Would you swap the demise of 527's for the revival of Fairness Doctrine ?

[kentuck]

The 527's are the only fundraising advantage the Democrats have ever owned, other than union support. But the 527's have the possibility of overtaking the Repubs in general fundraising. It is a dynamite negotiating tool. Would you be willing to trade that advantage of the Democrats for re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine as you knew it before?

That is, if there is a controversial issue or ad on radio or TV, you would have the right to request 'equal time' for a rebuttal or explanation? However, we should note that radio and TV have changed a lot since those innocent days. Suppose you went on Rush's station to give a 10 minute rebuttal of something which you thought was misrepresented. So you would get your rebuttal time and Rush could come on for the next two hours and say why you were wrong? Would the Fairness Doctrine of old work in today's world? Or would it need t be updated?

[WilliamPitt]

1. In a red-hot minute

[NashVegas]

2. Yes

Because Republicans can sink their money into 527s, too. But I work in broadcasting, so am kinda biased :)

[benburch]

3. Where do I sign?

I'd love it.

[KoKo]

4. Yes Indeed I would. I look back on those years as "benevolent" I would

trade it in a heartbeat. It's like going to grade school..where there were "rules" and one abided by them...those rules in "my time" were not unfair...but based on thousands of years of research into how far folks would go to break the rules.

Should rules be broken if they are unfair? Absolutely. But for fair and free elections to exist...one must curb the excesses of "freedom of the Bully or Dominant Power to Interfere."

Bring BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! (sorry for shouting..it's really important enough to shout about, though) :shrug:

[merh]

5. Absa - Cheney - lutely!

The repugs are the one's that have abused the "527's" gray areas over the last 8 years to destroy dem candidates and to "further" their missions of overtaking the state judiciaries.

US Chamber of Commerce is the perfect example. They have spent millions of dollars in Illinois, Ohio, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, et cetera to promote their conservative candidates for the judiciary.

Give me the fairness doctrine and they can keep the 527 loopholes. *&Co are just angry that we are using their weapon against them! Little spoiled creeps!

I also think PACs should be outlawed. The PAC swapping and trading of donations is just another way to get around campaign finance law.

[depakid]

6. In a New York minute

although the fairness doctrine "as I knew it before" wasn't a single "law" or FCC "regulation" in and of itself, but a conglomeration of many different sets of rules and adjudications that togther set out an evolving standard of "fair" responses to certain partisan statements, initiative advocacy and personal attacks.

Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine itself, absent the means (such as readily available program logs) or the will to enforce it would render it meaningless.

On the other hand, a strong committment to the central principles that guided media regulation for 50 years before Reagan's FCC Chairman Mark Fowler tore them apart for the NAB would provide a basis not only for holding the media accountable, but would also be a vehicle for meaningful campaign finance reform outside the questionable constitutional restraints imposed by Buckley v. Valeo.

[Touchdown]

7. No question about it.

Restoring the Fairness Doctrine is job 1, AFAIC.

[blondeatlast]

8. YES. Yes, indeed. nt

[ibegurpard]

9. Corporate consolidation means that Fairness Doctrine can be played

They can just have Alan Colmes on to "rebut." The Fairness Doctrine is toothless as long as a few mega-conglomerates have a stranglehold on media outlets.

[Touchdown]

13. Right. It must be accompanied by trustbusting.

All 6 film/media conglomerates, Lord Black's papers, and Clear Channel (that makes 8) needs to be broken up into 64 separate companies/corporations.

I have an idea on rules of ownnership.

10% cap on local TV stations nationwide.
10% cap on all local radio stations nationwide.
10% cap on all news dailys nationwide.
1 film studio (Touchstone, Hollywood, Dimension, Miramax, and Disney are all owned by Disney)
1 broadcast network
1 record label
3 cable networks
1 publishing house
No ISPS, cable pipes, or satellite companies allowed. You either provide content, or you transmit, not both.

[depakid]

14. Interesting-

If you had you way- how would you go about it and what would you need to make your case.

You don'r need much evidence, but the evidence you do have or might gather has to be something other than arbitrary.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. No because the fairness doctrine has to be applied fairly.

And I ain't counting on that. I want both. I want the Fairness Doctrine, but I don't think it means I should lose my voice.

[RichardRay]

11. If I had to pick one

I'd take the Fairness Doctrine. Getting in back into place would be no easy chore and administering it would be hard work, but I think it would be better than what we have now.

There also needs to be some way for initial out reach time to get allocated, but that ones tough, too.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[depakid]

12. Strange bedfellows can help make it happen

Media law is one of those areas like immigration law where you find alliances you'd never suspect. Hard Hat Union Guys & Green Turtle environmentalists in the Batlle of Seattle is I guess, the best recent example.

For instance- take this story:

FCC proposal targets indecency
The agency's staff wants to require TV and radio stations to tape most broadcasts, providing records to handle disputes

<sounds like the old program logs to me>

"It's going to cost them thousands of dollars to try to do this," said Bill Johnstone, chief executive of the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, which opposes the FCC plan.

<Yeah, right, whine and complain- we all know how hard it is to record programs or even do transcipts with 21st Century Technology... used to be done with 1970's tech with no problem- so ya Kant do it now?'

"Decency is the engine that is driving it, but there are much bigger issues about protecting the public interest," said Meredith McGehee, president of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, a Washington, D.C., group that filed a comment with the FCC supporting the proposal.

The rest of the article is best read with a grain of salt- but I think between the lines it sort of ilustrates what I'm trying to say.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1093175850235430.xml

[moondust]

15. One other condition:

Drop the cap on hard money from $2000 to around $500. That would seemingly even the playing field so that 527's wouldn't be needed to even the playing field. It might also hold campaign expenditures under a (hideous) bbbbbillion dollars.