White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival

[TeamJordan23]

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival
A White House spokesman tells FOXNews.com President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend.

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/

[T Wolf]

1. More bipart surrender. Jesus - does the President like swimming upstream against the

media?

He seems to like to go out of his way to make things as hard on himself (and 'change') as possible. As if it is not going to be damn-near impossible to accomplish things even if the playing field gets leveled.

[MadBadger]

11. IT seems that many DUers are against the Fairness Doctrine.

So I doubt this is bipartisan surrender, but instead something he really feels.

[Occam Bandage]

15. It would really only affect AM radio. I don't think that's his biggest problem.

In fact, as one of the least popular people in politics today, Rush is unwittingly one of Obama's biggest allies.

[jenmito]

18. It's not surrender. MANY people (liberals) are against it, including Ed Schultz.

I don't see how it's Constitutional. Seems like the right call.

[damonm]

23. Determined not to see it,

Even when it's plain as day?
He's taking their talking points away - forcing them further into silly-season. This isn't surrender, it's Judo.

[ecstatic]

35. I don't think his view is based on a need for bipartisanship

Maybe he honestly doesn't think the Fairness Doctrine works or is good for society? I happen to want Fox News and right wing hate radio stopped, but I am not sure how the Fairness Doctrine would address those people. Would it involve putting on a fake liberal like Colmes to counter the wingnuts?

[firedupdem]

37. Try again. He said this last summer. Good. It's useless anyway. n/t

[Richardo]

2. Oh boy, here we go. DU outrage-o-bots in 3... 2.... 1.....

GO!

And remember:

an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine

Unsaid in the OP (or the FOXNEWS article) is that Obama DOES support changes in media ownership rules that would enable more viewpoints to be heard.

[Bill219]

5. I agree with you..Fairness Doctrine will not work in this day and age

Rush, Hannity and all the others are considered "entertainment" and would not be affected by the FD

It is all about breaking up the media monopolies that put this crap on the air

[Vinca]

3. I oppose it, too. Always have. Every time Limbaugh opens

his pie hole another Democratic vote is born.

[ej510]

6. It is unconstitutional.

[Richardo]

17. No, just ineffective.

Applies to the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum only, which is no longer the primary delivery system for news and comment.

There's nothing unconstitutional about mandating that entities using publicly-owned assets serve the entire public. The larger question to me is: what are conservatives SO afraid of that they won't allow any alternative veiwpoints on the air. (It's a rhetorical question for me, but I'd LOVE to hear Hannity try to answer it.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. The fairness doctrine does not silence anyone, ergo it is not unconstitutional.

All it does is force broadcasters on the public airwaves to tell the rest of the story. The public airwaves belong to the entire public, not just the RW 19%.

[biopowertoday]

4. Hannity will be pleased.

[onenote]

9. no he won't

He needs something to rant about. He just had one of his favorite ranting topics cut out from under him.

[biopowertoday]

13. not to worry, I am sure he will be quick to find another one.

[onenote]

21. no doubt about that

[damonm]

24. No doubt he'll make something up.

[Bullet1987]

7. If Obama does try to bring back something like the Fairness Doctrine

he wouldn't be stupid enough to call it that. He'd write a new bill and call it something else. The name "Fairness Doctrine" has been attacked too much by the Right.

[Cha]

22. Your post looks the

closest to me to what's happening.

You just know ObamaTeam thinks our media should have some accountability and not be able to bring the country to war on Iraq and down, like it did.

[onenote]

8. a smart move: cuts the legs out from under rush and his clownish followers

The rw is desparately looking for something to rally around. One of the things they've settled on is the fairness doctrine -- nothing seems to fire up the fundies and the rw clowns than the claim that the federal government is going to force religious stations to broadcast programming by and for atheists or that the government wants to "silence" rw talk radio. If Obama says he's not interested, then its one less thing for the rw and their audience to be all up in arms about and when they don't have something to be up in arms about, they tend to lose energy and audience.

Politically, its a good move. Politically, there is less to be gained by pushing the return of the FD than there is from letting the issue atrophy.

[FrenchieCat]

10. The Fairness Doctrine would only affect the people owned airwaves....

not cable, etc.

What is needed is the break up of media monopoly.

President Obama made himself clear on that.

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

[Life Long Dem]

12. I have someone who said Obama is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine"

And that source is me! :headbang::bounce:

[Occam Bandage]

14. Good. It's a stupid idea, and what's more it would

give the idiot RW something to froth about every day from here until 2016 or beyond.

[Uzybone]

16. As they should

Those pushing the idiotic fairness doctrine crap should think about what that will mean if our voices ever get to dominate the airwaves? Will Ed Schultz be forced to co-host with Hannity every week?

[Richardo]

19. No, because the old Fairness Doctrine NEVER mandated that.

It was a mechanism for getting opposing views on the air, and a remedy for those that felt injured by commentary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Exactly. Most people here, it seems, have no idea what it really was.

It never meant that a station had to give equal time all the time. It meant that if someone felt the station had made egregious errors that person would have to be given time to respond to those particular errors. Free time, which cost the station money. The result was, nobody could broadcast blatant lies, because somebody would HAVE to be given time to rebut - therefore, it moderated content and extremists on ALL sides were not aired. Of course, if a station felt strongly enough about an issue they could broadcast whatever they wanted, and accept the chance that the other side would demand to be heard.

[Richardo]

29. Well-explained

Thanks :patriot:

[jenmito]

20. Good. Now the RWers will have to find something ELSE to try to scare everyone about. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

25. Wonder if this post had anything to do with it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8175707&mesg_id=8175707

[berni_mccoy]

26. The Internet Trumps The Fairness Doctrine and Obama has mastered using it.

[liberalsince1968]

30. Why am I not surprised.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Good.

I'm no fan of governmental regulation of media content, however well-intended.

Stricter ownership rules...I can live with.

[steelyboo]

32. I agree with him, and I wanted it back.

Mainly because of its limited scope. However, there are 2 other laws that worked with the Doctorine that we could reinstate that would help our situation.
First, the Foreign Ownership Act, which prevented foreigners from owning major media outlets. Enacted in the 30's I believe, it was intended to prevent spread of propagandist ideas contrary to our interests as a nation: In other words prevent a Tokyo Rose (or Sydney Rupert in our current situation).
Second, the 25% rule, which prevented ANY company from being able to own any combination of media that allowed the company to reach more than 25% of the population with their message. Again, to prevent someone from spreading propaganda that worked against the public interest. In other words to prevent a FOX news.

[Thrill]

33. I heard Randi Rhodes, Malloy, and Stephanie Miller all say

Its useless. It just serves as a Talking Point for guys like Rush and Hannity. And its not even worth the fight. Obama knocks down another.

[mmonk]

34. Yes, this reintroduction to 19th century journalism we have been living through

since the mid 90's is great. Our press is now the envy of the world. It's so fair and balanced and people today are so much more informed than they were like the days under Cronkite and Murrow.

[sampsonblk]

36. This whole issue is a creation of talk radio (nt)