For those of you fighting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a question.

[Writer]

I need to ask: Are you willing to give up Air America Radio?

If we codify the Fairness Doctrine, do you understand that AAR will go bye-bye along with Rush Limbaugh and any other forms of free speech on broadcast radio and television? Are you okay with that?

I'll take all responses "off-line." :) :popcorn:

Writer.

[mazzarro]

1. Yes - when applied to public airwaves.

If it is applied to public tv and radio broadcasts. Cable tv, satellite radio and blogs should be exempt.

[MADem]

4. It was important back in the day when airwaves, and airtime, were

"scarce." New technologies are making them less scarce all the time.

[pnorman]

8. "applied to public tv and radio broadcasts"

Right on! It can't be stressed hard enough that the public airwave is essentially a MONOPOLY, that's protected and rigidly enforced by the FCC. Thed FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" was an attempt to see that the public got at least a chance at seeing both sides of important issues.

It's abrogation (under Reagan) resulted in the present Reptilican Noise Machine. Wanna air an opposing view? Okay, but ya gotta PAY FOR IT (Ka-Ching!). But if it's TOO displeasing to the delicate ears of the corporate sponsors, yer shitouta luck!

pnorman

[sendero]

22. Not only that..

.... but the charter of ALL broadcast licensees was to "operate in the public interest". This was a REQUIREMENT to retain you license.

TV and radio stations USED TO work hard to ensure they would be keeping their licenses. This included not only reasonably balanced news and talk, but lots of public service programming as well.

This all dissapeared in the Reagan era. As far as I can tell, even though the regulations about "operating in the public interest" remain, their interpretation is basically anything is in the public interest.

[pnorman]

23. Thanks for reminding me.

this is an EXTREMELY important issue, since the development of that right Wing noise Juggernaught would never have developed without those Reaganite "modifications" to that charter.

Almost anything by Robert McChesney is relevant to this discussion. Here's a good article by him: http://www.counterpunch.org/mcchesney05162003.html He also writes for the Nation.

Here's the Google list: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=mcchesney+fcc+book&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Start reading!

pnorman

[gristy]

2. You are supposing that your premise here is true.

You'll need to argue your premise successfully before anyone should feel a need to say that they are "okay with that".

[MADem]

3. That's the Heritage Foundation's Argument, FWIW

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

Of course, there's another solution entirely--a corporate 'partnership of convenience' between opposing views, as it were. Put Flush Limpballs and Air America under the same corporate umbrella, and take "credit" for both. That way, you've gotcher opposing views disseminated under the same corporate banner, as it were.

If there's a way to make money, they'll do it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, when there's money to be made.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warpy]

5. AAR will still be there. Any station that wants to broadcast

Pig Boy will have to broadcast balance, and AAR is where they'll go to find that balance. It may not be called AAR any more, but the viewpoint will be out there and on many more stations than it is now.

What will go buh bye are Pox News, MSGOP, and any other news outlet that has been spewing RNC talking points as gospel while reporting tabloid trivialities to get the attention of the booboisie. Those talking points will have to be countered, minute by minute, by someone giving the opposing view. My guess is that they'll go back to reporting news, and lacking a sufficient supply of suburban maidens in distress, they'll fold their tents and go home. The Fairness Doctrine will also force people like Foulwell and Robertson to give opposing viewpoints when they start to talk politics, something I doubt they'll be willing to do, so they'll have to go back to religion 24/7.

The Fairness Doctrine will reduce the amount of blatting of RNC propaganda overall, as keeping money losing propositions like Pox and MSGOP afloat will no longer benefit corporation and party. The only cable 24/7 news outlet that might survive is CNN, and only if it goes back to news instead of propaganda, mainly on its prior reputation as a real news source.

[MrSlayer]

6. I'm fine with it..

Instead of whole networks devoted to one side of the story you could have one that plays Rush then Randi then Hannity then Franken. That would be fair. As it is now there are far more stations dedicated to neo-con talk only.

[AtomicKitten]

7. As I recall, the Fairness Doctrine was about truth and accuracy

not the fair & balanced BS.

If that is the case, Air America tells the truth. No worries.

[blondeatlast]

9. Absolutely. I would love to see a true effort at objectivity

although absolute objectivity is impossible.

I'm old enough to remember when the press did strive to be objective and I could actually stand to listen thoughtful conservatives debate thoughtful liberals on the radio.

Yep, I'ma gettin' up there, no doubt about it.

[sam sarrha]

10. you r inviting the Swift Boat Screaming Freeper liars into every discussion

we dont need that crap.. only the freepers want it

[Lefty48197]

11. The Fairness Doctrine would not ban AAR

it would merely require that the airwaves be opened to other opinions, unlike today's bought and paid for "press". Also, I'd never refer to Rush Limbaugh's show as "free speech", I'd refer to it as stupid shit for stupid people. Much different from "free speech" in my book.

[radio4progressives]

12. Not Necessarily True.. Public Affairs and Talk Radio Existed Long Before

Rush Limpbaugh came on the air.

Decades in fact.. What can't be allowed are LIES, DISTORTIONS and ATTACKS - they can't go on unfettered - Political Issues CAN be discussed and have been on the air almost since the beginnig of Radio.

[radio4progressives]

13. My God, A Whole Generation has Passed since the end of Fairness Doctrine

i take it you're pretty young.. and don't remember how it was...

i have to think you're weren't around in the good ole' days or you might remember how it was, before this stupid thing occured.

[blondeatlast]

14. Alarming, isn't it? There are those on DU who don't remember

that we once had a hungry, hard-working, responsible, and objective press. Yikes.

:scared:

[blondeatlast]

15. I think a brief review of the FD is in order.

(snip)The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Conference decision in 1987. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.

The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice even after the repeal of the fairness doctrine. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

(snip)...The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules had significant political effects. One liberal Pennsylvania political leader, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today."

All emphasis mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

And AAR, as well as Rush, would be affected how? They would have to (God forbid!) offer an OPPOSING viewpoint? The HORROR!

[gristy]

19. thanks for the post

Very interesting. I love wikipedia. I use it as a reference more and more for my job (engineering).

[Frank Cannon]

16. Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs

Seriously, I frankly don't care what "viewpoint" my news is presented from, as long it's the damn truth. There was a time in this nation (and not that long ago) when objectivity was PARAMOUNT in journalism. Now it's a fucking joke. Our media is now every bit as laughably bad as Pravda in the 1970s.

[blondeatlast]

17. As R4P pointed out, there's an entire generation of DUers that have had

their minds made up for them by the so-called "press."

They don't know what an "objective" press means, as is evidenced by the OP's ignorance about the Fairness Doctrine.

I remember when there was real debate in the interest of a better nation, not glaring simplification and acrimony.

BTW, to some on DU, the 1970's WERE that long ago, even if it seems like just a couple of years ago to me!

[Frank Cannon]

21. That's just terribly sad

I wish I could dig up an aircheck tape of Walter Cronkite on the CBS evening news from, say, 1973, and play it for one of these young whippersnappers. They would be shocked to see how the news was reported then in this country. It was the "Reds" that had the B.S. propaganda news.

[radio4progressives]

24. it doesn't seem that long ago to me either...

oh my, oh my...

no wonder it feels so weird to be fighting these old battles over and over again..

Women's Rights to Privacy and Self Determination,
Separation of Church and State,
and once again this age old problem of "illegal immigration"...

same arguments, same reactionarism, but now we have the reactionarism amplified a thousand times over, with hardly a moment for the voice of reason or substantive discussion as to what is really at issue regarding why our wages have been driven down, which is to do with Union Busting and OUTSOURCING our jobs, yes some to Mexico but much more to India and China, Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore and so on.

sheesh!

[depakid]

18. Misunderstandings

The first- and most basic being that there's not one fairness doctrine per se. It was A SET OF RULES that included quite a few different requirements. Moreover, absent a broader regulatory context, the farness doctrine itself had few teeth.

Unless and until politicians get serious about the necessary media divestiture and put some responsible measure of public interest back into license renewal's - it's all smoke an mirrors.

[radio4progressives]

25. the Television & Radio News People lived and died by the Fairness Doctrine

Feared the FCC.. Hell my former Radio Program Director still acts like it exists..

But your absolutely correct and spot on about the media divestiture issues which is really at the core of 99% of the issue as currently exists.

[burrowowl]

20. The Fairness Doctrine

was based on the principle that the airwaves belong to the people and not corps. Corps rent them and have to pay and for the priviledge had to air things of puplic service, like hurricane warnings etc. and that political candidates had equal time, without paying since their speaking is of interest to the people.
Now the candidates with the most money, get the most speech and enrich corp coffers to ne end.

[Minnesota Libra]

26. Hey, don't you be messing with Air America Radio................

....Rush Limbag, have at it - - Air America, hands off.:pals:

[FrenchieCat]

27. Yep....I'll give it up....

Cause the Fairness Doctrine will also mean less spent on advertising and therefore less money chasing by candidates, and more focus on the real issues!

[Writer]

29. All the responses above have been interesting.

However, there is a lot of misinformation about the Fairness Doctrine in this thread.

Here's a quick primer:

The Fairness Doctrine was created in 1949. It was added to Section 315 of the Federal Communication Act - the sections concerning political speech on broadcast media.

The Doctrine required that all licensed broadcasters:

1) provide a "reasonable amount" of airtime to the discussion of public issues

2) provide contrasting views to all issues covered

In 1969 a portion of the Fairness Doctrine was ruled as constitutional under Red Lion v. FCC. This is only the portion dealing with personal attack provisions. In other words, if you are personally attacked, you have the right to respond, per libel precedence. The remainder of the Fairness Doctrine was actually under strenuous debate among broadcasters, especially during the beginning of broadcast deregulation in the 1980's. Not all journalists agreed with it, many believing it to be an infringement of their free speech rights. In fact Dan Rather spoke before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. His quote before the committee:

"Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost."

Democrats in Congress attempted to codify the doctrine in 1987 with the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987. Although the bill passed the House and Senate, Reagan vetoed the Act at the end of the year.

Read more from the Museum of Broadcast Communications: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Now that this information is posted, let's see what you all say. :popcorn:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

30. And now the government can tell reporters what to say. We live in the

day of scrpted press conferences, Jeff Gannon, FOX News and the rest. Deregulation has had a worse effect on the media than the Fairness Doctrine. There is not the free press there was at that time.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[KoKo]

31. I remember when the Fairness Doctrine was around and we had more

political discussion shows than we have now and you had folks with differing views on discussing issues which balanced discussion. On Air Media was required to balance giving "equal time" to opposing views. They actually had employees at the Networks who counted up the time between opposing viewpoints to satisfy the requirements of the law.

It was so much better than this propaganda we have now. Plus there was MORE Diversity! And, that was before Cables. It would give even more opportunities for Diverse views and creativity with the broader range of channels we have today. It worked so well that Reagan had to get rid of it. Think about that...Why get rid of the "Fairness Doctrine" unless it was hurting folks who were planning on Dominating Politics in America forever. :shrug:

[Armstead]

32. Yes -- if it forced all radio to be more balanced

The type of shows carried by Air America would not necessarily go awy -- an Air Americ wouldn't necessarily go away as an entity either.

It would simpy, mean that All talk radio would be more of an actual dialogue and information source. There could be a mix of right and left oriented shows, plus a healthy dose of non-prtisan shows that actually promote dilogue and debate in a more balanced way.

There were partisan shows before they eliminated the Fairness Docturne. But one station would have a mix of liberal and conservative hosts.