Senate Bars FCC from Revisiting the Fairness Doctrine....

[lib2DaBone]

I know this was posted before, but I tried to post and the thread was closed?

This would seem to be major news?

I canunderstand why the Repukes don't want teh Fairness Doctrine.. they want to keep control of the media.

But why did the Dems go along?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZo8HqKUQ5LkGkTf0CiQtS7WQlQQD96JF8V00
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.

President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.

[glowing]

1. I'd rather them bust up the control that toooo few have over major media markets.

Too few own too much and then control the content. The fairness doctrine isn't exactly what we need... we need some busting... The Fairness Doctrine would mean that Air America would have to air just as much of Rush as they do of Rachel.. it doesn't make sense. A fair and free market over our airwaves would, however, is much needed.

[doc03]

3. Air America, who can even receive it? I was surprised

a couple days ago I was in Columbus Ohio and Air America is now gone. There are at least 2 Spanish stations, countless right wing stations and some religious stations and no Air America. How on earth can two Spanish stations survive in Columbus Ohio? Sure there are a good many Spanish speaking people there but there has to be at least 50% of the population that is not right wing wackos. Why isn't there be a market to support Air America? I think what needs to be done is to break up networks such as Clear Channel so there is some competition. I think that is what the whole country needs just like back early in the last century when Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel were broken up. Whatever happened to the idea that monopolies in any industry are bad and destroy competition.

[NashVegas]

11. We Need Both

Even if we broke up Cumulus, Clear Channel, and Citadel today, consultants would still have concentrated power across the board.

[glowing]

12. Probably.. I think that we need a similar amt. of differing access across the board.

music, talk, interests, everything. I'm not convinced that Rush should be giving his version of equal access to the "other" side of the view... or that the station match half shows lib and half shows con... only because the lib would be at night when no one listens and the con. would be barking all day long. I noticed on my AM channel, in the day its all Rush and his likes.. at night around 11pm its coast to coast... strange mixes of stuff. At the end of the day, the market drives the content.. and since they sell ads to stay alive, the whole thing becomes slanted. I'm not sure how to make journalism non-govmint and non-corp... that's the real issue.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Access Is The Issue

When you say "fairness", whose fairness are you refering to? Who dictates it? And then how do you apply it? Does everyone who is offended by what Rushbo says get equal time? Or just some self annointed "spokesperson"? Then do you also give Dennis Miller equal time when Jon Stewart makes a joke about him? Or BillO when Olbermann takes a shot?

The real issue is access and ownership of the public airwaves. Rushbo is so powerful due to his show being aired on so many stations owned by a handful of companies...and most are the strongest signals. Meanwhile Progressive talk has had to scramble for the "rimshots"...the poorer signals that hamper them in generating both ratings and revnues. For years the large corporates played a game similar to the real estate bubble...inflating license values to maintain an inflated price on their properties (that mean a higher stock price) and kept out competition. Thus why Rushbo, George Noory and that ilk predominate.

[stillcool]

2. When 5 Corporations have cornered the market...

what good is the fairness doctrine? Having opposing opinions on certain issues, does nothing to change the fact that the 'news' consists of whatever those corporations choose to report, or not report.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[onenote]

4. and once again, the infamous "five corporations" myth

Seems to show up at least once a week these days. Usually, the claim is that five or six companies control 90 percent of the media. Whether its four or five or six and whether its 90 percent, everything, or even "most" its ridiculous, easily disproven claim that does not help us in making the valid argument that there is insufficient diversity in the media. So once again, let me debunk this claim:

First, the companies alleged to control everything are usually identified as:

GE/NBC
Disney/ABC
CBS/Viacom (or national amusements)
Time Warner
News Corporation
Clear Channel

Now, let's take a look at these companies and what they do and don't control with respect to what we read, see, hear:

Four of these companies (GE, Disney, Natl Amusements, and News Corp) control the four major broadcast television networks. Leaving aside the fact that the networks share of the viewing audience has for some time been dropping like a rock, that is no small thing. But does it represent 90 percent of all media? Well, let's consider that these four companies own a total of around 50 television stations (out of more than 1700 fulll power stations in the US). Their networks of course have lots of affiliates -- around 850 -- closer to 1000 if you toss in the CW Network, MyNetworkTV and Telemundo). That leaves around 700 stations that aren't owned or affiliated with these companies, including over 350 full power stations affiliated with PBS. And, it should be noted that most of those 1000 or so affiliates that aren't owned by the networks typically offer, in addition to the nightly network news programming, local news programming that they produce themselves (or acquire from sources other than the networks.)

Those four companies have other media interests of course. News Corp in particular owns a number of cable networks, including Fox News. Most of the other networks are sports or entertainment oriented. News Corp also owns the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. They have no radio stations but do have a syndicated Fox radio network. Not sure how many radio stations carry it. GE owns a lot of cable networks, including several news-oriented networks (CBNBC, MSNBC). GE has no newspapers, no news magazines, no radio properties. ABC also has a lot of cable networks, although almost all are sports and entertaintment oriented, not news. They sold all their radio stations and their radio network a few years ago (its still called ABC radio network but they don't own it anymore), they do still distribute syndicated ABC News radio programming. ABC also doesn't own any newspapers or news magazines. Nat'l Amusements owns around 140 radio stations and the CBS radio network which has around 1000 affiliates (out of the 11,000 commercial radio stations in the US). They have no newspapers, no news magazines. They have (through Viacom) a bunch of cable networks like Showtime and MTV, but no cable news programming.

Based on the above, it seems pretty hard to figure how one gets to the 90 percent control claim. And looking at Time Warner and Clear Channel help you get there. Time Warner owns a lot of cable networks, including CNN. It also owns Time Magazine. But it owns no newspapers and no radio properties. It also owns a lot of cable systems, but it will stop owning those sometime in the next few weeks under a spin off that will leave Time Warner and Time Warner Cable completely separate companies -- no overlap in management. Clear Channel is the biggest radio station owner in the country, but it has no television properties, no news magazines, no newspapers. I'm not sure exactly how many radio stations Clear owns -- last I saw it was between 900 and 1000. That's a lot, but not exactly 90 percent of the 11,000 commercial radio stations licensed in the US (there are also between 1500 and 2000 full power noncommercial radio stations in the US).



If that isn't enough to debunk the 90 percent myth, consider the following: of the top ten newspapers in the US, only two are controlled by any of the six companies identified as cotnrolling 90 percent of the media -- the WSJournal and the New York Post, both controlled by Murdoch's News Corp. Even more noteworthy, if you look at the list of the top 100 newspapers in the US, you discover that none of them are controlled by the six companies listed, except for the aformentioned WSJ and the New York Post. There also are three natianal news magazines -- only one, Time, is controlled by the six companies identified. Also, in considering what constitutes the "media" we shouldn't ignore cable systems and DBS companies. Only one of the six listed companies owns cable systems and/or DBS companies. Out of the close to 100 million pay tv subscribers in the US, Time Warner Cable (soon to be independent of Mr. Bewkes and Time Warner Inc) has around 13 million subscribers I think. (Its smaller than both Comcast and DirecTV and about the same size as Dish Network).

My point isn't that everything is hunky dory in the media business. Its definitely not, particularly with the wrongheaded decisions to raise local broadcast ownership caps and to relax cross ownership rules. However, we lose credibility in pointing out what is wrong when we start out making arguments that, as shown, are readily debunked.

[stillcool]

5. more myth

Media Control
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html

The Global Media Giants
The nine firms that dominate the world
by Robert McChesney
from Extra the magazine of FAIR, Nov/Dec 1997
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaGiants_FAIR.html

The Media Big Six
by Norman Solomon
Z magazine, June 2000
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/MediaBigSix.html

The push by federal regulators to break up Microsoft is big news. Until recently, the software giant seemed untouchable-and few people demanded effective anti-trust efforts against monopoly power in the software industry. These days, a similar lack of vision is routine in looking at the media business.
Today, just six corporations have a forceful grip on America's mass media. When The Media Monopoly first appeared on bookshelves in 1983, author Ben Bagdikian explains, "50 corporations dominated most of every mass medium." With each new edition, that number kept dropping-to 29 media firms in 1987, 23 in 1990, 14 in 1992, and 10 in 1997.
Published this spring, the sixth edition of The Media Monopoly documents that just a half-dozen corporations are now supplying most of the nation's media fare. Bagdikian, a longtime journalist, continues to sound the alarm. "It is the overwhelming collective power of these firms, with their corporate interlocks and unified cultural and political values, that raises troubling questions about the individual's role in the American democracy."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since all of those major TV news sources are owned by one of the Big Six, the chances are mighty slim that you'll be able to catch a discussion of media antitrust issues on national television.
Meanwhile, the only Big Sixer that doesn't possess a key U.S. television outlet-the Bertelsmann firm based in Germany-is the most powerful company in the book industry. It owns the mammoth publisher Random House, and plenty more in the media universe. Bertelsmann "is the world's third largest conglomerate," Bagdikian reports, "with substantial ownership of magazines, newspapers, music, television, on-line trading, films, and radio in 53 countries." Try pitching a book proposal to a Random House editor about the dangers of global media consolidation.
--------------------------------------
Hype about the new media seems boundless, while insatiable old hungers for maximum profits fill countless screens. Centralization is the order of the media day. As Bagdikian points out: "The power and influence of the dominant companies are understated by counting them as 'six.' They are intertwined: they own stock in each other, they cooperate in joint media ventures, and among themselves they divide profits from some of the most widely viewed programs on television, cable and movies. "
We may not like the nation's gigantic media firms, but right now they don't care much what we think. A strong antitrust movement aimed at the Big Six could change such indifference in a hurry.

Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media.

[KharmaTrain]

6. It's Like Real Estate...Location, Location, Location

Of the companies you've listed, only two...Clear Channe, CBS and Disney are involved with radio...and Disney sold their talk stations to Citadel (that is on the verge of bankruptcy). Between CBS and Clear Channel, you're talking about the largest and most popular and profitable stations...ones that dominated their market. Under current rules, each company can own up to 8 signals in a major market...8 stations that used to have separate owners prior to the 90's.

I'm against any restoration of the Fairness Doctrine since it's obsolete and it kept stations from discussing politics rather than encouraging "fairness". The problem isn't fairness, it's access. Telcom '96 that opened the door for media consolidation was supposed to have been reviewed in 2002 and it never was, the time is now. Ownership limits need to be restored, license periods need to be shortened, local and minority ownership.

However with the radio market in total implosion, the problem won't be stations with access as many will start going bankrupt.

[AdHocSolver]

7. The myth is that these corporations "compete" with each other rather than cooperate for common aims.

Collectively, these corporations have monopoly power over world opinion. If they influence 51 percent of the voting public in the U.S., then they effectively dictate U.S. policy.

These companies are run by like-minded people (on the important issues), managed by people often whose families are interrelated, and see themselves as royalty apart from the rest of the population.

Their wealth is derived from other, non-media corporations, and their families are intertwined with executives from other large corporations. The corporate executives of the major corporations see themselves as royalty who are not bound by the constraints of common mortals.

How this plays out in reality can be seen in those cases where executives use corporate bailout money to give themselves huge bonuses, buy expensive corporate jets, or rent a resort for a big party, while they are laying off thousands of "little" people.

What you write MAY be true, but it is totally irrelevant.

[onenote]

8. if these companies are influencing 51 percent of opinion, I guess we should be pleased

Since Democrats are getting more than 51 percent of the vote.


There is insufficient diversity in the media, particularly at the local level where the number of newspapers is in decline and where the relaxation of multiple ownership rules and local cross ownership rules is exacerbating the situation. But again, claiming these companies have monopoly power over world opinion suggests an unfamiliarity with the diversity of media that exists world wide. These companies represent a miniscule fraction of America's daily newspapers, let alone the newspapers available worldwide. And in much of the world, opinion is controlled by state-run media.


And being factually accurate in establishing and defending a position should never be irrelevant

[AdHocSolver]

9. These corporations censor and slant the material they publish.

Much of what is published abroad never gets published in the U.S. Where were you during the last eight years when the Bush regime was managing and distorting the facts?

Visit the projectcensored.org web site for a sample of news items that were suppressed or slanted by the American media. There were volumes written about how news wire services and newwspapers merely published propaganda releases of the Bush government which most people in this country assumed were factual news obtained through honest reporting.

Saying that most fire trucks are red does not tell a person much about how successful a particular fire department is at putting out fires.


From the Project Censored web site:

snip
..........

Founded by Carl Jensen in 1976, Project Censored is a media research program working in cooperation with numerous independent media groups in the US. Project Censored’s principle objective is training of SSU students in media research and First Amendment issues and the advocacy for, and protection of, free press rights in the United States. Project Censored has trained over 1,500 students in investigative research in the past three decades.
Through a partnership of faculty, students, and the community, Project Censored conducts research on important national news stories that are underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media. Each year, Project Censored publishes a ranking of the top 25 most censored nationally important news stories in the yearbook, Censored: Media Democracy in Action, which is released in September. Recent Censored books have been published in Spanish, Italian and Arabic.

..........

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2008/

[onenote]

10. non sequitur response

You said these companies have monopoly power over world opinion. If that was the case, world opinion wouldnt have been so strongly against US policies for the past eight years. You ignored my comments about the diversity of media worldwide and the fact that in many parts of the world, the media is state-run.