Stop discussion of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[eagler]

There is is nothing that the rightwingers would like more to see and if we let that happen then we must suffer the consequences. Today Hannity kicked off his "Anti-Hillary Express".Now that may cause some to chuckle but in those vast areas of the country where RW radio is all that is heard 24/7, it can be a very serious matter. The #1 reason that the RWers oppose the FD is that they feel it limits their freedom of speech. The sad fact is that they are free to speak and slander anyone to their hearts content without restrictions, and the affected party has no recourse. I can't help but think just how many important issues and elections have been lost because opponents of the Right Wing have been denied their freedom to voice their opinions on important issues over THEIR OWN AIRWAVES. I urge you all to support the Kucinich effort to return the nation's airwaves to the citizens of this country and free them from corporate control. Lately I've noticed that rightwing talk show hosts are ALL telling their listeners that the FD is an attempt to silence them. That's an absolute LIE. The Doctrine would only hold them accountable, by giving opponents their right to voice opinions.Also all of them are claiming that the FD is an EQUAL-TIME amendment. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE would only require adequate time to voice opposing views. They know that they are lying but the sad part is that most of their listeners will only hear one side of the issue. Please support A NEW REVISED FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, so that all will have a chance to voice opinions and to hear opinions over THEIR OWN AIRWAVES.

[AndyA]

1. ABSOLUTELY! Recommendation #1.

We must update and restore the Fairness Doctrine. Remember who did away with it, Ronald Reagan, at the beginning of our nightmare back in the 80s.

[GCP]

2. Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[annabanana]

3. Do you have a link to any activism, letter writing campaign. .

Or should we just let Kuchinich know we're behind him?

[eagler]

6. I don't know of any yet, but I will try to find out .

In the mean time I would suggest letting Kucinich and you're senators and reps know how you feel about the FD. I will hunt around and start a campaign if there's nothing already out there.

[KharmaTrain]

4. The Need Is For Ownership and Licensing Revisions

So few out here understand what the Fairness Doctrine was or how it opereated. I worked with it. It offered equal access...not equal time...and surely wouldn't force stations to run rebuttals to Rushbo or the other hate mongers out there.

A "review" and revision of De-Reg '96 is long overdue...and should be what people here should be demanding for. It's time to revise licensing rules to make it easier for local ownership, shortening license terms, restoring anti-trafficking laws and make it easier and less expensive for groups to challenge existing licenses.

Also, there needs to be a better effort in organizing and coordinating Progressive and liberal talk radio...creating a better alternative now to what's on the radio dial.

In the battle of ideas, you win with better ideas, not more restrictive laws.

[eagler]

8. This is also one very important aspect that needs to be

addressed and goes hand in hand with reintroduction of the FD, but to see what the FD is all about I would direct your attention tothis article:<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053>. I would also suggest that people do their own research on the subject.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Ownership Rules Are Not Even Covered Here

Congress was required to do review of the '96 Telcom Bill...better known as "De-Reg '95 or '96" that opened the gates to large corporates like Clear Channel, Disney, Salem and others to purchase up markets all over the country that restrict access and extended license periods from 3 years to 10 years. The Fairness Doctrine never covered any of this.

Good luck, but my work and activism is in other areas and places now.

Cheers...

[eagler]

14. Here's one of many good articles on the subject of ownership

http://news.com.com/FCC+eases+rules+on+media+ownership/2100-1028_3-1012027.html

[KharmaTrain]

15. I've Studied The Topic For Over 20 Years

And that seems to mean little here on DU...including people telling me what I really saw as opposed to what I did at the time. Again...good luck to you. I'll be amused at the responses here.

[eagler]

16. To validate the need for the Fairness Doctrine

one only needs to look at the power and popularity of RW talk radio today and realize that it is only since the abbrogation of the FD and the removal of restrictions on media ownership tha they have become this way. If the Fairness Doctrine wasn't such a big deal, RW'ers wouldn't be quite so adament about suppressing it. It's like sunlight on a vampire.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Revising The Fairness Doctrine Won't Accomplish That

We would be as concerned as the Wingnuts are concerned about the "Fairness Doctrine" as described here and other sites...it's downright restriction of freedom of speech. That's now how the Doctrine worked when I worked with it and would have little affect on hate radio or forcing hate radio stations either off the air or to program "liberal" programming. Who determines what's Conservative or Liberal? What constitutes "crossing the line" where time is issued? The vagueness of how these proposals are written will keep lawyers very busy and very rich for years. Now if you want to help a lawyer put his kids through college, pursue this action.

I see you haven't really discussed the ownership issue...that's the problem. Also creating, promoting and marketing better Progressive and other types of radio that attracts listeners and beats the hate stations with the truth.

[eagler]

18. I agree with you that the ownership issue needs to be

heartily discussed but you can market and push progressive radio till hell freezes over, as has been done, but radio networks are by and large the bastions of corporate/government thought and will continue to be so. They will do their best to keep it that way.

[KharmaTrain]

19. The Big Reason To Revise Ownership Rules

There's several issues here that need discussions...and doubtful that will happen here...this isn't the proper forum. That's happening elsewhere.

Ownership is what made it possible for a Salem or Clear Channel or their allies to buy up the AM dial in many cities that are the home of the most rabid right wing spewers. Many of these stations had local ownership that focused on local issues and news, instead the large corporates hooked up to satellites for cheap programming. As consolidation has gotten worse, the large corporates have belt-tightened that has put even more "turn-key" crap out there and there are fewer voices on the airwaves than ever.

Progressive Radio has not been marketed or promoted properly. That was AAR's biggest failure. Putting comedians rather than radio people on the air also hurt the cause as well. But that's for a different post a different time.

The object is to push for the return to local control and ownership of radio...where it did its best in the past and serves the public best. Fairness Doctrine does nothing to make this happen...revising ownership rules do. The mechanism is already there...it's time to revisit the '96 Telcom Bill...that's where you we can affect the change you seek.

Peace...

[eagler]

20. So let's do it . Also if you can point to sites

with more discussion of ownership rules, please do.

[mikelgb]

5. I think Hinchy introduced a bill today

[nolabels]

7. Fighting over who gets to fire the cannon while a blitz-rig is being set up..........

makes little sense. The corporate pigs have control of what is becoming technologically antiquated.

i would like to suggest that people might also want to get a handle to see that many of the emerging technologies in communications are not locked up and legislated away.

[eagler]

9. Broadcasting over the airwaves is anything but antiquated.

It's been around for a long time but it is still the most prevalent media. It's 24/7, it's in the home , the car, at work, and it's free of charge.

[nolabels]

13. It's free of charge because there was no fee put on it for them to do it

It don't really cost any money to dip water out of a river either. The apparatus and the infrustructure to support it is what the cost is. It's in the way the cost is measured that is of issue. Broadcasting is okay and I have nothing against it but corporations have or are finding that narrow casting is much more lucritive. I for one don't want to find out myself as a donor to the corporate borg and their marketing scemes.

We are in the infancy of communication technology still. There are so many devices that are going wireless and the technology is changing so fast that soon are biggest problem might be keeping up with it.

Think what you could do or even what you haven't thought of, because someone will

Q MAGAZINE
Main Street Goes Wireless
A growing number of towns are launching public wireless networks that could become as essential as more traditional utilities such as roads and water service.

By John Edwards
Illustration by Ron Chan
Summary

Municipal wireless is already booming. As of June 2006, 247 U.S. communities (more than double the total a year before) had or were planning wireless networks, according to news site MuniWireless.com. ABI Research expects the worldwide area covered by municipal Wi-Fi networks to grow from 1500 square miles in 2005 to 53,000 by 2010.
(snip)
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/iqmagazine/archives/q3_2006/Main_Street_Goes_Wireless.html

[hamerfan]

10. K & R! n/t

:kick:
dumpbush

[xchrom]

11. lucky 13 -- k&r

[robcon]

21. The "Fairness Doctrine" is a repeal of the 1st amendment

I think it is awful,

[eagler]

22. Actually it is anything but that.

That is the PARTY LINE. Because of the lack of a Fairness Doctrine, John Kerry was swiftboated and unable to defend himself. Because of the lack of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE Clinton was almost totally unable to defend the medias attack on his his healthcare plan. Without a Fairness Doctrine,Bush's AWOL was hardly ever discussed until years later when the story could no longer be contained. And the exampls go on and on. Adequate discussion of so many issues has been suppressed because of no Fairness Doctrine. Thos who are being denied the opportunity to express opposing viewpoints are being denied their freedom of speech over their own airwaves! No one is attempting to muffle any broadcaster, BUT only to make them accountable for their actions. I welcome diverse opinions. It makes life interesting and guarantees a well informed electorate.

[eagler]

23. Also The US signed the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human

Rights which states: Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[midnight]

24. Equality to voice opposition. Why is this such a battle? N/T