Bill Clinton Calls For Return Of 'Fairness Doctrine'

[NashVegas]

Add BILL CLINTON to the list of Democratic politicians who support the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," as the former President tells CLEAR CHANNEL Talk KKZN-A/DENVER host MARIO SOLIS-MARICH that "you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let's face it, you know, RUSH LIMBAUGH is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous."

This is from http://www.allaccess.com/ .. they got it from Politico, but I don't link to that site. To me, they're kind of a Drudge Report that gets taken seriously.

[Dinger]

1. KAY AND RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

DEFINITELY!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Bill!!!!!!!!!!!

[Captain Hilts]

2. Bubba! Bubba! Bubba!

[Mass]

3. Good, Happy to see Bill Clinton join those who are already asking for that.

[get the red out]

4. Fair use of airwaves

I believe we need to guarantee the fair use of the airwaves as much as we need economic recovery. If we don't do this, any progress Obama manages to achieve will be short-lived. The struggle against lies and hate shouldn't be made more difficult by mega-$$$ being put into promoting the lies and hate and denying people any ability to have access to other points of view.

I live in an area where liberal or even moderate points of view are basically not permitted on radio. I am sick to death of it. I am so glad for internet radio, but wouldn't have been surprised if the Republicans would have tried to shut access to liberal voices on the internet down if they had remained in power.

[newtothegame]

18. I would agree, but it's also wrong to force radio stations to carry unprofitable/unpopular radio...

just to make things "fair." We had Air-America here, and it was a joke; I love it, and still listen to it online, but it got dropped for that very reason I mentioned above; if you're a business, trying to be fair isn't a good enough reason to carry something the public doesn't want and take a loss on it. Instead of the fairness doctrine, could we maybe examine why our message isn't selling? Get to the root of the problem?

In addition, who's to decide what issues are of "public importance" and need both sides? Wouldn't this just be an opportunity to Repukes to spout lies to ANYTHING, because all radio and tv would be forced to give equal time to their opinion, even if it's based on outright lies?

[defendandprotect]

20. Limbaugh was the LESS popular show at Clear Channel when ...

Randi Rhodes was there -- but Clear Channel wouldn't syndicate her because Rush
threatened to leave if they did!

Phil Donahue, NBC's most popular show -- cancelled.

Air America isn't a good example either -- it became a joke because so many of the hosts
were right-wing. It was also difficult to listen to in many areas because of transmission
problems --- and they are even worse now! With Randi Rhodes now gone, there's very little
to listen to on AAR.

If you're suggesting that Limbaugh is not a joke, that his show is a success except as
right wing propaganda, then I don't think you understand how that is different from the
necessary information voters need to make intelligent decisions.

The right wing has for DECADES carried TV shows -- GE/Buchanan/Crossfire -- and magazines ---
and right-wing think tanks with only LOSSES, but heavily subsidized by right wing elites.

Since no one is hearing the liberal/progressive message, how can you suggest that it isn't
selling? Right now, if you look at the number of Repugs on TV shows vs Democrats you will
see the great fear the right wing has of any liberal/progressive message getting thru to
the public. Phil Donahue has attested to this phenemon re the "balance" the right-wing
wants of Repugs vs Democrats. Michael Moore has explained it. Bill Maher.

And when you ask something like this .. .

In addition, who's to decide what issues are of "public importance" and need both sides? Wouldn't this just be an opportunity to Repukes to spout lies to ANYTHING, because all radio and tv would be forced to give equal time to their opinion, even if it's based on outright lies?

it becomes even clearer how successful right-wing propaganda has been in convincing citizens
that "up is down" and that there is no truth! You're saying you couldn't decide on what
issues are of "public importance"? And you don't think you need to hear "both sides" on
the $8.5 TRILLION in bail outs or National Health Care?

The right wing can only succeed by lying --- New Gingrich confirmed that to Bill Clinton, saying
if they told the truth they would lose. The right wing can only come to power thru political
violence and vote stealing. Imagine that computer steals have been going on probably since
they passed the Voting Rights Act and the public didn't realize that until 2000 or 2004!!!

You simply make clear how much the "Fairness Doctrine" needs to be re-established!!!

[newtothegame]

21. ?

The right wing has for DECADES carried TV shows -- GE/Buchanan/Crossfire -- and magazines ---
and right-wing think tanks with only LOSSES, but heavily subsidized by right wing elites.

Do we have any proof of this, or is this assumed...I would be VERY surprised if these all have losses.

[defendandprotect]

24. This is information you should have been aware of . . .

Yes, GE is more right-wing than the John Birch Society . . . and

financed "Crossfire" and Buchanan -- this was a CNN show pushed by GE with GE advertising.

Bill Buckley's magazine "National Review" and others ran at loss --

Right-wing think tanks were ALL financed by right-wing elites.

That's part of what HRC was talking about when she referred to the "vast right-wing

conspiracy."

The entire right-wing movement is financed by right-wing elites.


PS: I haven't thought about this for a long time ....
here's David Brock --- who used to be a Repug attack dog on it --
his book is probably in your library.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html

There is a great deal about all of this on the internet and in books --
and probably in DU archives.


Some interesting names are on the list of contributors, including John Moores, Sr., University of California Regents board member and owner of the San Diego Padres ($400,000); Rupert Murdoch, head of the Fox News empire ($300,000); Joseph Coors, the late Colorado beer baron and longtime financial angel to the right wing, who in one of his last acts of reactionary activism weighed in with $250,000; William J. Hume, head of the anti-labor San Francisco-based company Basic American Foods, who gave $200,000; Kansas City businessman John Uhlmann, $190,000; Harlan Crow, a Dallas financier $140,000; and Peter Schaeffer, a Texas-based investor, who gave $62,703.
http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/research_bigmoney_connerly.html

There's another very important name which eludes me at the moment . ..
but KOCH should also be on the lists.

Here -- Richard Scaife . . . very prominent in the "vast right wing conspiracy" ---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm

This is a report on the financing of the right wing ....
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21192/

[KharmaTrain]

25. Nice Spin...

...not a lot of real fact, but a nice spin.

[defendandprotect]

26. If you are really interested, hit the link again --- I've added info . ..

And here's more . . .

http://www.mediatransparency.org/conservativephilanthropy.php

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Carthage Foundation
Earhart Foundation
Charles G.Koch, David H. Koch and Claude R. Lambe charitable foundations
Phillip M. McKenna Foundation
J.M. Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Henry Salvatori Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation


PLUS, you should keep in mind the oil industry's expensive campaign over
three decades and more to lie about and distort and disinform re information
about Global Warming. The Royal Academy of Science called ExxonMobil out
on this over the last two years in a lengthy article telling them to STOP.
The NY Times was allied with ExxonMobil in this endeavor allocating them
prominent space on their Op-Ed pages to run their "ad-editorials."
The costs of those were a minimum of $20,000 each day -- profitable for
the NY Times and ExxonMobil. About five yeas or more ago, the other oil
companies dropped out of the propaganda business -- BP, for one. ExxonMobil
is still at it, however.

Additionally, consider that for 30 years or more we have been alerted to --
and can clearly see for ourselves -- the buying of government and the buying
of elected officials. This is "corporatism" -- a right wing endeavor --
and fascism.

We have also experienced political violence in America which is rarely
acknowledged by corporate-media --- however, that is one of the primary
ways for the right to rise. Indeed, Russia immediately called our 9/11
"The Reichstag Fire in NYC." Deaths of progressive/liberal leaders make
long lists. And, as the Europeans have been saying for twenty years or more:
"Liberals and progressives in America have an odd way of being assassinated
or otherwise being eliminated."

While 2000 and 2004 were the noisest election steals, there was organized
stealing of votes even back to the lever machines and this was done by shaving
the plastic counting wheel which would make it jump 200-300 votes at a time.
With the coming of electronic computers -- the LARGE computers first arriving
at media for reporting the vote tallies -- we immediately began to see
crashes and changes in vote tallies, often with the less likely candidate leading.
Electronic voting machines are now common -- however back in the earliest days
of their appearance, two reporters began an investigation in Florida of these
machines and published their information. http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[verges]

30. Once upon a time..

It was a given that news departments would lose money. They were provided as a public sevice, in accordance with the lease/license with the FCC. In those days we had Ed Murrow, Walte Cronkhite, Eric Sevareid and others. Today, news agencies are demanded to make aprofit and are treated as branches of the entertainment divisions. We have Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and others.

The people own the airwaves. The broadcasters merely rent them. And the government is allowed to put restrictions on them. A few hours out of 24 of unprofitable publlic service does not seem unreasonable.

[Lasher]

5. All you need to do is load up the FCC.

Obama could do that this year.

But Republicans would surely appeal to activist judges on the SCOTUS.

[KG]

6. bill who?

[pilsner]

10. The Bill who signed the 1996 Telecom Act....

so he could haul in truckloads of campaign contributions from telecoms so he could beat Bob Dole by 10% rather than 6%.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. EXACTLY!! It was Bill Clinton's deregulation of the telecommunications industry

that created this mess with the M$M in the first place!!!

This is NOT about the freakin' "Fairness Doctrine." This is about media ownership!!!!!!

[NashVegas]

13. That Just Compounded It

Not exonerating him, but this started in 1987. And radio consolidation started 3 years before that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. Yes, that's right. But I see the fight over ownership as a critical component of this mess.

Establishing a Fairness Doctrine will help some, but that's merely a band-aid approach, not a remedy for the larger problem.

[NashVegas]

23. Absolutely

I'm hopeful of seeing some of the big guys - CC, Cumulus, etc., sell off a bit, or at least the second-tier players. Radio real estate prices are coming way down as companies in debt up to their eyeballs are forced to sell. But there still needs to be limits. More than there are now.

[Laelth]

39. Hear, hear! n/t

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DS1]

7. I'd settle for Joe Scarborough getting kicked in the balls by Adam Vinatieri

[4 t 4]

8. Yes it must be brought back n/t

[NYCGirl]

9. Says the guy who is responsible for the media consolidation.

And Rush Limbaugh is about as entertaining as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[NashVegas]

14. Media Consolidation Started 12 Years Before 1996

I'm not excusing the Telecoms act. Bill didn't start it - he just didn't stop it.

[DemoTex]

12. Hear! Hear!

Buy the Big Dog a beer!

:toast:

[Arugula Latte]

15. Ya shoulda thought of that in '96, Bubba.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Exactly. n/t

[pnutbutr]

17. meh

In all honesty liberal talk radio really really really sucks and is why it is underrepresented on the airwaves. Nobody listens and forcing stations to air it isn't going to help improve it when you have dumbasses like Randi Rhodes who was on the local station here for only about a month before being cancelled cause she sucked so bad and nobody listened. Forcing stations to air programming that doesn't attract listeners is dumb. It's like forcing retailers to sell equal amounts of competing brands. Sorry, we can't sell you Sony today until we sell 3 more Samsungs. It just serves to piss off the consumers and the businesses so basically everyone gets shafted.

[verges]

31. Why does fairt

dissemination of information have to make a profit? News should be provided as a public service and not as entertainment.

[Peace Patriot]

19. The most important part of the Fairness Doctrine is that it is ANTI-MONOPOLY.

You can have "equal time" for issues of public importance, or not--or promote balance in some other way. But the biggest thing wrong with our news media is the mega-monopolies over the public airwaves licensed for TV/radio broadcasts, and those over TV/radio AND newsprint. Basically, six fatcat, billionaire, rightwing CEOs control all news/opinion in the country (except the internet). All the broadcast airwaves, and cable, and all the newspapers and news magazines. This is WHY we are getting news/opinion to the right of Ghengis Khan all over the country. Break up these news monopolies, re-introduce competition, ban vast ownerships of media outlets, encourage small, local broadcast businesses, and you will automatically start getting more variety and a wider range of opinion as well as types of news coverage.

The "equal time" provision of the Fairness Doctrine is only applicable to the use of our public airwaves, but has a beneficial impact on print media because it puts print media in competition with broadcasters on items like investigative reporting, objective news coverage and inclusion of alternative views. "Fairness" becomes the watchword in all media. "Equal time" was the most awkward provision of the Fairness Doctrine to implement, when the FD was in force (pre-Reagan). I remember rather dreary little speeches by advocacy groups broadcast after midnight, back in that era, after some corpo broadcaster had expressed an opinion on public policy issue. That kind of "equal time" wasn't very effective, and didn't include all alternative opinion. But it did stand as a warning to the corpo CEOs and their news divisions that their bias was being monitored, and their license could be jeopardized if they went too far in promoting their self-interests and denying access to other viewpoints.

The "equal time" provision perhaps needs some re-thinking. For one thing, alternative viewpoints shouldn't be ghettoized into non-prime time, when the corpo/fascist views get prime time. I think maybe a whole new approach is needed. How about this? 1. Ban all private money in political campaigns*. 2. Require that ALL broadcast time be devoted to public debate, say, for the four or six weeks before every election. Do not allow sports. Do not allow entertainment. Do not allow commercials. Put the candidates and issue advocates on the air, in debates, in town halls, or in whatever settings they desire, devise ways to involve the public on the air and in their communities--and let's frigging TALK ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE DOING.

Devotion of 4-6 weeks to public debate, as a condition of the broadcast license, might satisfy the fairness and public service requirements of the FD, or we might want to require more. My point is that we, the people, grant these licenses, and we can require anything that we collectively decide is in the public interest.

Cable is another discussion. I don't think it should ever have been privatized. And there are a lot of new FD issues around new technology like the internet. There are also issues re: public broadcasting (PBS, NPR) which have become merely corpo-financed P.R. and propaganda tools. But these are the basic two things at issue: Corporate monopolies over news/opinion. Promoting a culture of fairness and objectivity in news and news commentary.

Kudos to Bill Clinton for raising this issue!

-----------------------

*(I believe that banning all private money in political campaigns would need a Constitutional amendment, to give it equal status, as the law of the land, with the First Amendment. The First Amendment has been used by the corpo/fascists who rule over us, to assert that billionaires buying their toadies into public office is "free speech." That is what "free speech" has become--free speech for billionaires only. You have to have a million dollars in hand, these days, to even think of running for Congress. That is ridiculous--and extremely anti-democratic. Enough! Fini! Let's get all the money out of the picture, and hold REAL elections--elections about IDEAS; elections in which the widest spectrum of opinion is included and encouraged.)

[EFerrari]

27. Very important information for people to have in this discussion, Peace Patriot!

:applause:

[Xenotime]

22. YES!!!! Get RW pugs OFF THE FUCKING AIRRR!!!

[KharmaTrain]

28. And How About Reregulation?

It was during his administration that Telcom '96 was passed that opened the floodgates on Clear Channel and other large corporates from gobbling up the public airwaves and cables. This enabled Rushbo to build is mighty empire, the same with other hate spewers and encouraged Murdoch to start the Faux Noise channel. It pushed hundreds of talented radio people, including many liberal and progressive talk hosts off the air and all but destroyed local broadcasting. Clinton's got no pot to piss in.

It's not fairness, it's access...who owns the airwaves determines whose heard on them. Diversify ownership and many voices can and will be heard. But thanks to Telcom' 96, radio, in specific, in a shambles now.

[Two Americas]

34. agreed

It is about access, and Clinton is no saint on this issue.

[Dukkha]

29. right. thanks for nothing.

too little too late from you.

[marshall]

32. I'd like to see it cover all forms of public communication

Television, radio, internet, newspapers, magazines--we need a fairness of opinion in everything that is presented to the public as news.

[newtothegame]

33. Exactly...watercooler talk, texting, phone calls, emails, etc.

[marshall]

35. Only things that use the "public airwaves"

Which granted could inclue phone calls in some instances. Certainly those automated phone calls that reach out to person after person with some pre-recorded screed.

[D23MIURG23]

37. I'm a bit surprised, but pleased none the less.

[Laelth]

38. Did he say he regretted signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

Did he call for its repeal? If he didn't, he has little credibility on this issue.

Media consolidation is the main problem.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Odin2005]

40. YAY BIG DAWG!!!

:woohoo:

[wroberts189]

41. RUSH LIMBAUGH is fairly entertaining ??????

Sorry bill computer says no.

[JTFrog]

42. Has he called for the return of Glass-Steagall?

That would be even more ironic.


:shrug: