THIS IS WHY WE NEED A NEW FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

[eagler]

eagler (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-26-06 04:31 PM


It was the law of the land for over 40 years. It allowed the people ( who own the airwaves)to hear all viewpoints on important issues of the day (over THEIR AIRWAVES) . It denied NO ONE freedom of speech but rather made broadcasters accountable for their statements and it provided competition for those who would try to control the media. Today we have just the opposite over the airwaves (which belong to the people). A small number of huge conglomerates have become nothing more the right wing propagandists. The absence of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is a denial of the freedom of speech because if you oppose anything being broadcast,you cannot start up another radio station to broadcast another opinion. It's not like freedom of the press where I can print an opposing viewpoint in my own paper.The BOTTOM LINE is that since the Reagan administration's abrogation of The Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the airwaves over most of the US have become nothing more than a vehicle of government propaganda. The Fairness Doctrine would not HUSH RUSH but it would force him to be accountible for his statements and it would allow Americans to have equal access to opposing view points. To oppose the FD is to favor a violation of the people's right to hear diverse opinions over their own airwaves. That in my opinion is a violation of the freedom of speech and a violation of the UN charter which the US signed. It guaranteed everyone's right to have access to the media- unrestricted. The public airwaves belong to the people. There is a reason for this. Democracy depends entirely on a well informed electorate. Without that we have nothing.

[Joanne98]

1. The mergers didn't help either....

Twenty years ago there were 50 media companies. Now there's 6. We should bring back the fairness doctrine but we have to break up the companies too. We did it with oil, we did it with AT&T, we can do it again.

[The2ndWheel]

3. Then they consolidated again

That's what power does. You can break all the media monopolies you want, they'll just centralize again and again.

Like the rest of us, they're fighting entropy too. Just on a different scale.

[Joanne98]

40. I know. They make money going up or coming down.....

Getting big or getting little. I still want to break them up.. It will give us time to breath freely for a while.

[femrap]

50. All these corporations do is pass paper around....

they pay lawyers alot of money to draw up papers that say that they are public corporations becoming private ones...or papers that consume another corporation or get rid of a subsidiary.

The United States of Papers. That seems like that's all we do....pass papers....and then the little green papers ($) follow them (contracts) around. We make nothing...just pass papers.

[mongo]

2. As much as I hate Rw radio and it's influence on the sheeple

The "people" do not own the airwaves. The Government controls and grants licenses to frequencies for broadcasters to protect each broadcaster's business interests.

It's not like freedom of the press where I can print an opposing viewpoint in my own paper.

Sure it is -- Air America did just that. Unfortunately it just isn't as popular and is now failing. Can "you" run out and start a newspaper with a circulation that will have some sort of input without great resources? I don't think so. You can Xerox some pages, put it anywhere a store will take it, but you're not going to compete with the NY Times or USA Today.

The one point that I do agree with you on is media consolidation. We used to break up monopolies in this country, and it's high time we start doing so again. Clear Channel is way to powerful, and they need to be broken up and much of their assets auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Given the explosion of political talk radio, it seems that the fairness doctrine did more to limit political speech than to give access to "all" viewpoints. Perhaps if media had more diverse ownership a more progressive voice would emerge.

[Bandit]

4. The "people" do not own the airwaves.

On what do you base this statement? The airwaves do indeed belong to the people even if we do lease them at very little cost to the broadcasters. They are indeed public airwaves...

[eagler]

5. The courts have consistently held that the airwaves

belong to the people. Also there was a market for AAR but they were kept out of those markets by those most threatened by its competition.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=7892

[hughee99]

18. Which markets was AAR kept out of that otherwise

would have made them successful talk radio enterprise?

The airwaves may belong to the people, but they're run by the government. It's just like logging, drilling or mining on public land, it's the government who gets to decide what's done with it, not the people.

[annabanana]

6. frequencies are leased.. not sold

The airwaves are public to the extent that the government is controlled by the people.

[Yavin4]

30. The Government controls and grants licenses to frequencies for broadcasters to protect each broadcas

The people are the government.

[acmejack]

31. Not so!

The Airwaves are the commons! Those airwaves damn sure are ours.

edited for civility.

[TexasProgresive]

32. The government is the people, duh!

[Marr]

38. You seem to be suggesting that right-wing radio's presence is the result

of public demand. It isn't. It's top-down propaganda. The political talk on the radio is right-wing because that's what the big money considers acceptable political talk.

[Morgana LaFey]

46. Wrong cause and effect

Given the explosion of political talk radio, it seems that the fairness doctrine did more to limit political speech than to give access to "all" viewpoints.

First, let's note that the "explosion" you speak of is for the most part rightwing radio -- and it's a propaganda mill, pure and simple: help the serfs believe they've actualy got it good. Limbaugh is a master at it.

I happen to be opposed to the notion championed by the Supreme Court that money equals speech, but you may not be. MONEY and its power are the reasons that rightwing radio have flourished, and other points of view are drowned out. THAT is not "free speech," that is an abuse of free speech, just as some of the things going on which have been done "democratically" serve the purpose of consolidating power in the hands of the wealthy are an abuse of democracy (e.g., redistricting out of cycle for the express reason of reducing Democratic elected officials).

Interestingly enough, your phrase that "the fairness doctrine did more to limit political speech" is straight out of the rightwing playbook -- that's the REASON the Reaganite FCC Commissioners gave when they axed the Fairness Doctrine, and it's certainly something any and every GOPer likes to echo when they think the listeners are naive and unsophisticated enough to avoid thinking it through.

How is it you are "LIMITING" speech when the Fairness Doctrine insisted that opposing viewpoints be aired? It wasn't equal time, not anywhere close. JUST that stations be sure that any opposing viewpoints be expressed as well. Sometimes that was at 6:00 a.m. or earlier, for about 60 seconds or less, and at the request of a responsible interested party who just didn't feel that the coverage of this or that was complete.

The effect of the regulation (it wasn't a law) was that station owners, fearing challenges to their licenses, made damn sure that coverage of ANY topic of controversy and important to members of their community had a little from all sides mixed in. IOW: It fostered responsibility.

There is objectively NOTHING that any critic can say about the Fairness Doctrine that would thoroughly (or even partly) justify not instituting it again.

Oh, and btw, contrary to your belief, perfectly wonderful leftwing radio has been in fact silenced by said monied power, and did NOT fail on its own. Air America is actually a case in point, at least as I understand what went on. I'll refer you to Mike Malloy on that.


NOTE: THANK YOU, MARR. Well and succinctly said: You seem to be suggesting that right-wing radio's presence is the result of public demand. It isn't. It's top-down propaganda. The political talk on the radio is right-wing because that's what the big money considers acceptable political talk.

Brilliantly put.

I'll add this: Americans are, for the most part, libearl. Again and again they adopt liberal ideas and ideals and agenda over those of the right. That's why the right has to lie, cheat and steal (and propagandize for all they're worth): that's the ONLY way they can win.

[NashVegas]

47. The Reason Air Waves Are Publicly Owned

Is because:

a) anyone can built a transmitter and broadcast
b) there are a limited number of frequency allocations on the bands where people can broadcast without interfering with each others' signals.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

7. i don't think LW wing radio is as "good" as RW radio

what I mean by "good" is that it is not as entertaining. Rush and his ilk do what Howard Stern does; they shock their audience. They illicit a response. They get people talking about their shows, whether online or by the water cooler. There aren't many LW personalities who can do that. Most of "our" talent is on TV, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, etc. Even Letterman and Stern, who may not really be leftists, still are critical of the administration and are entertaining. I like Air America, but it really isn't as captivating as it should be. There's no shortage of material to make fun of or people to ridicule these days.

I suspect that in time a liberal voice will emerge that will provide balance to the radio universe. These things go in cycles. Once these conglomerates figure out they can make some money off their liberal and independant listeners, they will saturate their markets with Mike Malloy and Al Franken. Believe me, they will go where the money is (okay, maybe not Sinclair Broadcasting or Clear Channel).

[B Calm]

10. You think Limburger is entertaining??? God all mighty....

[melm00se]

15. it all depends upon your point of view

he is, after all, a clown...view his show as nothing more than the satirical farce it is.

[B Calm]

17. I don't see anything funny in a lying right-wing propagandist on drugs!

[melm00se]

19. it's called the

theater of the absurd

The Theatre of the Absurd departs from realistic characters, situations and all of the associated theatrical conventions. Time, place and identity are ambiguous and fluid, and even basic causality frequently breaks down. Meaningless plots, repetitive or nonsensical dialogue and dramatic non-sequiturs are often used to create dream-like, or even nightmare-like moods.

sounds mighty applicable to me.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

42. no

but its very obvious other people do.

[mirandapriestly]

49. I'm hugely entertained by AAR , and I can't even stand to listen to

Limpballs, not even for laughs. I think AAR was screwed by big business who profits more from RW. Also, where I live the signal is so weak it goes out under bridges and I can't even get reception in my house, which is in the city.

[JacksonWest]

52. Air America was screwed by having weak signals and no listeners.

Well, some listeners. but I literally lose the sation on my five minute drive to work. However, Air America could sell advertising if it was doing well in most markets.

[mmonk]

54. I do not find the enemies of true freedom, the enemies

of equal protection under the law, the spreaders of lies, bigotry and hate in the least entertaining. I will hate these pieces of garbage until I draw my last breath of air. The word is HATE, something I've never had before, but is now a part of me for the rest of my existence.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

56. I doubt anyone on this forum finds RW Radio

entertaining, but you do realize that millions of people listen to Rush and O'Reilly, right? Obviously, someone finds them entertaining, even if we don't.

[eagler]

57. And they have little or no competition because corporations like

Clear channel won't allow it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Should Air America be required to give equal time to conservative views?

:shrug:

[eagler]

12. On any network on which they broadcast they would be required

to allow a response or opposing viewpoints to be heard. If we believe in what we say then we should not be afraid of open debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. But would people contine to listen to AAR if half of it were conservative?

:shrug:

[melm00se]

14. under the fairness doctrine

they absolutely 100% would be required to offer the opposing viewpoints.

IMO that would do nothing but drive progamming like AAR (and its wingnut counterparts) off the public airwaves to a place that the FCC has zero jurisdiction.

[eagler]

16. We can counter anything they use against us.

If given the chance.

[melm00se]

21. but that's not the point

the point is that monitoring and complying with the doctrine would be (and was) a royal pain in the ass. So rather than do that (and risk the punishments for being non-compliant), many station owners would say "screw it, nothing but music and non-political content".

unless of course you would want to turn over the programming and content to a bunch of bureaucrats or (worse) political appointees?

[eagler]

24. It would not require equal time but

only a chance to present opposing viewpoints. Example : If Rush, Hannity and whoever broadcast over the same network for 9 straight hours telling everyone how evil John Kerry is,then Kerry(or his rep.) would have the right to counter. The people would be able to hear something other than RW propaganda.

[melm00se]

29. and failure to comply

carries a penalty (it did way back when) and that penalty drove much of that type of content right off the air...

The fairness doctrine was not something actively monitored by the FCC, they responded only to complaints. When a broadcaster gets hit with an FCC based complaint, woe betide him or her if they didn't respond or didn't have the appropriate backup and maintaining that backup was expensive and time consuming

So many stations just chucked it and carried the absolute bare minimum and the absolute least controvertial content as possible. Some went as far as refusing to carry ANY political advertising (except for federal elections as that was required) as they feared getting hit with a non-compliance investigation.

[depakid]

45. That of course is not and was not true

though it's a common "argument." Numerous studies have shown that the opposite was true- that there was MORE discussion on issues of public concerns, and independent groups most often went through program logs and brought matters to the fCC.

Furthermore, station could potentially lose their licenses at renewal time if they didn't have significant public affairs programming. While this rarely happened- the threat was there- and least prior to 1981.

There were also no such things a "infomertials" which are NOTHING but slap in the public interest standard's face. Under the limits to commercial time, they simply weren't allowed. Nowadays, stations will block out hours at a time- often at the same time- on say, Sunday afternoon. They ought to have their licenses yanked for that as well.

When viewing media regulation and re-regulation, one needs to consider the entire panoply of things that Mark Fowler (Reagan's corrupt FCC chairman) systematically dismantled.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Is it worth winning an arguement if you lose you audience?

:shrug:

[Kurovski]

9. K&R(nt)

[melm00se]

11. the fairness doctrine is a dinosaur for a bygone era.

back when the fairness doctrine was in place, the average citizen had access to, generally, 3 TV stations (ABC, NBC & CBS), a handful of radio stations (most of them focused in on entertainment programming), 1 or 2 (local) general circulation newspapers and whatever magazines they chose to subscribe to. All and all a fairly limited landscape of media and if you believe otherwise, I suggest that you take off "nostalgia-view".

I can remember back in the early 80's, when I get into radio, that most stations stuck either to news reporting (fairness doctrine exempt) or just completely ignored politics altogether (also fairness doctrine exempt). the effect of the fairness doctrine did, if anything, actually limit the political discourse. to meet the PICON requirement, "public affairs" programming wes relegated to early sunday morning where you had either "mass for the shut ins'" (or some other religious programming - aka "God Squad") or public discussion shows that talked about such scintillating and informative topics as "should firetrucks be red or repainted fluorescent green"?

Now, lets fast forward to today: almost 90% of the households in the USA have either satellite or cable TV with the myriad number of channels available there, access to just about any newspaper, magazine or journal in the world via the internet (almost 70% household penetration), access, also via the internet, to far ranging points of view. the media landscape today is so wide and varied, that the fairness doctrine has been left in the dust.

Now, factor in the fact that the fairness doctrine would have zero effect on cable outlets (private transmission network, no FCC jurisdiction), zero effect on web-casted content and the like and you see that implementing such a doctrine would be a toothless gesture.

Also, remember that a network like Air America would have never been possible in the fairness doctrine days, they too would have been impacted by the "equal time" provisions.

If you really want to have an impact: leave the content rules as they are but re-institute the old ownership rules (no one entity can own more than 1 TV, 1 AM and 1 FM station per DMA used to be the old way). Anything more than that is, IMO, nothing more that censorship via good intentioned legislation.

[eagler]

22. AM radio is the most proliferous media of all.

It is on 24/7 at homes, in workplaces ,in cars, everywhere. And its free and dominated by the RW.
Because of the lack of the FD, John Kerry could not defend himself against the swiftboaters. George Bush never had to account for so many things and black box voting never became an issue for most Americans.

[melm00se]

27. too bad the numbers don't back up that claim.

According to the 2005 Annual report on American Journalism, music formats (predominately on the FM band) make up vast majority of the radio listening audience ("talk" formats compose ~16% of the programming spectrum)

[TexasProgresive]

33. not around here

everytime you get in a company vehicle the radio is tuned to an AM station that broadcasts Insanity and Lush.

[eagler]

39. I do stand corrected. I meant to say AM and FM together are

the most prevalent media.

[JacksonWest]

53. AM radio is why John Kerry didn't defend himself? Come on.

Let's not overstate the influence of RW radio. Rush is the most popular, and he has 15 million listeners. Hannity has 11 or 12 million. Whoop de do. There is plenty of market left out there. There are liberal alternatives that aren't air america(and there should be more if Air America dissolves). Ed Schultz and Mitch Albom in the detroit market.

I don't recall the fairness doctrine( I was ten in 1987)- but it does sound like a limit on free speech. Frankly, I'm not a fan of giving any more power to the FCC, and I'm shocked that people here are. It's the FCC- a political body. We don't want anyone regulating speech. I'm all for disseminating multiple ownership of media stations. that doesn't effect content-just control. However, forcing a station(in practice) to provide equal time dictates content. It becomes a farce or an inhibitor.

Really, the RW has some incredibly influential and popular people on talk radio. Is our answer to have the government regulate that advantage away? That's fascist, Orwellian horse shit.

Talk radio doesn't win or lose elections. There was more conservative talk radio hosts in 2006 then ever before. No matter how popular they are-its the same people listening. This is the base. We're not going to get them anyway. Theres still a couple hundred million people not listening...so let's concentrate on them.

I refuse to believe that I should consider censoring or regulating someone because their ideas are "dangerous" to my cause.

[eagler]

58. RW radio is that powerful .

If you live in a part of the country-largely rural areas- like Nebraska or Texas, there is virtually nothing but right wing radio 24/7. Therefore all you hear is RW crap and anyone from these areas knows that. If Rush is not as powerful as he thinks he is then why did Cheney and Gingrich honor him as the one person who made the difference in 1994. RW is that influencial and they only became that way with the abbrogation of the FD.

[eagler]

41. That too would be a step forward

nt

[Morgana LaFey]

48. You haven't read the cited article. I suggest you do because

I'm a FAN of the F.D., and yet I've just finished reading the article and your arguments look quite silly (facetious) to me. Or maybe worse.

Go read the article and come back and refute those points (the analysis part in the bottom half of the article).

[eagler]

13. Un Declaration on Human Rights 1948

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Does that mean that David Duke has the right to a daily show on AAR?

:shrug:

[petgoat]

20. I don't understand why we use the same frequency bands that

were parcelled out in the early days of radio.

Surely our technology has improved to the point that we can get more
radio stations on that spectrum.

Of course the lessees of the existing channels would not want the
competition, and it appears that the FCC places their interests above
the public interest.

Is there a reason we can't have ten times as many stations--AM and FM--
as we do?

[melm00se]

23. most people

view the broadcast spectrum from their small little chunk of it (their market)

the broadcast spectrum was set up to minimize interference not only between stations but also individual locations so a certain amount of buffering was set up so that you wouldn't stomp on your neighboring station in battlecreek michigan but also when the signal skips you aren't stomping on the guy in Flippin, AR and Lizard Lick, NC and Ottumwa IA.

it is one giant puzzle of interconnecting and interdependent nodes.

Plus, factor in that there is only a finite audience and a finite amount of radio sales revenue to go around and you have the market acting as your limiting factors.

[petgoat]

25. "you have the market acting as your limiting factors."

That's my point. The market, rather than the public interest.

But the only technical reason we can't have a thousand multiplexed
stations is that broadcasters would have to buy new equipment and
listeners would have to buy new radios.

But if the new system were made backward-compatible with the old so
that existing radios worked as they always did, that would eliminate
a lot of the problem.

[melm00se]

28. and all of that costs

money, of which there is only a finite supply of.

[KharmaTrain]

26. The Fairness Doctrine Never Promoted Equal Speech

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine and it NEVER forced any station I was on to put a specific candidate or opposing political view on the air. All the law required was that broadcast operations that make political advertising time available (and not all stations were required to do so) that they offer the same advertising times and rates to all qualified candidates. This was intended to prevent one candidate from freezing out another by buying all the air time. The other purpose was to prevent a station from price gouging candidates as the law also specified that stations charge the lowest advertising rates for all political advertising. Stations hated and fought this because it meant charging next to nothing rates for their most valuable morning drive time.

The doctrine didn't or couldn't prevent a Rushbo from spewing the crap he does and force a station to put on a "liberal" counterpart. Rush's "program" was considered "Entertainment"...not "Political" and thus wasn't subject to equal time. Neither was the doctrine applied to News. It was only applied to programs specifically designated as "Political" or "Public Affairs". Overall, it was a pretty useless law that encouraged stations to stay away from all political programming as handling all the Equal Time requests and paperwork were a real pain in the ass.

The major problem with radio is the lack of diversity in ownership and voices. It's time DeReg '96 was given its long overdue review. Lets look at how "consolidation" has destroyed radio...especially the ability for local individuals or groups in buying and operating stations.

I give people a lot of credit in finding information these days. Many now look to the internet and alternative sources to get the truth or another side of the story. Those who want to listen to Rushbo will do so and shut out anything else. They want to live in their cocoons and no law will change that.

Rushbo's influence, as we saw in the last election, can be as much a liability to the Repugnicans as it is a strength. Let these right wing asshats talk and talk...the more they do, the more they offend people with common sense and help drive Repugnicans out of power.

[eagler]

37. facts

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

[eagler]

44. Worth reading for info on the fairness doctrine

nt

[onenote]

43. confusing fairness doctrine and equal opportunities rule

The equal opportunities rule (commonly called "equal time") is the rule requiring the sale of advertising time to both candidates. It is separate and distinct from the fairness doctrine (and indeed, the equal opportunities rule, which is statutory, is still on the books. Also to be distinguished is the "reasonable access for federal candidates" rule, which also is statutory and is still on the books.

The fairness doctrine was not a specific rule originally. Rather it was a general principle articulated in the FCC's case law regarding the requirement imposed on a broadcaster, as a "public trustee," to present a discussion of public issues and to give fair coverage (not equal) to all sides of the issue. It gave rise, after a time, to a pair of specific rules governing personal attacks and political editorializing, both of which (unlike the general fairness doctrine) imposed an affirmative obligation on stations to notify the target of a personal attack and/or political editorial, and provide that target with a "reasonable opportunity" to respond.

While it is true that the general fairness doctrine requirement was repealed by the FCC during the Reagan administration, the personal attack and political editorializing rules -- rules that might have given John Kerry the right to respond to some of the Swift Boat ads/documentaries,etc. -- were left on the books until 2000 when the courts ordered the rules repeased after the FCC (with a Democratic majority) failed to respond in a timely fashion to the court's order requiring the FCC to produce a justification for continuing the rules.

[mirandapriestly]

51. Deregulating how many stations one entity could own

was one of the worst things done during Reagan. They expanded the number of tv stations any single entity could own from seven to 12, and now I think it's even worse. Also, they allowed competition from cable, which had no regulations.
They hide behind "free market", but it usually turns out that only a handful profit from "free market" and everyone else, including the public , gets bulldozed over. The majority of our opinions are not represented on any networks, which is why I don't watch mainstream television or listen to MS radio. Many of the things I know, such as the likely events on 9-11 are not discussed and the White House version is repeated constantly, so that I start to question my own knowledge, and many people choose to never even "go there" because it is too difficult to believe that we are being lied to.

[KoKo]

55. Well said....and it was not like that under the "old regulations" whether

it was "Fairness Doctrine" or "Media Regulation." The system is broken and there is very little diversity of opinion allowed and in large parts of America only Rush Limbaugh and the RW Talk and Religious programming is the norm.

Even a large city like Atlanta dropped AAR. I live in the Research Triangle in NC (a huge and growing market) and I can barely get an AAR stream without static and it's only because Chapel Hill is liberal and fought to get the programming that I can listen to anything but Rush, Hannity,Sports and Religious programming. Of course there's always music that's programmed to play the same songs at the same time every day...if one wants that. Local TV News is run from CNN and is propaganda focusing on local crime and even uses those "paid propaganda pieces" that are supposed to be illegal. Sinclair and CNN and ABC affiliates...don't allow for "REAL" coverage of local government issues.

It's a mess and I was around during the "Fairness Doctrine Days" and there was definitely more diversity even when their were fewer outlets. Having more radio stations broadcasting and Cable just means there's much more of "less." And less quality and original programming, also.