CBS can do a postgame show but not a post Bush response from Durbin?

[undeterred]

That sucks.

[bigwillq]

1. Write to CBS

Make phone calls. Send e-mails.

It can't hurt.

Sadly, I think more people would watch the football game than Durbin's response.

[Bluebear]

2. 60 Minutes is an interview show, though, not requiring an equal time response

I think when America hears the monkey saying he made his decision and fuck us and fuck Congress, no response will be necessary.

[undeterred]

4. CBS follows up the football game, not the presidents speech

I'm waiting for 60 minutes.

[Bluebear]

5. It's on, it's on! :)

[Warpy]

3. Durbin won't sell beer and SUVs

That's the difference.

[Catch22Dem]

6. It wasn't a speech

It was a 60 Minutes interview. I'm not sure why they'd be obligated to show a response. I don't think anyone gave a fuck what * said anyway.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. So you want them to give equal time every time

anyone is interviewed by anyone ever?

[papau]

8. That evil fairness doctrine that Reagan veto'd called for opposing viewpoints but not

equal time, and not a one to one ratio - just close.

Currently that far left NPR is interviewing 5 right to far right GOP for every moderate and left of center Democratic Party voice.

Seems like a fair ratio - right?

[KharmaTrain]

10. Uh...That's Not Quite How It Worked...

I worked with the fairness doctrine and it never dealt with equal time as much as equal access. In specific it provided so that all certified candidates would have access to buy commercial air time during elections and that air time was sold at a discount rate...to prevent price gouging or one candidate buying up all the commercial time and freezing their competitor off the air. That's really the only thing the doctrine did.

It never covered talk shows that were considered "entertainment" or news programs, but only public service type shows that were once mandated and that regulation was also dropped.

BTW...Raygun never vetoed the Fairness Doctrine...the FCC repealed it.

The restoring of anti-duopoly and trafficking laws would go a long way to restoring some sanity and balance on the airwaves and also encourage local ownership that would provide far better service and open up the airwaves to more voices and idea.

[papau]

11. I agree on the anti-duopoly- the 87 veto of Reagan of the Restoration of the Fairness

Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)) was the Reagan veto I referred to.

A Bit of Background:

The Doctrine did not apply to Newspapers, and was rarely enforced in other media, but the public perception of the meaning of fairness made many radio broadcasters believed it had a limiting effect on their broadcasting (not doing any and all commentary the left might deem critical or unfair, the left being called a "powerful special interests," was annoying to the right's powerful special interests and they were the ones paying bills).

Reagan's FCC under Mark S. Fowler (famous for saying "The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants,", comparing TV broadcast media to a "toaster with pictures", and calling public affairs journalism "Dudley Do-Good" programming), backed by Reagan's choice for general counsel of the FCC, the right-wing lawyer Bruce E. Fein, of Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and Jesse Helms' Center for Judicial Studies background, who had called for repeal of the press liability protection given in the Court case New York Times v Sullivan, and for congressional investigations into "media inaccuracy, bias, and misreporting", gutted the Fairness Doctrine, opening the public airwaves to "rigidly partisan" views, with no safeguards for balance and produced the 1985 Fairness Report (102 F.C.C.2d 145), where the FCC announced that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1986, packed with Reagan right-wing ideologues, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, upheld a loose interpretation by the Reagan FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had never made the doctrine a binding requirement, despite statutory language suggesting that it had. In August 1987, the commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote,

In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted forestall the FCC vote and to restored the doctrine by a wide bipartisan margin (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Reagan was followed by Bush whose veto threats stalled new legislative attempts to restore the Doctrine. The Democratic Party took the Presidency with Clinton, but was intimidated by an all-out right-wing media offensive. The Heritage Foundation warned against government bureaucrats interfering with "pugnacious talk show hosts" and Rush Limbaugh campaigned against what the Wall Street Journal editorial page called the "Hush Rush Rule."

The Reagan veto of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. <1987>), which would have codified the doctrine in federal law. was the Reagan veto of the Fairness Doctrine that I was referring to.

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Rush's Rise Was Due To Lots Of Other Factors

First...regarding the Fairness Doctrine...Raygun didn't repeal it, the FCC did...and in quite bipartisan fashion. There were a lot of Democrats very much in favor of "de-regulation"...and this was just part of a larger package that IMHO had devestating affects on radio...only topped by the bigger "de-reg" package passed in '95.

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine and had to fill out the forms every time a candidate would purchase advertising time. It had no bearing on our news/talk programs and news coverage, but did apply to public service programs that we had to keep track of in our ascertainment files...thus we prefered to do shows about "how to wash your dog" vs anything too controversial.

Rush's rise came more as a result of other changes in rules and technology. First, he came in at the tail end of the music radio era. Many AM stations were dying with music formats (everyone was on FM) and looking for a cheap alternative...satellite programming was an answer. Also at the same time, rules were relaxed about having a live body in your station 24/7...stations could fully automate...and with the new generation of cheaper computers, it became far more "cost effective" to have a computer run a radio station than someone who required a salary and benefits.

I give Edward McLaughlin a great deal of credit. He saw lots of AM stations with open airtime in the middle of the day...and crafted a talk show around his "star"...Rushbo. As more and more stations had satellite equipment, it was easy to deliver the show and soon the network expanded. Further consolidation helped as well as local ownership vanished as stations were bought up larger companies who were bought out by larger companies...tightening the belt every step of the way. Hate radio grew as a void of cheap programming and corporate ownership increased.

One thing that force our stations to present balanced programming was our ascertainment files. These were quarterly reports that had to be made public and showed how our station had addressed serious community issues in various programming. This file was one of the first the FCC would investigate if they wanted to find station violations...and was used in as the basis in the Red Lion case. The FCC relaxed both the license periods from 3 to 10 years and also the ascertainment standards that all but eliminated public service and community-based programming. Again, none of this had anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine but was instrumental in the spread of hate radio to the monster we hear today.

One thing restoring the doctrine would do would be to cost the big broadcast corporations millions in revenues. Last year I saw a Repugnican attempt to buy up all the available airtime (including cable...which wasn't included in the Fairness Doctrine) to freeze out his opponent from having any spots on in the 48 hours running up to the election. I also read about widespread price gouging, where stations were charging 3 to 5 times the going rate for spots when a politician walked up the steps.

Right now radio is facing a crisis of their own making. The popularity of IPODs and the Internet has drained away the younger demos and the older ones...the loyal audience of days gone by are "fading away". Competition from cable has shifted lots of money away from radio and the downscaling has drained a lot of talent...and unfortunately that leads to more hate shows and other low-end crap to fill hours of airtime.

A total revisit of De-Reg '96...that was supposed to have been done several years ago is long overdue. License periods need to be shortened and ascertainment standards restored to show the license holder is operating in the public trust. Preference has to be given to local ownership over a national corporate entity in obtaining and selling of licenses and the license challenge process needs to be made shorter and more cost efficient.

Here's hoping something good will come in the Congress ahead...but I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers...

[depakid]

15. "and in quite bipartisan fashion???" That's so incorect that

it's hard to know where to begin.

Republicans in Congress- including such liberals as Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich were FURIOUS at FCC Chairman Fowler at the time and his ass got before Congress where members from both sides threatened him REPEATEDLY over his actions re: the Fairness Doctrine.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Deregulation was very bipartisan

Clinton all but walked DeReg '96 through...which enabled the wholescale monopolization of the radio dial.

Again, the Fairness doctrine is just one piece of many that were being "deregulated"...ownership limits were the real game here and that is what destroyed local radio and diversity.

[depakid]

19. Back in the 80's -when we lost the Fairness Doctrine

The far right still believed their own propaganda that the media was "liberal" so the last thing that they wanted was to turn the media loose. Of course, that changed once they got a clue.

(How they couldn't figure out that Reagan was the media's little darling is beyond me- but then, Republicans aren't known for their perceptiveness or critical thinking skills).

[papau]

22. Here we agree - the excessive de-regulation slipped in like butter in 96

Telecomunications did need some de-regulation, but the bill went way too far.

ownership limits was the bribe that got the GOP 10 years of fawning media coverage.

We really need all Federal elections to be funded by the Federal government - with private funding, including in kind funding, to be a felony.

[papau]

21. ascertainment standards cost a Boston TV station its license back then - so I agree

that was indeed an important part of FCC regulation that has died post Reagan despite the idea still being on the books.

Why no one challenged your station owner at renewal time is beyond me - it sounds like there was a license to be taken - at least under the old rules.

And there were a lot of fake "pro worker/pro union" democrats in the pocket of big business - Rep Gephart of MO - a Presidential possibility per the media at one point - comes to mind.

As to the Reagan veto that killed the Fairness Doctrine law - how can we argue over a fact. Granted he gutted it first, and granted he did his dirty deed through the hands of his appointees and not directly, and granted that after his veto the FCC voted 4-0 to kill the regulation - formally, but the gist of the story is the Reagan veto since without that the FCC vote would never have occurred.

In theory there used to be a minority representation - meaning Democratic Party in 87 - on the FCC, and the 4-0 vote means at least one Democrat- possibly both - voted to repeal after seeing that Congress could not overturn the Reagan veto, but Democrats very much in favor of "de-regulation" - and anything else the corporations want - those third way DLC types - have been with us for as long as I can remember. But they did not make policy (although Gephart was leadership). It was a 6 year Reagan/RW campaign that killed the Fairness Doctrine - AND NOT A BI-PARTISAN URGE TO DE-REGULATE (sorry about the loud voice there, but this is subject near and dear to my heart).

And let us not forget that the need for the bill making the Fairness Doctrine the law of the land in 87 was a Court decision that ran totally against the statutory language and claimed the Fairness Doctrine was not already law - a judgment made by our non-political Judge Scalia and his judges should not make new law friend Judge Bork.

[depakid]

13. Your facts are incorrect

The fairness doctrine was actually a host of administrative rules that applied whenever "controversial issues of public importance" were raised or when personal attacks were made. It did indeed cover talk shows and quite possibly would have applied to what we consider today "entertainment," dependeding on what was said and why.

It provided for FREE airtime (usually 30 second spots) to "responsible spokespersons" for rebuttal.

In addition, stations had a duty to provide reasonable balance in the coverage of these issues in a station's overall programming... something we actually used to see back before Reagan's 2nd term.

The equal time provisions were another beast entirely- and followed different rules.

The demise of the Fairness Doctrine began the minute Reagan appointed industry lobbyest Mark Fowler to head the FCC. At first, the FCC simply stopped enforcing the law, and then they battled with Congress and in the courts to repeal it- which, thanks to a majority decision the DC circuit on which Scalia and Bork provided the deciding votes.

Congress then reinstated it as a statute rather than a set of administrative rules. Reagan vetoed that and was overwhelmingly overruled by Congress, but the Senate fell one vote short.

Congress made several other attempts, but couldn't get the votes until Clinton was elected. By that time, the far right KNEW how valuable their propaganda machine had become- and Bob Dole with his slim minority managed to frighten the Dems away with a filibuster.

Clinton's FCC could have reinstated the rule itself- but Clinton was a panderer who sold us all out (despite the fact that the corporate media never gave the guy a break).

[KharmaTrain]

18. Did You Work With The Fairness Doctrine?

I did...and we NEVER offered any FREE airtime to anyone...not with the Conservative Repugnican owner I had at that time.

I know it did not cover "Entertainment" and "News" programming and those definitions were left up to the station...thus a talk show was considered "entertainment"...and why Rushbo to this very day still claims he's an "entertainer" to specify the "classification" of his slime.

Reasonable balance? Hardly. I worked on several license renewals and that term never showed in the process. Instead we had to prove that we were addressing local problems and issues...called PICN...and to satisfy that requirement we offered free PSAs and did about 3 hours a week of public service programming (this week at the library, an hour given to the local school district and so on) and that pretty much covered all the "access" we were required to provide.

Again, the only time we ever dealt with the Fairness Doctrine were filling out forms that we put on public file to show which candidates advertised on the station, how many commercials they aired, where they aired and how much they paid for them. Nothing about content...and as long as we offered the same rates to all candidates (and time availabilities). In one primary, we had such a demand for air time, we dumped regular programming to ensure all the politicals got in...or would bump regular clients to make sure we followed the law.

The Fairness Doctrine was not the bed of roses so many think it was. It didn't offer "equal time"...just equal access...a BIG difference.

[depakid]

20. Reagan also changed the renewal process

Emasculated it would be a better word. Also, the logging requirements changed- which made it tougher to file complaints- not that Fowler's FCC would have acted on them (the record shows that they didn't).

In addition, just because your station violated the law with respect to free time (a key worry, dispelled by the FCC's own evidence was that this requirement would "chill" speech on matters of public concern). Indeed- there was much more of it in those days.

Just because your station violated the law= probably because they knew damn well that they wouldn't be held accountable- doesn't mean that the regs weren't in place and reasonably clear as to their requirements. There's a ton of administrative adjudications on the various rules.

Ifyou go back and look at them (there are law reviews that cover the subject well) you'll see that "entertainment" was covered- provided that the candidate appearance was not mere;y "incidental" (I believe that's still the case under the equal time provisions.

You're correct about equal access vs. erual time, but reasonable balance was considered- and a FOX news would NEVER have been broadcast when the doctrine was in full force.

You're also correct as to it not being a bed of roses- but it provided a mechanism for accountability and some deterrence, which we SORELY lack today.

BTW: Limbaugh can claim what he wants- he's a liar as we know. In fact, in 1993 when the Fairness Doctrine went before Congress, Limbaugh rallied the republicans against it- by calling it "the Hush Rush" Act.

See: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1256

[KharmaTrain]

23. Build A Better Mousetrap, Someone Builds A Better Mouse

My station violated the law? Not according to the FCC...cause I was there the "wonderful" morning they came in for a surprise visit and audited our public inspection files. The first thing they looked for was our political advertising contracts and other documents involving our political programming. Any, ANY, candidate who wanted to advertise was treated with kid gloves and forms were filed on everything. If there was an illegality at the time, we would have been fined.

Severak other operations I was at handled this situation differently...one avoided taking any political advertisements at all. A gutsy place...but they didn't want to have to deal with politicians or all the paperwork. Only once do I recall the station being forced to carry a political advertisement, but it was under the threat of a license challenge (and the dude had the money to challenge)...the owner took the spot...had us run disclaimers all over the place that the ad in no way was an endorsement from the station.

Lastly, the logging changes were very welcome at the time. Some were archaic laws that were written by Herbert Hoover in the 20's...like having to note "transcribed" or taped programming...or checking transmitters every hour or 30 minutes when automatic logging systems made that a waste of time. The Program Log, that had been a legal document, was no longer required, but stations still kept and maintained them for billing purposes. Not all the deregulation of the time was all bad.

BTW...Fox would have existed no matter as the Fairness Doctrine...in fact all FCC regulations...do not apply to cable TV. Hate Radio would exist as well as it was the marketplace that has made it successful...something you have to give the right wing credit for.

While I have a lot of respect for F.A.I.R...they're woefully misinformed in their articles on this topic. It's easy to be that way cause the laws in those days were nebulous and confusing...and a reason so many supported the early days of deregulation. Again, the access to the airwaves is the issue here...and restoring ownership limits would give more access, more voices, more creativity and a diversity of ideas.

Cheers...

[depakid]

27. Hard to argue with someone

who presents revisionist history- and doesn't understand the laws as they were written at the time.

I'm aware of the Cable Act of 1984, and the jurisdictional issues. That obviously wasn't what I was talking about. Needless to say, I won't try to create some sort of "credibility" by saying I did this or that. You've misrepresented the state of the facts AND the law so many times in this thread that you've lost all credibility.

So think what you want- and I'll leave others who might read our colloquy to think what they will about what a new fairness doctrine (set of rules) might (or should) look like.

[undeterred]

9. When a president gives a speech that is televised

and the opposition party gives a response, that should be televised too. The other day none of the networks took time because they wanted to get back to regular programming. However, they took a few minutes after the end of the football game to wrap it up= I was only watching the game while waiting for 60 minutes and I thought post game comments were a lot less important than hearing from Dick Durbin the other night was.

[spanone]

14. Hey, we have a democratic dictator, we don't need both sides.

[bdamomma]

16. Our media just sucks, they didn't give the Dems no feedback

last week from Bush's escalation speech. The media should be held on criminal charges also, not giving the American people the facts, no wonder so many people are lost.

[HuffleClaw]

24. the newsnets DO i think

but not the networks. i think they are pissed enough having to interrupt their shows with presidential speeches that only screw with their ratings and piss off the viewers. i'm not sure showing the democrat response would 'win friends and influence people'

[jimmycrackedcorncobs]

25. well to tell you the truth

Well to tell you the truth I saw double D give his responce to the pres and in all honesty he had nothing to say. Much like you.

[Skittles]

26. it's RESPONSE

learn how to use spell-checker you f***ing troll piece of shit

[KharmaTrain]

28. Simple As $$$$$

CBS values prime time bucks as if their life depends on it...because it pretty much does. The "Conventional Wisdom" now is that broadcast networks just do token news coverage...which doesn't make anywhere the money as the prime time shows. There's a long-standing "understanding" that the networks honor a presidential request for airtime for a "speech to the nation", but even then there have been times recently where the networks rejected the boy blunders request. This time it was felt that this was an "important speech" and thus CBS HAD to air it...or else Scott Pelly doesn't get that "exclusive" Rove had already set up for him.

The other thought is that today "news junkies" (us) aren't watching network television but either are on the "internets" or watching cable news. Either way, there's plenty of anal-ysis and a place for the Democratic response. The networks don't feel obligated to give time for the rebuttals...except for the State Of The Union...cause they need the money from CSI.

I thought the lack of commentary across the dial was interesting. Other than short recaps the speech and Durbin's rebutal got a very low-key handling. Doesn't seem too long ago Tweety was hosting a two-hour pre-flight deck show to each numbnutz "major speech".

Also, methinks boooshie has gone to the well one time too many. Booooosh fatigue has set in not just with us but with a majority of this country. He's also over-exposed...not a day goes by where this moron isn't doing some type of photo-op or staged event to try to weasel some "positive" airtime or to divert from more bad news. The networks know when they're being used.