Bring Back The FAIRNESS Doctrine?

[Dinger]

Poll question: Bring Back The FAIRNESS Doctrine?

What do you think?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. A version of it. would be nice if it was fair to more than one political party, but

I'm sure no one is surprised to hear me say so. :P

[Occam Bandage]

3. That might be hard to pin down.

If we extend the doctrine to non-major parties (that is, with the standard definition of drawing less than 5% of the vote), where do we then stop it? How much time would we waste with Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, America First Party, etc., etc. shows?

[LWolf]

52. Why do you think it would be a waste of time? nt

[Occam Bandage]

2. No. I believe people are capable of determining what shows they want to support

without the government declaring such for them. People were clamoring for a fairness doctrine for television a few years back; since then, the market has delivered a strongly liberal MSNBC evening lineup based entirely on its own ratings success and not on government mandates. Air America was launched, and it faltered and failed not because of right-wing pressure, but rather because there was very little market for left-wing dittohead radio. Finally, the Internet has risen to prominence as a major news source in and of itself, and the left wing is flourishing here.

If the oft-repeated lie that 6 companies control 90% of media outlets were true, then a fairness doctrine might be called for. Since it is not true, and since there is ample competition, then I see no reason for it.

Besides, if there were a fairness doctrine, and Republicans then got into power, that might lead to NPR getting fucked with (as they've so often threatened) before they re-abolished the dcotrine.

[AndyA]

7. Ample competition? How do you figure?

If the oft-repeated lie that 6 companies control 90% of media outlets were true, then a fairness doctrine might be called for. Since it is not true, and since there is ample competition, then I see no reason for it.

On the progressive side, I can think of Olbermann and Maddow on cable, maybe Stewart and Colbert although they are marketed as comedy shows more than news shows. The rest, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Scarborough, the entire Fox News network, etc., are all conservative.

On radio, there's Air America, which is hard to find in many parts of the country, and then there's Rush, Dr. Laura, and all the rest of the conservatives who are broadcast all around the country, day after day.

Then there are the reporters who obviously lean to the right on the networks and cable.

I hardly call that ample competition. And if things were balanced, why is it that newsworthy items (such as the Downing Street Memo) were overlooked or under-reported by the media in America during Bush's term? An American President planning to incite a war with a sovereign nation seems newsworthy to me.

Do you have a link that proves your statement about media ownership?

[Occam Bandage]

8. I shouldn't have brought up MSNBC, because cable has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine.

It was only an example as to how the media market reacts (and Tweety has become quite liberal as well over the last year; he gets flack here because he asks devil's-advocate questions, but that's what any good host does).

Fairness doctrine only has to do with the airwaves, and ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS are on the whole adequately neutral in my eyes, with ABC tilting slightly right and NBC tilting slightly left. Radio is not--there are many right-wing outlets and virtually no left-wing--but that is not the fault of monopoly, and therefore the government has no business intervening. Air America proved what many people had believed beforehand: that it was entirely possible to launch a nationwide liberal radio network, and that no liberal Rush counterpart existed simply because there was no market for clumsy left-wing dittohead radio. AAR's defenders claim it was mismanaged, but that doesn't hold water; it's not management's fault if nobody listens.

AAR proved in its launch that the market could support new radio stations with new views. AAR proved in its failure that there was not any particular audience for liberal talk radio shows. I don't think we need government to step in and tell people what they want to listen to.

[AndyA]

19. I think the new regulations would have to include cable as well.

I see the major networks not even attempting to try to be unbiased. ABC's Path to 9/11 airing just days before a major election being just one example.

And how do you explain all the Bush dirty deeds that weren't reported?

Other sources thought they were interesting enough to report, but the American media by and large ignored them. Are they really just that bad, or was it intentional?

Politicians regularly appeared on air during the Bush years and out and out lied, yet they were not challenged. Why? What is the agenda that allows the media to allow lies to be presented as facts?

Morning Joe surely doesn't make much of an attempt to hide their loyalties. Nor does CNBC, so I find it hard to believe that NBC tilts slightly left. Brian Williams is a big Republican. And they have a lot of reporters with Republican ties, namely Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Greenspan), and Campbell Brown whose husband (Senor) is a Republican consultant and regular contributor to Faux News.

NBC is not what I would call progressive, they ignored the same major stories (or tilted them to make them more palatable) as the other networks. NBC gets major points for Olbermann, Maddow, and Schuster, but they are they exceptions.

[onenote]

11. those who claim that 6 companies control 90% of the media outlets should prove that claim

But since you asked for a link that proves OR's statement, here is one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8170629#8170751

[AndyA]

17. Thanks for the link.

That's a good post that you wrote, but it doesn't link to any documented proof of what you're saying, unless I missed it. Perhaps the figures often quoted are incorrect, but it sure seems to me that a relatively small number of entities own a rather large chunk of American media.

No matter where I travel, I can find Rush on the air. But I can't always find a progressive show.

If half of the media were right, and half were left, why isn't there a clearer definition? MSNBC may be mostly progressive during the evening hours, but mornings are all right wing. And most of the "talent" is right leaning as well. You can count the NBC progressives on one hand: Olbermann, Maddow, Schuster...

And on the other side, there's Brian Williams, Scarborough, Norah O'Donnell, Campbell Brown, and so on.

If there's balance in the media, why is it so many of Bush's offenses went unreported in American media? Are they that poor at reporting the news, or do they have another agenda?

It certainly seems off center to me. Off center to the right. By a big margin.

[onenote]

27. I don't think anyone is claiming that the media is completely balanced

It isn't. Never was. And never will be. Of course, there are those on the right that think the media is unbalanced to the left. And what constitutes left, right and center is impossible to objectively measure. The range of viewpoints here on DU alone proves that.

My point is that when people make the assertion that 90 percent of the nation's media outlets are controlled by six companies, they are making an easily rebuttable claim -- there are hundreds of television stations, 1000s of radio stations, and large numbers of newspapers, news magazines, and cable programming services that are not controlled by or affiliated with the six major media companies typically in such claims. Making an easily rebuttable claim not only undermines the credibility of the person making the claim, it undercuts the credibility of the more substantive concern -- that there is, and always has been, less diversity in the ownership of media, particularly the broadcast media, than is optimal for the free flow of ideas in a Democratic society. Even worse, it suggests that if we could simply improve the situation so that, say, only 60 percent of all of the media outlets in the country were owned by six companies, we'd have substantially improved the situation -- a false goal since, depending on how you measure it, its unlikely that six companies today control 60 percent of the media outlets.

Its a bad metric and I wish people would stop using it.

[FailureToCommunicate]

4. They are (were) our darn airwaves! Make them fair AND free for political ads and

watch the stuffing go out of influence peddlers and lobbyists: the politicians won't need as much dough for TV ads to get re-elected.

[NYC_SKP]

48. +1 The airwaves are OURS...

And a significant amount should be available for public use, public service.

[GarbagemanLB]

5. No. Talk about handing the Republicans a vote-getting issue on a silver platter.

[depakid]

15. Oh, please

The FCC can do this through a very simple rulemaking procedure based on the evidence and there's not a damn thing Republicans can do about it.

[Doremus]

20. So instead we should support Ronald Reagan's failed policy?

Please. The news industry is no different than finance, oil or any other industry.

Without common sense regulation it quickly becomes a free-for-all. What we have now, 20 years after Sir Raygun's deregulation, is a 24/7 propaganda machine for the plutocracy. Contrary to the popular meme that the "fair market" will self-regulate, we have the exact opposite. So surprising. :eyes:

The Fairness Doctrine served this nation well for much of the 20th century. It does not squelch free speech, it encourages it by requiring the airing of opposing viewpoints.

Two questions:

1. Why are we Dems so afraid of the airing of opposing viewpoints?

and the big one:

2. WHY IN HELL are we carrying water for Ronald Reagan????

[depakid]

23. Reagan simply appointed a corrupt man to ride herd on the FCC

Don't give him too much credit.

Credit goes to this guy:

"It's time to move away from thinking of broadcasters as trustees and time to treat them the way that everyone else in this society does, that is, as a business. Television is just another appliance. It's a toaster with pictures."

Those were the memorable droppings of a man named Mark Fowler. Ronald Reagan picked him to run the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the U.S.'s poor excuse for a media regulatory body. Echoing a historic Republican theme that "the business of America is business," he summed up how corporate think had insinuated itself into the work of an agency set up to protect the public interest from corporate self-interest.

Fowler's candor was expressed back in that watershed year of 1984, an irony that George Orwell, the author of the book that made that year infamous, would have found delicious. Perhaps it is fitting that in a sizzling summer in which folks in our nation's capital say they feel like they live in a toaster, Mark Fowler has reemerged.

Only this time his name is Michael Powell.

And its toaster time again.

http://www.alternet.org/story/11249/

[Doremus]

34. Like all repuke appointees, he was a lapdog for his master. nt

[EFerrari]

26. That's how we lose everything. By refusing to fight.

Do you seriously think they won't go after anything in exactly the same way?

[AndyA]

6. Something needs to be done.

The lack of having any fairness or responsibility in the media has brought us to where we are today. The actions of the Bush Administration were ignored, misreported, or covered up by not being mentioned by the media. When you look at the ownership breakdown of today's mainstream media, and its connections to the right wing, it's obvious the corporate media owners have much to gain with the GOP in power.

The Fairness Doctrine, updated to include today's situation, might not do it. But I think we must do SOMETHING to restore balance and accountability to the media. People today by and large are idiots. They believe whatever Rush, Bill, Sean, Laura, Glen, or whoever, choses to tell them. They don't check the facts on their own. And they repeat the lies over and over again to others, spreading the lies.

Americans today are complacent, and don't speak up until they personally are impacted by a particular event.

And while all of the media in America will ignore a news item, sources such as the BBC will report it thinking some people out there in the world might find it interesting. Things like the Downing Street Memo, which most would think newsworthy, yet it was largely ignored here in America. Why?

Whether it's the Fairness Doctrine or something else, we cannot allow the current situation to stand. To do so only invites further abuse by the media, and more manipulation of what America thinks.

[WeDidIt]

9. No, break up big media.

Problem solved.

[southern_dem]

10. Amen

Forget the "Fairness Doctrine" and bring back limits on what a company can own in any single media market. One company owning the top 5 stations is un-American and against our monopoly laws.

[Lorien]

46. Tell us; how does that give those on the left a voice again?

will the corporations that buy up the pieces NOT be pushing a pro-corporate/ anti-worker agenda anymore? Will "liberal" groups be purchasing half the stations? Do you believe that corporations always do a great job of policing themselves? Are they generally honest, working for the greater good?


How's that economic crisis working out for you?

[depakid]

16. "Free" market solutions worked SO well in other areas, eh?

Not saying divestment isn't necessary- just that anyone who thinks that will solve what's become a textbook example of market failure is being naive.

Frankly, I don't think most people know just how appalling American media is- becuase they don't know anything else.

One thing for sure- none of my friends from Britain or Australia believes it until they hear and see it for themselves.

[gmoney]

28. Yep, that's the problem, really.

[Lorien]

44. So by that logic having lots of different banks to choose from should have

averted the economic crisis, right? Let the corporations govern themselves...like THAT always works?!

:crazy:

[gmoney]

61. yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying...

:crazy:

I DO think the deregulation that let the banks get so massive and into so many facets of the economy has been a huge factor in the meltdown. They became "too big to fail" so when they did, they dragged down the rest of the economy with them. I'm NOT saying at all to let corporations govern themselves...where the fuck you got that, I have no idea. I just know that consolidation is a huge problem, whether its banks, media, retail, etc.

Remember when AAR first tried to get going? One of the HUGE problems they faced was that they could NOT get into many markets simply because the big guys owned virtually ALL the stations and controlled all the content. AAR's NYC FLAGSHIP STATION had to make due with sharing airtime with a low power reggae station (was it reggae or something else?).

Fairness doctrine is virtually unenforceable, and Fox and Rush and all can easily get around it by saying they have liberals on their programs or take phone calls from anyone who cares to express an opinion (even if it will be shouted down and marginalized). Or even worse, they will book crackpots to represent "opposing viewpoints" and completely marginalize non-conservatives... which they do already.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Bingo!

That's what is planned!

Obama believes the consequence of consolidation has been less diversity, less local news and the parroting of stories across multiple outlets. That, he said, needs to change.

In other words, the media is on notice: The potential new sheriff is in town, and he believes there’s plenty of cleaning up to do.

Q: You signaled that you would put the teeth back into antitrust enforcement. What would that mean for media companies that want to merge?

A: There is a clear need in this country for the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement. Our competition agencies, the Department of Justice and the FTC , need to step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not. Specifically, for media mergers, the Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.

Q: Where do you stand on the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, the only two satellite-radio companies?

A: I am waiting for final resolution by the regulatory agencies and would want to ensure that the merger does not give the new firm excessive market power or unduly limit the choices consumers have for satellite-radio content.

Q: You have said network neutrality would be a priority in your administration. Why and how would you go about ensuring a neutral Internet while still allowing networks to manage traffic?

A: The Internet is a powerful, democratizing tool. There are very low entry barriers for the delivery of services over the Internet, and public debate is unfettered by either the network owner or any single dominant voice. The neutral nature of the Internet makes that possible, and it is something we should defend. Up to now, legislation has focused on protecting against the discrimination against or in favor of any single voice or legal service. All have made allowances for objective, nondiscriminatory network-management practices.

Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6480419.html) last year?

A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.

Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?

A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.

Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?

A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.

Q: What concerns, if any, do you have over violent or sexual content on TV? Should cable be regulated for content?

A: We have established a precedent that government should act to protect kids in a nonintrusive way on broadcast radio and TV. That does not mean that we need the same rules for other media, but it does require us to respect and remain true to the principle that our kids cannot protect themselves -- parents are their first line of defense, and regulation can make it easier for parents to exercise that responsibility. I am focused on ensuring that parents have the tools to protect their kids from offensive material. I prefer technological solutions to this challenge rather than extending content regulation to cable and satellite. Given modern technology and increasingly sophisticated cable and satellite boxes and services, the market should be able to rise to meet the market demand to protect kids from indecent content. If the market fails to meet that demand, legislative and regulatory action may be necessary -- but it must be crafted carefully and focus not on content censorship, but rather on tools for parents.

Q: Do you support requiring cable operators to sell their channels a la carte? Why or why not?

A: I think the jury is still out on a la carte. Several years ago, chairman Powell had the FCC study the effect on consumers of an a la carte system. That study concluded that on average, rates would go up for consumers because each channel would cost much more even if the consumer took fewer channels than they currently receive. Then during his term, chairman Martin had the FCC conduct a review of that study and reversed the findings. FCC staff said the previous report was wrong to conclude that the average cable household -- which watches about 17 channels -- would likely face a monthly rate increase of up to 30% under a la carte. That 2004 report reasoned that a la carte would drive up cable companies’ costs for equipment, customer service and marketing, and that would almost certainly be passed on to subscribers. But the new report says consumers could receive as many as 20 channels without seeing an increase in bills and blamed the earlier finding on faulty data it obtained from the cable industry. I do not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems and fear that a la carte regulation may do that. But given the conflicting FCC reports, I remain open to review and discussion of the concept.

Q: You have complained about the influence of special interests on Washington. What kind of FCC chairman would you appoint, and would you look beyond the traditional lobbyists and lawyers for your pick?

A: I think FCC commissioners must be committed to service, averse to drama and capable of bringing disparate communities together. They must have a combination of technical and political expertise and solid relationships in Congress, with industry and with the public-interest community.

Q: How would communications policy be different under your administration compared to the current president?

A: I think communications policy must be more focused on the public interest, more inclusive of nonindustry voices and analysis, and maximize opportunities for the expression of a diversity of views. These issues go beyond simple economics to involve a set of core principles of an informed and empowered citizenry that need to be recognized in government’s approach to this important segment of our society.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/96754-Barack_Obama_s_Media_Agenda_An_Exclusive_Interview.php

[Lorien]

43. And who buys the pieces? Oh yeah, wealthy corporations who back the

GOP! Those same wealthy corporations who choose all of our candidates for us. Those same wealthy corporations who hated the Fairness doctrine because it made pushing their corporate agenda tougher. They used to have to tell the TRUTH.


It's so sad to see so many of you swallowing the Big GOP lie about something which gave us a true democracy for 70 years. Now we no longer have one.

[Lorien]

57. *Crickets* no one answers this very basic question

How does breaking up the media monopolies and selling off the pieces to other corporations ensure free speech? What makes anyone think that the new buyers won't be greedy republicans?

[slackmaster]

12. No - Fairness Doctrine creates a problem as bad as the one it addresses

Someone has to decide what's "fair".

[depakid]

14. The standards are quite objective and worked well for many years

The way things stand in the states- what "news" you get over the air is either vapid- or outright dishonest. It's definitely a pleasure NOT to have to watch or listen to it.

Indeed, when it comes right down to it- the sorry state of the US corporate media underlies most of the problems in the states- and so long as you have a dysfunctional media- those problems will remain intractable.

[Doremus]

21. Yeah, heaven forbid the rightwing propaganda machine should have to air liberal viewpoints. nt

[slackmaster]

25. Thanks for illustrating the problem in a nutshell

For everyone who refers to the media as an RW propaganda machine and sincerely believes that, I can find someone who just as sincerely believes it's an LW propaganda machine.

Viewpoints are relative. I don't believe it is possible to be objective in deciding which viewpoints deserve to be represented.

[Doremus]

33. Apparently you missed this graph in another thread.

We aren't getting a chance to "decide" which viewpoints get heard, but we can certainly see WHICH viewpoints they ARE hearing ... unless you're going to try to make a case that all those repukes are spouting liberal talking points. :rofl:

[baldguy]

13. Do you mean the Fairness Doctrine as it was?

Or as the corporate RW propaganda machine presents it?

[styersc]

18. When Hannity ran the Stop Democrats Express we won the....

...House and closed in on the Senate. When he ran the Stop Obama Express we won the Whitehouse, Senate and increased our margin in the House. Limbaugh regularly makes an uneducated, drug addicted ass of himself.

I don't think they should be limited, I think we should subsidize them and give the thinking public 24 hour access!!!!

[biopowertoday]

22. I am not sure what is needed at this point.

[jillan]

24. I don't want to hear Rethugs on Air America.

[Still Sensible]

30. I would prefer they simply do something

to break up the big media conglomerates so no one is able to spread their ideology by simply spending enough money to acquire media assets. I don't know how to solve that complicated problem, but I do think that is the root of it.

[namahage]

31. If I understand the Fairness Doctrine correctly...

Would that mean a broadcaster would be required to give the KKK airtime if they requested it to provide an "opposing viewpoint" to, for instance, a pro-civil rights speech?

[alwysdrunk]

32. Forcing a content provider to carry content they don't want to carry is the same as

Making an individual say something they don't want to say. Methods of carrying and conveying information and opinions are not scared resources, they are abundant and accessible. This is an outdated notion and it's ridiculous that anyone with the power to do this is even considering it.

[Viking12]

62. If broadcast airspace is not scarce, why is it so expenseive?

Add to that your obviously faulty analogy between a broadcast outlet and a person and, well, your whole point pretty much falls apart.

[OwnedByFerrets]

35. Anyone who votes NO does NOT understand the issue.

[hughee99]

37. Then please explain it to them...

[depakid]

49. Why waste the breath?

Not much you can say that would get folks to clue in to either what the fairness doctrine is- or why it's necessary.

The irony of course is that their own misunderstanding and recalcitrance is in most cases a product of not having the fairness doctrine(s) for 20 years.

Betweween that and the inevitable posters who work in the broadcast industry- and spout the talking ponts (against their own and all of our interests) it's hard to see the point.

[Lorien]

59. The young here are spouting nothing more than Right wing disinformation

about the Fairness Doctrine. Not much any of us can do to awaken them from 20 years of corporate conditioning.

[OwnedByFerrets]

67. Why should "I" do that? If they want the facts, they can go

read the fairness doctrine for themselves. If they arent willing to find out facts for themselves, they dont want to know the facts. I'm not their mommie.

[ecstatic]

36. I believe that something must be done about FNC, Rush, Hannity, etc.

They incite hatred and spread lies. That should be illegal.

[KharmaTrain]

38. Reregulate It...The Problem Isn't Fairness, It's Acess...

It's those who own the stations who decide what goes on them. With so few hands in control over the majority of the radio dial, it leaves little chance for competitors (such as NovaM or AAR) and has put hundreds of local talents and voices off the air.

Time for the FCC to restore ownership caps...limiting the number of stations a company can own (especially in one market), shorten license renewal periods back to 3 years and give local and minority owners a preference on those renewals or making it easier to challenge a license. Thanks to Telcom' 96, the public lost control of the airwaves...here's the way to gain them back. That is, if it isn't too late. Radio has all but destroyed itself.

[OwnedByFerrets]

68. Thank you for a fantastic post!!

[jefferson_dem]

39. Hex no!

Government regulation of media content sucks.

[Lorien]

41. That's what Reagan said

and enough people here are drinking his kool-aid while slitting the throats of everyone on the Left who would like to HAVE a voice again.


Unfortunately, you are too young to remember what living in a real democracy was like.

[jefferson_dem]

50. Given the nature of your response here...

it's no surprise you would support regime-regulated political press...all in the name of "fairness".

Results of election 2008 are primae facie evidence that "the Left" have a voice and democracy prevails.

[Lorien]

40. Wow, there are a lot of Freepers voting tonight

or kids born post Reagan who don't remember what free speech in a real democracy was like.

[bottomtheweaver]

42. I don't get it either.

Simple rule change vs. massive, fight-to-the-death anti-trust war against the media giants. Let's start with the frakkin easy stuff!

[Lorien]

47. They don't understand that breaking up media giants does not break up

corporate culture. People will buy stations to make money. Those companies will back policies that help them to make the most money possible -which means that they will continue backing republicans. A small credit union can be just as greed driven as a major bank-the number of owners won't change much at all because corporations never do a good job of policing themselves.

The Fairness Doctrine worked for decades. If anyone thinks that the current system "works", then they've listened to too much Limbaugh.

[hughee99]

56. So you're not one of the people

who thinks that progressive radio would bring in just as many listeners as the current schlock, if only it was given the chance.

[Lorien]

58. Yes i do, but it's not being given the chance because

the Fairness Doctrine is dead. How is this connection not obvious to you? Progressive radio is profitable, but corporate interests-ALL OF THEM-prefer the MESSAGE being delivered by Right Wing radio. It's just as profitable and pushes their corporate agenda.

[hughee99]

60. Now I'm confused...

"They don't understand that breaking up media giants does not break up corporate culture. People will buy stations to make money. Those companies will back policies that help them to make the most money possible -which means that they will continue backing republicans."

It sounds to me like your arguing that even if given the opportunity to be on the radio (by breaking up the media conglomerates), the sponsor still won't back the progressives stations because they're all about profit. But if the progressive stations bring in just as many listeners (or more) wouldn't the profitable thing to do be to advertise on progressive stations? The only reason progressive stations with just as many listeners wouldn't get advertising revenue is if it's not about profit, but about something else.

Personally, I don't believe on a national scale, progressive radio can get as many listeners as the current assholes. I think the number of people who would tune into listen intelligent, though provoking programming is much smaller than the number of people who would tune into listen to some idiot tell a bunch of assholes what they want to hear.

[onenote]

53. wow, you think Obama is a Freeper?

You think everyone who opposes bringing back the FD is a Freeper? How about some people opposing it because they don't think its a real solution to the lack of diversity in the media and that it raises serious first amendment issues.

And I remember the media pre-Reagan -- for example, I remember CBS yanking the Smothers Brothers and replacing them with Hee Haw because of the Smothers Brothers vocal anti-war views. I remember that the leading personalities on radio were Morton Downey and Paul Harvey.

I'd be curious to know when the golden era of media diversity occurred in your opinion.

[Lorien]

55. I have no idea why Obama opposes the Fairness Doctrine, but

YES, I do believe that " the golden era of media diversity", as you so snidely put it, occurred between the end of the gilded age and the beginning of the Reagan era. If it weren't for the anti-war views voiced in the media during the Vietnam war the war would have dragged on for far longer. Had we still had the Fairness doctrine, then I seriously doubt we would be in Iraq right now. Far more people protested the Iraq war than the Vietnam war, but without the Fairness Doctrine most people will never know that.

Obama made a deal with someone. It may help him, but it hurts democracy in America and will continue to muzzle the left.

[onenote]

63. the "gilded age"?

You mean the latter part of the 19th century? How is that relevant to the FD?

And I don't recall the FD keeping the US out of Vietnam or preventing a massive build up of our presence there just as it wouldn't have kept us out of Iraq. As the FCC repeatedly stated in connection with FD complaints: "the Fairness Doctrine does not require coverage of every possible viewpoint or shade of opinion, and does not entitled any particular individual or group to air time". During the VIetnam War there were a number of FD complaints filed -- mostly by those opposed to the war, although there were some filed by those who believed the coverage was slanted against the war. and by those supporting the war. Without exception, these complaints were denied. Was it because the coverage of the war was balanced at all times? Not a chance. It was because the FD did not impose any "mechanical requirement or formula for achieving fairness. The broadcaster need not balance editorial for editorial or viewpoint for viewpoint. Moreover, there is no requirement that a licensee achieve a balance of opposing views within a single broadcast or even that he present opposing views on the same series of programs.... What is required is that the broadcaster take affirmative steps to afford a reasonable opportunity for presenting contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance in the station's overall programming."

It was not a secret that there was opposition to the war in Iraq. And while you or I may have wanted the coverage of the anti-war perspective to be presented more forcefully, based on FD precedents, there is no chance we would have succeeded with an FD complaint.

Finally, if you haven't read it, I suggest you take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in CBS v. Democratic National Committee, 412 US 94 (1973) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=412&invol=94

Its not a fairness doctrine case per se (since the FCC's rejection of the fairness doctrine complaint was not appealed), but it certainly offers some insight into how balanced the media was in the 1970s in covering the war.

[bottomtheweaver]

45. Yes! Changing an FCC rule is easy. Breaking up massive corporations

isn't. At risk of oversimplifying, DUH!

[mmonk]

51. Yes. American media is partly responsible for where we are.

Bring it back and break up media conglomerates or have news rooms be required to keep out political opinion or government influence in its news portion. They can have editorials for opinions.

[karynnj]

54. We need a third poll category

The fairness doctrine was written for a very different media world. The goals of the fairness doctrine were laudable, but I think what is needed is for the Congress to re-examine what the goal was and to develop both a set of principles and new rules. Then they could work to pass that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

64. Repeal the "Telecommunications Act of 1996" and enforce antitrust laws.

The bigger problem is not right wing idiots on the air, it's right wing idiots owning the means of distribution. The empires of Murdoch, Clear Channel, and AOL's ownership of CNN were not possible before Clinton signed that piece of shit.

[mwooldri]

65. dupe

original message edited below, sorry Firefox crashed.

[mwooldri]

66. Not in its original form.

I'm from the UK and things are done very differently there.

The newspapers are where all the talking heads are at. Even then there's enough print out there to get a fair and balanced point of view.

Broadcast media is still heavily regulated. Political parties cannot purchase broadcast on-air advertising, they get alloted party political broadcast time on all major networks (see good example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKp7HDv01hk - methinks Obama must have watched this one...). A good recent example is that of James Whale. He was a late night talk-show phone-in host on the national TalkSport station. He urged people on air to vote for Boris Johnson in the elections for London Mayor. He got fired for this. This fairness also extends to other aspects: Fox News criticized the BBC for something I forget some time ago, and didn't allow the BBC to give an answer on-air. Fox News got fined by OFCOM for this. Now Fox News is OK with airing Hannity and Billo over there because they're talking US politics... if subject were to turn to UK politics they got to throw on the fair/balanced switched pretty fast otherwise they'd definitely be looking at fines.

What the US needs is OFCOM. Personally I'd prefer the Independent Broadcasting Authority, where they own all the stations, and the "broadcasters" merely have a franchise for X number of years... if they don't live up to their public service remit they can have their franchise removed from them and another company who actually promises to serve the public good can have a go.

Mark.