Why Not Re-enact The Fairness Doctrine To Deal with SCOTUS Decision?

[stopbush]

We had that in place until Reagan threw it out.

Re-enact it. Make it apply to all political free speech, including commercials.

If a corporation wants to run $1B of negative TV ads, then the network running them must offer the opposing side $1B worth of free time to respond.

Assuming the FD could be re-enacted, what are the drawbacks to this as a strategy?

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. AWESOME idea!

I like this. And we can also REGULATE free speech, so let's get cracking!

[Bragi]

2. Nice lateral thinking there! /nt

[ShortnFiery]

3. Excellent Suggestion.

Oh how I'd love to see Bill O'Reilly and Mike Malloy do an episode of "Point Counterpoint" on the CNN-FOX network. :evilgrin:

[BlueCollar]

4. SCOTUS would rule that only corporations can grace their presence

humans may not file suit

[Ken Burch]

6. They probably have the construction crew down there at the Court this morning

chiselling the words "Resistance is Futile...You Must Assimilate" over the door.

[Ken Burch]

5. I'm down with that.

How would you make sure that the Court wouldn't just throw the revived Fairness Doctrine out, though?

[stopbush]

8. The argument would be that free speech is free speech, and that

speech does not become "freer" just because a corporation has the money to pay for it. As TV and all other media are commercial ventures that require $ to exercise one's free speech, then ways must be found to level the playing field.

If the SCOTUS is truly desirous of protecting free speech, then it needs to allow for a kind of affirmative action approach to the issue.

[robinlynne]

13. I like that argument.

[H2O Man]

7. Sure.

It's a good idea. Of course, we would need a very different Congress to do so. And that's why the SC's decision is worse than terrible: it makes it that much more difficult to elect decent candidates to replace the corporate puppets.

[elocs]

9. Well, if it were so easy to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine they'd probably do it.

How would it get past the Senate?

(I majored in Mass Communications in college some 35 years ago and I can remember studying a lot about the Fairness Doctrine back then, but I must admit I've forgotten most of it.)

[Ken Burch]

11. Could Obama do it as an executive order?

n/t.

[stopbush]

12. How does anything get through the Senate? Right now, it doesn't.

There needs to be an overall strategy positioned to reframe issues to favor the Ds, along the lines of the way the RW made "liberal" a dirty word.

"Free speech" could be such an issue. Use the RW SCOTUS wording and ruling against them. Everybody understands the difference between something being free and something costing money. If speech is truly free, then it shouldn't be abridged due to a lack of money.

Let the Rs argue against the right of Joe SixPak to have his 15 minutes of free speech airtime to argue against the faceless corporations. We'll see how far that gets them.

[kentuck]

10. I like it!

Good thinking!

[jberryhill]

14. It would have much less impact and scope than you think...

I don't have a problem with it.

The thing is - it applies to use of broadcast media that use the public airwaves. The principle is that since broadcasters are licensed to use a public resource, then the public can demand certain obligations.

It wouldn't change the situation on all-cable media, at all.

[stopbush]

15. True, but I'd think the majority of ads would be run on the major networks,

which are licensed airwaves.

The cable guys are all pulling in squat in viewership compared to the networks.

It would be a start.

[progressoid]

16. Why not? Because nobody in DC wants to do it.

[elocs]

17. From Feb. 2009, "Senate Votes to Kill Fairness Doctrine":

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/26/senate-votes-to-kill-fairness-doctrine-but-gop-concerns-remain/tab/article/

One paragraph:

Several Democratic lawmakers have said recently they’d favor bringing the Fairness Doctrine back, fueling an uproar in the conservative talk radio world. On Feb. 18, the White House tried to calm things down when it announced that President Barack Obama did not support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

So the long and short of it is that Obama does not support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and that it could not get through the Senate. Besides, at the moment there is already a lot on everyone's plate.

[paulsby]

18. fairness doctrine wouldn't apply to cable

which is where a very large portion of biased media exists.

[FBaggins]

19. The fairness doctrine doesn't apply to advertisements.

It applies to the coverage of the station itself (since they get to use the public airwaves).

[Bitwit1234]

20. Congress said they were gonna til the republicans complained.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Because apparently we can't pass gas, much less an aggressive bill

[JamesA1102]

22. The Fairness Act doesn't apply to advertising.

If it did, stations would be required to run a free Pepsi ad for every Coke ad they air.

[leveymg]

23. KNR - Fairness Doctrine would apply to cable companies that are already treated as a common carrier

As for the "advertisements" distinction, Pepsi ads aren't political speech. No legal reason why Congress couldn't reinstate it on cable and broadcast companies.

[DailyGrind51]

24. Who would re-enact it? The tide is going towards big business, unfortunately.

[RedCloud]

25. I prefer Gitmo for the SC 5 since they have committed treason!

They should be called non-persons too.

Does it say "We the people" or We the corporations"?

[ThomWV]

26. I hate to be the one to piss in the berry-bowl but "Assuming the FD could be re-enacted"

here we run into the non-sequitur once again. Yes, if we could get though an election cycle and get rid of the obstructionists in Congress then you might pass the law, but with the SC decision you will never get that election won which would be required to nullify the SC decision.

Classic Non-sequitur.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Here We Go Again...The "Fairness Doctrine" Wasn't About Fairness...

It was put in place to enable ALL candidates to buy broadcast advertising...preventing one party from freezing out the other...or a broadcast owner from catering to the party of his choice. It also applied to public service programming that was mandated...those rules were tossed as part of "deregulation". It NEVER covered hate radio that claims to be "entertainment" and news coverage.

The ramifications of this latest SCOTUS travesty will benefit broadcasters as they will now be able to play those games...charge high rates (that will drive up campaign costs) and be a windfall to corporations like Sinclair and Cheap Channel that bought and paid for "deregulation"...destroying local broadcasting and with it the diversity of voices.

Want to fix broadcasting? Revise or repeal Telcom '96 that opened the door to the corporates buying up the largest broadcast operations and impose "entertainers" like rushbo all over the country...cheap programming replacing hiring local talent.

Oh...and if you try this, be assured that any new "Fairness Doctrine" would be challenged in court as a violation of free speech...and guess where it would end up...back with the same "justices" who just sold our country down the corporate river.

[lib2DaBone]

28. Also.. Repeal the Tel-Com Act 0f 1996....

Return our local radio stations and news departments...

The Radio Channels ( AM/FM/TV ) are public property.. just like a national park... they were NEVER meant to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. But they were...