further change in 1995); (c) abolishing guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming in 1985; (d) elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987; (e) dropping, in 1985, FCC license guidelines for how much advertising could be carried; (f) leaving technical standards increasingly in the hands of licensees rather than FCC mandates; and (g) deregulation of television's competition (especially cable which went through several regulatory changes in the decade after 1983).

Deregulatory proponents do not perceive station licensees as "public trustees" of the public airwaves required to provide a wide variety of services to many different listening groups. Instead, broadcasting has been increasingly seen as just another business operating in a commercial marketplace which did not need its management decisions questioned by government overseers. Opponents argue that deregulation violates key parts of The Communications Act of 1934--especially the requirement to operate in the public interest--and allows broadcasters to seek profits with little public service programming required in return.

American deregulation has been widely emulated in other countries in spirit if not detail. Developed and developing countries have introduced local stations to supplement national services, begun to allow (if not encourage) competing media such as cable, satellite services, and videocassettes, and have sometimes loosened regulations on traditional radio and television. Advertising support along lines of the American model has become more widely accepted, especially as television's operating costs rise. But the American example of relying more on competition than regulation also threatens traditional public service broadcasting which must meet increasing competition for viewers by offering more commercially-appealing programs, usually entertainment--rather than culture-based. (Continues)

[newyawker99]

16. Q

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator

[maggrwaggr]

12. giving this one a kick, my first ever

:kick:


A free press is as important to our republic as its army.

Not having a free press is like not having an army. It lets others take power.

I WISH WISH WISH everybody saw this and realized this.

The loss of the Fairness Doctrine was a BIG DEAL. Treasonous in my opinion.

Why isn't a Dem candidate proposing we bring it back?

[Q]

13. Perhaps this issue is too complicated...

...for most Americans to understand?

- The 'free' press is more interested in making a profit than telling the truth. This literally means the end of democracy in America. When you add stolen elections, privatization and totalitarian government to the mix...you have fascism.

- But who cares? Not very many of us.

[nolabels]

26. WAh, who is this guy, and who was inteviewing ?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml
(snip)
When you have that kind of power, you have too much power. I believe we need to re-regulate the media, go back to limiting the number of stations that can be controlled in one particular area, so we can be sure that the American people get moderate, conservative and liberal points of view.

PITT: You're talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

DEAN: Yes, reinstating controls over how many outlets you can own in any particular media market. The media has clearly abused their privilege, and it is hurting our democracy. Deregulation in many areas has simply proved to be bad for America, bad for the American economy, bad for the average working person, and bad for democracy. We need to take a different view. Some deregulation is a good thing. We went too far, and now we need to cut back.

PITT: Given the fact that the Republicans control Congress, if you were to win the election in November, how will you go about getting these kinds of policies through a Republican-controlled Congress?

DEAN: I won't have to. I'll simply appoint different kinds of people to the FCC, and they'll be more pro-consumer and pro-average American than they will be pro-corporation.

(snip)

[panzerfaust]

14. Not so: It was destroyed by TRUTH

Revealed/Received/Perceived TRUTH.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Nietzsche

As in the past I suggest that we re-read Chomsky: “Manufacturing Consent” and “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”.

Better yet, for a quicker understanding, just read "USA Today"

[Q]

15. "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press.."

Thomas Jefferson:


A press that is free to investigate and criticize the government is absolutely essential in a nation that practices self-government and is therefore dependent on an educated and enlightened citizenry. On the other hand, newspapers too often take advantage of their freedom and publish lies and scurrilous gossip that could only deceive and mislead the people. Jefferson himself suffered greatly under the latter kind of press during his presidency. But he was a great believer in the ultimate triumph of truth in the free marketplace of ideas, and looked to that for his final vindication.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

"The only security of all is in a free press . The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

"The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"The most effectual engines for are the public papers... government always a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

[TennesseeWalker]

17. How do we bring it back?

Corporations control a majority of "our" representatives in both houses of Congress, as well as the Executive and Judicial Branches. Many of them serve only Mammon.

The conservative network was built up gradually, and I'm afraid it will take a long time to undo the damage. I just am not sure how much time in which we have to complete the task.

[Q]

19. As difficult as it may be...we must take money OUT OF politics...

- It's not going to be easy...but the people have enough evidence now to show that a few wealthy 'special interests' have taken over our free press and the US government under guise of a 'close election'...and turned them into one giant mega-corporation.

- The Fairness Doctrine can best be described as part of a system of 'checks and balances' on the media that use the public 'airwaves'. Reagan and Poppy Bush vetoed any and all attempts to keep the Doctrine or establish it as law.

- The result is a one-sided 'free press' beholden to those who keep the 'he with the most gold owns the media' rules of the new FCC.

[maggrwaggr]

23. might be easier to take the money out of the press business

or at least regulate it to the point where they are forced to actually do their jobs.

Imagine if we privatized the military. What idiot thinks that would work?

A free press is a cornerstone of our republic. Without it the roof caves in. As it has now.

[ComerPerro]

18. Conservative hate and greed destroys everything it touches

No further points here, just wanted to add that.

[jagguy]

20. sure it did but you're off on the timing

You have to go back to the twenties when major metro papers started competing for sales.

Then TV REALLY kicked it up with it's instant appeal. Once you could get the word out to the world in minutes then there was a demand for a continual feed of information and its gone exponential with the internet. People demand "news" whether its there or not.

As far as the news biz being a biz, thats been that way for decades along with scrubbed stories coming out of government etc. We're only just gaining knowledge of the "game" due to the very same percentage of "journalists" out there today that there always were.

[maggrwaggr]

22. Like many industries, the news biz needs to be regulated

because the little children who run things can't be responsible unless they're forced to be.

The fairness doctrine was part of this.

All this right-wing bullshit about "all regulations are bad" is just bullshit.

It's like a basketball game with no referees. Pretty soon it just turns in to Shaquille O'Neal standing on a chair dunking balls one after another.

[jagguy]

24. can't work that way

you can't make advertisers advertise, you can't remove competition. You CAN vote with your wallet and make your feelings heard that way.

But the fact remains, this is a business and has never been nor will ever be "fair and balanced". In fact, it was never really intended to be.

The only thing free about the free press is that there are no regulations (remember Tass ?) and they CAN write about whatever they opt to write about.

[Postman]

21. A "Free Press" driven by the profit motive...

is neither "free" or "informative". A close look at the UK's Guardian Newspaper (publicly funded non-profit organization) and the BBC network will reveal that people in England and much of Europe are much more informed than the American people are.

The only hope of salvation is for our fellow world citizens in Europe to expose the "truth" on these criminals in Washington, along with our own left-wing, alternative media sources.

[JCMach1]

25. Accuracy in Media-- lobbied the media like

dogs for years (with big money backing) to make the media more conservative.

One of my Professors (who will remain nameless) was HEAVILY involved with that group... and yes, they did spread the BIG LIE about the liberal media.

They did their job so well that CNN will never have on a 'liberal' with out a kneejerk conservative to immediately refute anything that is said.

What ever happened to telling the 'truth'-- not just spin..?