Big Ed: The Fairness Doctrine needs to be seriously looked at

[bigdarryl]

I agree he's making a very good point on his show right now about this issue

[JohnnyBoots]

1. Should have been his first move in office...

[bigdarryl]

2. I think they said they where not interested than BUT its getting crazy out there with this HATE on

right wing radio which in my opinion is the reason for a lot of this B/S

[whathehell]

6. You're right...You didn't see this kind of nonsense when we had the FD.

I agree that other factors are at work, the 24/7 news cycle, etc. but still...Right Wing hate radion only began on a national level after the Fairness Doctrine was removed.

[onenote]

8. Because a big legislative defeat would have been a great way to start?

The FD isn't going to be reinstated. Not only are there not the votes to overcome a repub filibuster -- it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't even a majority in the Senate in favor of it.

Some people seem to believe that the FD would be some panacea. Because, after all, repubs didn't get elected when the FD was in place (other than Ike (twice), Nixon (twice), and Reagan (compared to the election of JFK (once), LBJ (once) and Carter (once).

The constitutional underpinnings of the FD are pretty suspect in today's electronic media environment. While the "airwaves" are still a scarce resource, cable and satellite delivered services and the Internet have expanded the outlets for the expression of a point of view multiple times.

If you read up on FD cases that were actually litigated, you'd find that much of what folks are complaining about with respect to today's broadcast content would be relatively unchanged. Sure, Rush or Glenn or Sean would have to have a guest on now and then to discuss a point of view contrary to their nonsense, but if you think it would be effective, remind me again how "effective" you think Hannity and Colmes was.

[depakid]

17. The FCC could have reinstated themselves following the APA (and they still can)

More than enough evidence to support its reinstatement in a rule making procedure.

Of course, to do it right one would also need to put teeth back into licensing renewals.

[onenote]

19. but Genachowski stated his opposition to reinstating the FD during his confirmation

hearing, so the theoretical ability of the FCC to reimpose it is trumped by the political reality. Moreover, if the FCC started a proceeding to reinstate the FD, it would trigger a political firestorm (fueled by talk radio) that would put enormous pressure on Congress to take action to block the FCC from moving forward. And the FCC still would have to establish the constitutionality of the FD, which probably is even harder today than it was 20 plus years ago when the FCC raised concerns that changes in the media landscape have undermined the FD's constitutionality.

[depakid]

21. Not saying that you'll do the responsible thing

only that you could if enough people the courage, responsibility and political fortitude.

And no- the so called "constitutional landscape" is no excuse for the administration's or congress' failure here.

Bottom line is that America has propagated a culture of lies over the past 20 years through its consolidated corporate media- and it undermines anything that reasonable people try to do to solve the nation's problems.

Heck- you've got a situation where citizens of the nation can no longer even agree of what basic, objective facts are!

Wow. Does anyone even realize what a sorry situation relative to the rest of the world that they are in?

[NJmaverick]

3. Considering the heavy use of cable TV and the internet

how much of an impact will restoring the Fairness Doctrine have? Granted it would help balance out right wing hate radio, but it would do nothing to counter FAUX news, which I think has a far bigger impact

[OneGrassRoot]

4. Is there something in that Doctrine which makes it criminal to lie...

in media?

That whole "truth in advertising" concept that those of us over a certain age recall has all but disappeared.

:(

[whathehell]

5. Exactly.....Lying about public policy should not be allowed. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. Good luck with that....

Who's going to objectively determine what's a lie and what someone's opinion?

Nope. There's a slope I'm not willing to go down.

People need to get over the Fairness Doctrine. I applies only to broadcast stations (because the people own the airwaves and have the right to regulate their use). It wouldn't effect cable or internet.

[whathehell]

10. Good luck without it....

"Who's going to determine what's a lie and what is someone's opinion"?

Oh, you know, written documents, videotape, etc....The same stuff we use to determine fact in court, for instance.

I understand the issue with Cable, but it's something to work out, not simply give up on.


You "get over" the Fairness Doctrine...Some of us actually remember a country that was sane.



"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. Who decides?

You're going to force every current affairs program on television to run its content past some third party arbitrator to ensure its accuracy? Will Rachel Maddow have to submit a script before the show goes on the air? Will every utterance of Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly have to be sanitized for my protection by someone whose slant on what the truth is might be radically different from my own? So the American people get nothing but the homogenized pablum that the Central Scrutinzer allows them to hear lest we hear something that might force us to think for ourselves? And what is it that we're going to "work out" with regard to cable? And what about the internet? If I start a website that offers "unauthorized" versions of the truth as I see it, what's going to be worked out and does it involve federal agents kicking down the door to my house? And what if that third party arbitrator is somebody appointed by the Palin Administration? Am I suppsed to say, "Oh thank god somebody is looking out for me so I don't have to wonder what the truth is anympre -- If I see it on the televsion, then it MUST be true?"

Lord....

[whathehell]

16. I suggest you calm down a bit...

You seem both overheated and confused about the issue at hand.

When you invoke KO and Rachel Maddow, you erroneously conflate the airing of opinion with the airing of straight news...I thought I was clear: The issue is not "opinion"...The issue is LYING about "fact"..You know...Death panels in the health care bill?.

It's really not difficult..You may have noticed, for instance, that when a newspaper or magazine makes a factual error, they issue something called a "retraction".

It seems you're too young to recall the state of our media prior to the Regan Administration...If that's the case, I'm not going to do your research for you...If you need historical precedent, I suggest you google "Fairness Doctrine"....You will see that we had no jackbooted thugs breaking down doors in its name....It was the law for decades, and it worked rather well.

Now...Please either do your homework or something else to relax....I'm not interested in a snark exchange

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MUAD_DIB]

7. That wouldn't stop opinion journalism, nuy I'm all for

making it as hard as possible for the nutters to lie without facing consequences.

[Dawgs]

32. Are you serious? There are choices with tv cable 'news'. There are none with talk radio.

For instance, in Atlanta I can find five right-wing talk radio stations. I can't find one liberal station here.

I can at least watch Ed, Keith, and Rachel from pretty much everywhere.

[Cha]

12. KickR

[Cha]

13. KickR

[ibegurpard]

14. no, telecomm deregulation needs to be looked at

that's what put us where we are

[jefferson_dem]

15. No thanks.

I'm not keen on government-managed media content.

Tightening up ownership rules...that I could support.

[Doremus]

25. What you see as "government-managed media content"

I see as "no more using OUR airwaves against us."

The FD served this country well for many years. Its repeal is directly responsible for the success of Rush Limpballs and dozens of similar RW hate spewers. That fact, alone, is proof enough of its effectiveness.

[craigmatic]

18. It sounds good but somenow I doubt the company he works for would seriously go for that.

The main opponents of the fairness doctorine are the cable news channels. I'm guessing they (most importantly faux news) would fight and pay to see it defeated.

[Overseas]

23. I was glad to see Ed rolling out the data on the disparities between hard right voices

and progressive ones-- more than 90% right wing on the radio. And I agree with him that it is having an effect.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Bill Press Had It Right...Reregulation...Repeal Telcom '96

The problem is access...as Ed showed the largest stations are held by just a handful of large corporates...all who create the backbone for rushbo and drecks networks. They've replaced local origination with cheap satellite psychobabble and have turned the public airwaves into their private plantation and bankrupted the industry in the process.

There's a strong need to reregulate...return the public airwaves back to local ownership and control...repeal the ability for a corporate to control all the stations in a market and to make challenges to their licenses shorter and less expensive. It's time to repeal Telcom '96 that created the radio and television monopolies that gave rise to hate radio and faux noise...and encourage local ownership and diversity of the airwaves...what's left of them.

The Fairness Doctrine has zero to do with balance in "content" as most hate talk shows are considered "entertainment" and were never covered under the doctrine.

[onenote]

26. changes in the 1996 Act are needed, but a lot of folks misapprehend what the Act did

The 1996 Act loosened certain ownership rules, but the impact of those changes is often overstated (as is the claim that the Act created television and radio "monopolies" -- at least as the term "monopoly" usually is understood).

For starters, the 1996 Act loosened the local radio ownership rule -- before the Act, an entity could own four stations in a market that had 15 or more stations; after the Act, an entity could own 6 stations in a market with 15-29, 7 stations in a market with 30-44 stations; and 8 stations in a market with 45 or more stations. The Act also eliminated the national ownership cap on radio station ownership. That has encouraged the growth of big radio station groups -- three such groups, Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus control around 1500 stations out of a total of over 12,000 stations nationwide (in 1996 the number of stations nationwide was slightly above 10,000).

With respect to television, the Act kept in place, but increased the national ownership cap and also modified the local tv ownership rule -- as currently implemented by the FCC, those rules allow a single entity to own two tv stations in a market if they don't have a signal overlap and one of the stations is not a top-4 network affiliate.

The Act repealed the bar on joint ownership of a broadcast network/cable system -- a change that cleared the way, 14 years later, for Comcast to purchase a controlling interest in NBC. (For a time, DirecTV and the Fox broadcast network were jointly owned, but that would've been allowed even before the 1996 Act. The Act also cleared the way for cross ownership of local station and the cable system serving the area covered by the station.

The Act made changes in the rules limiting cross ownership of tv and radio stations in a market (allowing ownership of 2 tv and 6 radio in a market). But it left intact the rule barring crsoo ownership of newspaper and broadcast stations.

These changes were significant, both individually and as a group, but they also were more modest than what some people seem to suggest. In many ways, the more significant change in the law, imo, was lengthening the term of a broadcast station's license to 8 years and loosening the standards for renewal. THose changes, more than the ownership changes are the owns that have harmed the public interest.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Very Good Points...

Yes, the lengthing of the license period of three to eight years as well as reducing the amount of required public service and news programming were very destructive...eliminating news departments at many stations. One thing you aren't mentioning was the rapid growth of LMAs and similar partnerships where the large companies would put the ownership in a shell company who would hold the license and then "arrange" for the corporate to run the station. Also these companies either owned their own networks (Salem) or had a vested interest (Clear Channel & Premier) that used all these stations as "repeaters" of their programming selling on a national rather than local basis...more specific, selling on quantity rather than quality.

I will stick with the term monopoly as to what I saw happen in many radio markets as one, maybe two large owners came in and dominate a market...determine the ad rates for all stations and can and do undercut the other stations with cheap ad rates that have decimated the few remaining "mom and pops" out there. While there are some stations that have found a way to prosper, it was Telcom '96 that led to the wild speculations on station licenses creating its own real estate boom that would go bust and now has many of these large corporations either in benkruptcy or close to it.

A couple years ago I met Michael Copps and asked him if this could be a priority if and when the Democrats retook the majority on the FCC and he assured me that he was determined to do a review of Telcom '96...but that seems to be pushed aside for focus on broadband (radio's future IMHO) and avoiding the cesspool that broadcasting has become.

Cheers...

[onenote]

28. you're absolutely right about LMAs and about the FCC's focus on broadband

I've had numerous conversations with FCC Commissioners and senior staff about these issues and while they profess an understanding of the need to do something, there hasn't been much in the way of follow through. Just recently, the FCC's Media Bureau issued a ruling that took a lax approach towards a local duopoly situation. My sense is that they are more concerned about protecting broadcast stations during tough economic times than they are in ownership reform.

[KharmaTrain]

29. Another Too Big To Fail...

You've hit a big nerve right now...the precarious economic situation of the broadcast industries. Just like the banks, the large radio corporates grew so large that if they fail, the entire industry goes with them. Most of the acquisitions with the first "de-reg" in '92 and then Telcom '96 led to the large corporates driving up "stick values" to freeze out competition and did so by taking on lots of debt. They then detached actually earnings and gambled on their "stick values" taking on more debt and digging bigger holes along the way. Now you have companies like Citidel, NextMedia, Regency and several smaller companies in Chapter 11 with others barely hanging on. Revenues have plummeted at many stations...50% or more of what they were in 2005, which was down from where they were in 2000. It's been a real race to the bottom...cutting jobs, experience and access along the way. The FCC is basically powerless to intervene here and may be forced to deal with even larger corporates being created by the massive recieverships that are starting to take place...a BOA could end up holding the debt of thousands of stations. Then the fun when they liquidate...

In many ways the debate about ownership could become passe quickly thanks to the rise of satellite and internet radio. This industry has already lost almost all listeners under 30 and hangs on to the older demos...the ones that are attracted to hate radio as one of the few captive audiences they can still milk.

Cheers...