Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture?

[shcrane71]

Per wikipedia:

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Lies, bias, slander, and solicitation for pornography aren't an efficient use of our airwaves, and it creates inefficiencies in our government -- i.e. wasting time with all-male religious panels to discuss birth control, which then are countered by one female, who then is demonized, and then our executive branch contacts the slandered citizen because the de facto leader of the Repugs is a bully.

[diane in sf]

1. yes

[Tumbulu]

2. yes, I tried to register an online complaint last night

and the site just crashed repeatedly, not accepting my complaint.

This hate radio should have been stopped a long time ago!

[Great Caesars Ghost]

3. I think it is time the FCC needs restructuring.

[shcrane71]

7. I'm going to write my representative and Senators and suggest just that!

Excellent idea. Thank you!

[Great Caesars Ghost]

63. I believe all broadcasting either through airwaves, digital, or satalite should be tiered regulated.

Because there are so much the basic and pay cable networks can get away with which FCC couldn't touch.

[shcrane71]

66. You make perfect sense to me GCG.

Regulation can be a friend to democracy unless special interests have taken control of government.

[onenote]

67. Regulation can take many forms

What sort of regulation do you suggest should apply to "digital" or "satellite" broadcasting?

[freshwest]

4. Thanks, didn't know about this. K & R.

[HopeHoops]

5. Let's get him off of AFN first and THEN worry about the FCC.

[shcrane71]

8. Why not work on both? It would be difficult for AFN to justify keeping Rush's show if the FCC

fined or pulled the licenses of stations airing Rush, and if the AFN removes Rush, then it's difficult for the FCC to justify doing nothing.

[HopeHoops]

16. Good point.

[EFerrari]

18. FCC is mandated to handle "obscene and indecent"

and Limbaugh solicited pornography.

That's the last thing they still do.

The Pentagon has no such mandate.

/typo

[HopeHoops]

19. Yeah, the AFN thing is a stronger case from the perspective of disrespect for the CIC.

It just isn't right to be broadcasting Hanoi Hannah shit to our own troops. I'm all for them having access to any and all information, but it would be a major stretch to consider Rush "information".

[libtodeath]

6. There should be no place

his hatred can be spewed.

[msanthrope]

9. Nice way to sneak in the Ron Paul advocacy. Welcome to DU!!!

[shcrane71]

10. My post says nothing about support for disbanding the FCC. I just want the FCC to work,

do it's job, and regulate public airwaves for the best programming. Free market models provide shock jocks that play to the lowest common denominator on XM radio. The public spectrum is different -- or should be different. If there's corruption in our government amongst the FCC commissioners, America must resolve conflicts of interests, and get back on track.

I've been following DU since 2000, but can't get into my oldest account as I can't access a defunct email address. But thanks for the welcome.

[msanthrope]

12. Of course you want the FCC to work. Which is why you've used the latest meme.....

Government is fucked. Don't trust the government. Especially not the president and the Executive branch....

[shcrane71]

13. lol...wtf??? I have no idea where you're coming from, but have a good day (after you reread the OP)

[msanthrope]

14. I am coming from the place where I question why-a low count poster might bring up the latest

Libertarian memes.

I find it interesting that you question an Executive branch agency. Under the guise of Limbaugh.


The FCC is working just fine.....what would you have them do?

[shcrane71]

15. Thanks for the vetting rather than responding to the post. Why not place me on your ignore list?

I support Obama's phone call to Ms. Fluke.

I also found it enraging that our national bully is having such an effect on our Congress, and is allowed to slander a private citizen, that our POTUS feels compelled to step in -- which was the right thing to do. Had the FCC been protecting Americans from Limbaugh's obscene speech for the past 20 years, we might not be here.

The least the FCC could do is fine Limbaugh for obscene speech over public airwaves. Isn't it odd that the right can use regulatory agencies, such as the FCC, for their cultural wars (against Janet Jackson's breast!), but the left won't use the FCC in cases of clear-cut obscenities? I understand the need to protect the First Amendment, but what if women were silent while Fluke was slandered? Fluke would be marginalized. Who's to say she still won't be? Does Msanthrope care that America is squandering the talent of so many young women? Or do you just want to silence me, and go away with your petty win?

[DefenseLawyer]

38. The Janet Jackson FCC fine was thrown out in federal court

I don't need the FCC to protect me from the blathering of a college drop-out disk jockey with an opiate addiction. There are existing legal avenues for a person who is slandered and there are, as we see in this case, effective ways to shape content by pressuring the advertisers for a particular program. I'll pass on supporting government regulation on speech I disagree with.

[librechik]

11. yes, of course!

the FCC has been lost for years, possibly decades

[EFerrari]

17. Yes, of course it does. n/t

[calimary]

20. Certainly seems to describe the current situation.

[onenote]

21. No.

(Conintuing a discussion we've been having in another thread).

The FCC's failure to fine limpy reflects its understanding of the statutory and Constitutional limits on its authority to regulate the content of speech. Indeed, to the extent that previous FCCs (under repub administrations) tried to go beyond those Constitutional limits they did so in cases brought against big commercial interests, such as Fox and CBS as a sop to the Parents Television Council. That suggests that if the FCC was co-opted, it was by PTC. Fortunately, the PTC has been notably unsuccessful in getting the FCC to do its bidding. And the courts seem well on their way to finding that the FCC shouldn't have gone as far as it did in those cases.

Rush is big fat idiot. But its not the FCC's job to sit in judgment of the content of speech, particularly politically-slanted speech, so long as it doesn't run afoul of the very narrow exceptions carved out for regulating "indecent" and "obscene" speech.

[shcrane71]

22. Yes.

I'm as pleased as you are that the PTC was unsuccessful in their FCC complaints. But the complaints by the PTC to the FCC isn't comparable to this complaint against Rush's three-day slander, and 20+ years of deteriorating the public discourse aired on the commons (airwaves owned by the American people and licensed to program providers).

Limbaugh's overreach in bias, misinformation, and slander isn't comparable to network television in that he has no competitors in the majority of his markets on either the AM or FM dials. One can't merely change the channel and find a liberal giving a salacious rant for three-hours for the purpose of maligning a conservative citizen and his/her viewpoint.

The airwaves belong to all of us, including women who want and need birth control.

As an aside, hiya Onenote! Good to see you over here too.

[onenote]

23. Still no.

The FCC simply doesn't have the power you want them to have, either as a statutory matter or as a constitutional matter. As pointed out in another post in a different thread, Section 326 of the Communications Act states (as it has since 1934): "Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication."

The one exception is found in the criminal code (it used to be in the Communications Act but was moved in 1948). Section 1468 of Title 18 states that "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years or both."

Indecency, obscenity, and profanity are very narrow categories of speech. (If they weren't a whole lot of what appears on tv and radio, including a lot of music from the 60s through today) would have resulted in people being charged with crimes.

Rush didn't commit any crime. He was an asshole and its important that the sponsors and radio stations that support him be called out for supporting an asshole. But the government has no authority to punish him for the content of his speech.

[shcrane71]

26. Still Yes. You're stretching, and you're missing the point.

You've never addressed why Rush gets to monopolize a scarce resource -- the AM radio spectrum, and to some extent the FM, in vast parts of the country. The FCC is there to regulate that resource. You may be a libertarian, like Ron Paul, and you want to dismantle regulations. However, let me explain to you that we have regulations for a purpose -- the free market fails at times. This is Econ 101. Without regulations, we have pollution. Prices are too low, and quantity of a good that produces pollution is too high. Thus the EPA.

We the people have the right to have an FCC that works for us. If the FCC were doing it's job, and ensuring that there was a diversity of programming accessible to all Americans, then your argument would be appropriate. Drive across the country and try to maintain access even with NPR stations on your radio dial. You can't do it, but you can tune into Limbaugh. How is that possible if "everyone" says that they can't stand him and no one is listening to him?

[onenote]

28. How am I "stretching" by citing the applicable law?

Do you know how many times the FCC has revoked a station's license? Once, in the 1960s, for violations of the fairness doctrine. That route isn't available any more since there is no fairness doctrine to apply.

I'm not in any way suggesting FCC regulations be "dismantled" -- not sure how you got that idea. I'm saying the FCC can't ignore its governing statute and its regulations. The statute says it can't consider content except "indecent, obscene or profane" content. That's not to say that Congress might not have the Constitutional authority to give the FCC greater powers than it now has (although the Constitutional issues are not insignificant). But they haven't.

The FCC's "job" is defined by Congress and its rules. You want them to ignore the statutory and regulatory limits on its current authority and do a "job" that its not legally empowered to do.

That's not going to happen.

[shcrane71]

30. So you're saying that it's NOT regulatory capture that the FCC is failing to enforce the

fairness doctrine? Seems a stretch to me.

[onenote]

34. The FCC isn't failing to "enforce" the FD. The FD doesn't exist anymore

Before the FCC could enforce the FD, it would have to conduct a rulemaking proceeding (and survive the inevitable court challenge which, given the current make up of the SCt would almost certainly result in the reinstated rules being tossed out --not that I would necessarily agree with that decision, just being realistic about the likely outcome).

But the FCC can't "enforce" something that doesn't exist as part of its rules anymore.

Returning to the "regulatory capture" notion -- it may well be that the repeal of the license in 1987 (after essentially being directed to do so by the Court of Appeals) may reflect "regulatory capture"; however, its hardly clear cut in that the groups supporting the repeal of the FD was not monolithic. For example, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was a major advocate of repeal.

Finally, even if the FD was in place, it certainly would not allow the FCC to silence limpy -- that would be the very "censorship" the Communications Act has barred the FCC from engaging in since 1934. Rather, the FCC could at most fine (or, in theory,revoke the license of) the stations carrying limipy on the grounds that they failed to provide a "reasonable opportunity" for the discussion of views that conflict with limpy's. Whether the FCC could/would make the necessary finding to support such action is an open question that would depend on what coverage each station carrying limpy gives or hasn't given to views counter to those espoused by limpy. It doesn't have to be a one-to-one ratio in terms of the amount of time given to each "side." More likely, if the FCC found that there was such disproportionate coverage given to views on issues of public importance that run counter to those expressed by limpy, it would essentially give the station an opportunity to clean up its act by providing more (again, not necessarily "equal&quot time to conflicting viewpoints.

[shcrane71]

36. If the Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist anymore, why did lawmakers try to get rid of it in 2011?

Did these lawmakers succeed?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/06/01/yes-it-still-exists-house-members-call-fcc-formally-end-fairness-doc

Again, it is not censorship to regulate the airwaves to ensure competitiveness. By that logic, all anti-trust legislation should be thrown out. Are you saying that you think government should be shrunk so much so that you can drown it in the bath tub? I have a problem with libertarians that keep squawking about small government, and getting "regulations off businesses backs". This country was built upon the commons, and that's why many New England states are known as Commonwealths.

The FCC is a victim of regulatory capture. Steinem, Fonda, and Morgan are absolutely correct that Limbaugh and his ilk have succeeded in monopolizing our the commons of the AM airwaves. Name me one liberal "entertainer" who has the air-time that Rush has. This has been no accident. Think of the 2003 debacle when corporate media giants lobbied the FCC to increase market share.

[onenote]

42. The FCC declared the FD was no longer in force in 1987 .

But the FCC didn't take the ministerial step of removing the provision from the Code of Federal Regulations (not that unusual in my experience: for example, Congress repealed regulation of rates charged by cable operators for "expanded" service effective 1999, but there are still provisions in the FCC's rules that it hasn't gotten around to deleting that refer to that regulation).

Anyway, in the case of the FD, a bunch of RW legislators trying to drum up a good fundraising issue among their supporters claimed that the fact that the FCC hadn't ever gotten around to deleting the provision from its books after declaring it no longer in effect was somehow a threat to rush and company. That was total BS of course.

But the matter is settled now: on August 22, 2011 the FCC did "formally" remove the dead letter FD from its books (without having to go through the formal rulemaking process that ordinarily would be required if it was repealing a rule that was actually in force). In announcing the deletion of the FD and other "obsolete" rules from the Code of Federal Regulations, the FCC noted that "the Fairness Doctrine is not currently enforced by the FCC and has not been applied for more than 20 years." The FCC went on to state that the elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction....striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead."

And once again, the question of what the laws governing broadcast radio and television should be is an important topic of discussion. But what the laws should be and what they are now are not the same thing and anyone thinking that, under the laws as they exist today, the FCC can do anything to limpy or the stations that carry him are simply mistaken. The law as it exists today is clear: no regulation of content beyond certain narrow categories (e.g., obscenity, indecency, profanity). If there is an antitrust claim to be brought (and rest assured there is not) it would be brought under the anti-trust laws, not the Communications Act. And yes it is censorship to regulate the airwaves based on the content of the speech going out over the airwaves. The FCC can indirectly attempt to promote "diversity" in content by imposing limits on ownership -- it can't do it by directly regulating the content of a station that has been granted a license.

I understand your frustration, but after practicing communications law for more than 30 years, I can tell you that you simply are hoping for things that aren't currently the law, even if the FCC had the authority to make them the law. As a matter of administrative law it can't simply wake up one morning and decide to unilaterally impose new rules and even after conducting the requisite administrative law proceedings to create new rules, it can only do so if the new rules don't conflict with express limits that have been imposed on its statutory authority.

[KharmaTrain]

24. The FCC Doesn't Regulate Content...

It's prime purpose is to be the traffic cop of the finite broadcast spectrum. Courts have ruled against FCC's attempts to use content as a criteria to issue licenses...and a good thing. While obscenity has been "defined" into 7 dirty words no station has ever lost its license and most fines have been beaten on court appeals...thus the FCC's record in such manners was poor to start with.

When you get the government in the role of determining what's worthy content or not then who determines? If its a rushpublican in charge and they find Randi Rhodes offensive, should she be barred for her political beliefs or if there's a "national emergency" should the government have the power to censor all content that they feel is a "national threat" or "offensive".

It was the marketplace that allowed rushbo to flourish, along with deregulation....and that's what will take him down. The boycott of his advertisers is a first good step and even this cynic is seeing some progress. Push for reregulation of the broadcast spectrum to break up the large corporate hold and bring in more local ownership which leads to a diversity of voices. Expecting the FCC to do something is wasting your time...they're one of the most politicized and inept government agencies...

[shcrane71]

25. Rhandi Rhodes is a false equivalency. She wouldn't be if you could name a non-subscription station

that she's on outside of Florida. In Florida, where, I believe, she's on the regular AM/FM dial, consumers have the option of tuning in Rush.

It was a -- follow me here -- monopolization of the commons (AM radio airwaves in markets where FM radio isn't quite accessible -- AM radio waves being longer and more bendable around obstacles) that allowed Rush to flourish. Not the free market that allows for competition as you suggest.

Most small progressive stations in the Midwest got their starts as LPFM stations. Those licenses have been locked down, and the FCC stopped opening up the applications windows for those licenses. Check out the Prometheus Project for more information on this topic.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Interesting...

Let's try a couple facts...Firstly Randi is on plenty of "non-subcription" over-the-air stations: http://ltradio.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Randi_Rhodes_affiliates

BTW...she also produces her show out of the same studios rushbo does, is on the same Palm Beach station and is syndicated by Premiere...why I used her as an example.

As one who worked in talk radio in the 80s and saw a lot of things first hand I find your description of what happened to AM quite amusing. Thanks to deregulation there isn't a place in the US where you don't have FM radio...or a repeater or translator. It was "de-regulation" that helped rushbo grow as only a handful of corporates saw his cheap programming as a way to replace hundreds of live talents. AM's ratings and revenues plunged in the late 80s and throughout the 90s as Wal-Marts replaced the local moms and pops that were the lifeblood of local radio...the marketplace looked to bigger and better...networks rather than local stations. So, yes, the marketplace chose to fund and support hate radio.

Progressive radio has nothing to do with LPFM...even though they may sound like it. Progressive radio has been hampered being heard on low power (not low power FM...a whole different animal) or "rimshot" AM signals that made it difficult for them to compete with the stronger, more established hate stations. Progressive talk also suffers from their demographic profile...far different than those who listen to hate AM radio (white, male, 50+) and tend to listen to other formats...NPR and public stations.

BTW...been a member and supporter of the Prometheus Project since 2001...very familar with their work...

[shcrane71]

29. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Rush is predominantly on the AM dial.

Prometheus is a good project for information, but not so much action. The very few community stations that provide Pacifica programming, in the Midwest, got their starts as LPFM prior to the 80s. Prometheus told our radio corporation that they couldn't help us get a station in our market.

[KharmaTrain]

31. LPFM Wasn't Legal Til 2000...

You're confusing Educational band stations with LPFM.

I've helped several groups get their LPFM licenses...all are non-profits (according to law) and thus have to rely on donations or underwriting and not commercials. If you're in a large metropolitan area it was hard to get an LPFM license due to interference problems with existing stations but those rules are about to change very soon. I'd suggest you head over to www.prometheus.org and see how those new rules could affect you.

Prometheus is a clearing house...they don't do the leg work on building an LPFM...that's up to the individual station owner. They do provide referals to legal consul and technical experts. They helped a friend of mine find sources of funding for his station. Overall they've been at the vanguard of assisting in empowering local radio.

I am entitled to both my own facts and experience, thank you. This string is getting OT...which is about the FCC fining or revoking licenses based on program content.

[shcrane71]

32. K, I'll go back and tell the community stations that said they started out as LPFM

that they're lying.

Thanks. It is getting OT.

[KharmaTrain]

33. Not The FCC's Mandate...

They are traffic cops of the broadcast spectrum. They were formed to clean up a cluttered radio dial in the 20s and 30s. As someone upthread pointed out, the commission has tried to regulate content and have lost in court. They can revoke a license but only on technical grounds...operating with too much power or off frequency but attempts at fining stations over content have ended up in losses on appeal. It's been decades since a license was revoked due to content issues.

By making sure only one station operates on a frequency in a certain area at a time or that there are channel allocated for your cellphone or dish users can see their satellites without interference means the FCC has and is fulfilling their mandate.

[MadHound]

35. Under FCC legal definitions and regulations, Rush did no wrong.

FCC is looking out for what they consider obscene, ie the 7 Dirty Words, exposure of certain body parts, etc.

Calling a woman a slut, prostitute and asking for videos doesn't fall under their definition of obscene. If he had cussed however, or started breathing heavy after claiming he was going to jack off, then we would have an FCC case. But being vile, disgusting, misogynistic, that's not covered.

[shcrane71]

37. What is considered obscene is not static. Women vote. Women can be appointed to the FCC.

Women shouldn't be subjected to that sort of hatred spewed over airwaves owned by Americans. We've seen what happens when the FCC fails to regulate, and allows hate speech on the airwaves: An all-male religious panel discussing women's health, and the sole women speaking about women's health being slandered, demonized, and victimized for 9 hours on hate radio.

There are real consequences for regulatory capture. It's inefficient and harmful for government and democracy.

[MadHound]

39. Actually, what is considered obscene by the FCC is pretty static

The rules and regulations governing obscenity have changed surprisingly little over the past thirty plus years.

I doubt that even if the FCC were all women, that they would change very little in this regard. The FCC has gotten burned more than once about free speech issues, and is now very leery about anything that is not clear cut obscenity.

[shcrane71]

44. You're correct. It has been static, but these are unprecedented times, and precedents have been

set. I've learned this from the Supreme Court unprecedented decision that gave Bush the 2000 presidency.

I never thought I'd see the day that women (and many men) stood up to Rush with any unified voice. Unprecedented. Let's not squander the moment. The Fairness Doctrine needs to start being enforced, and licenses for low power FM stations should be opened up to even non-religious groups.

[onenote]

46. As I've shown, before you can enforce the FD you need to get it reinstated

The FCC can't enforce a non-existant rule. And it can't reinstate it overnight either. The process of repealing it took several years. In theory Congress could pass legislation reimposing it, but in the real world that's not happening so long as the repubs control the House and/or have at least 41 Senators.

[shcrane71]

55. You've not shown it until you provide a link to the news article.

Once you do that, you can relish in the mea culpa that I will give you, onesie. Kay?

[onenote]

57. Here you go.

You didn't really think I was making up quotes for the FCC did you?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fcc-eliminates-fairness-doctrine-rules-225933

[shcrane71]

58. Thanks onesie. You have my apology. Did you see this:

When the Fairness Doctrine went away for all practical purposes in 1987, it paved the way for Rush Limbaugh and a flood of conservative talk radio hosts who came after him, much to the dismay of some on the other side of the political spectrum.

Time to bring the Fairness Doctrine back. Regulatory capture has brought us to this abysmal place. Time to resolve this issue with the FCC. I'm sure you can agree.

[onenote]

59. I have mixed feelings about bringing back the FD

I think the perception of how well the FD worked in the old days is somewhat romanticized. There were some pretty nasty folks on radio back in the day: Joe Pyne, Morton Downey, to name a couple. Plus, the FD allowed stations a considerable amount of leeway in deciding how they would cover "conflicting viewpoints" -- it couldn't be a sham, but at the same time they didn't have to allow all comers to get a say on their stations (otherwise the "conflicting viewpoints' would be so numerous as to create gridlock).

Over its history, the FD wasn't successfully invoked all that often and there is someevidence that it had the effect of causing some stations to shy away from covering controversial issues.

I don't think it would have that effect today (although if it did, maybe we'd go back to having good music stations again!). But assuming that coverage of controversial issues would continue, I suspect that the enfocement would be rather meager -- it was hard enough in the old days to make out an actionable FD complaint.

In the end, I think bringing it back would probably create some new opportunities for progressive viewpoints to get airtime and thus would be a good thing. But realistically, given where the President, the Chairman of the FCC, most of Congress and, I suspect, the courts, are on the FD, I doubt we will see it brought back any time soon. (Even if there was the political will to begin the process of bringing it back, that process will, as previously mentioned, almost certainly take a couple of years).

[shcrane71]

62. The fairness doctrine need only cover public / non-subscription stations.

Social media is definitely helping people find a diversity of viewpoints and political doctrines. I've heard several NPR and community talk show hosts say that they're scared of getting any sort of fine from the FCC because it will cause such a hardship for their listener-sponsored stations. Billionaire Rush Limbaugh has no such concern while he's been monopolizing the AM dial in numerous states.

If the Fairness Doctrine only curtails the amount of hateful rhetoric going over American airways, then it would do it's job. I believe in regulation because without it, Econ 101 has taught me that there are inefficiencies in markets.

[onenote]

52. These are unprecedented times, but not in the way you are thinking

Back when the FCC was enforcing the FD (the only FD-related station license revocation occurred in the late 1960s), most people had access to a relative handful of broadcast television and radio stations. Cable networks, satellite, and the Internet were more science fiction than reality. Overall, on December 31, 1968, there were 6200 full power AM and FM radio stations. At the end of 2011, there were 15000 full power AM and FM radio stations. In addition, in 1968 there were 675 full power VHF TV stations and 175 full power UHF stations. Today the numbers are 1400 VHF and 400 UHF. Plus, today there are literally hundreds of satellite and terrestrial non-broadcast program networks and essentially countless sources of news, information and/or entertainment content via the Internet.

The FD was justified by the FCC and courts based on a "scarcity" rationale. While I think an argument could still be made for distinguishing broadcast from non-broadcast sources and concluding that the scarcity rationale has life, it is just as plausible (and may well be more likely given the make up of the SCOTUS) that the scarcity rationale no longer justifies the FD.

[onenote]

43. It may not be static, but it is governed by what is in the Constitution.

And having women appointed to the FCC (and there currently is one serving and one awaiting confirmation) wont' give the FCC authority to decide that constitutional issue.

[Rex]

40. If that is the definition, then yes imo.

Rush is like an investment for half of the government (GOP) and is their leader. He is being allowed to push his extreme agenda onto people that would never think up half the evil crap that comes out of his mouth. He is a liability that they treat like an asset.

[melm00se]

41. This is one of those

"be careful what you wish for" moments

If the FCC were to step outside it's mandate and win the inevitable court challenge that would set a precedent.

That precedent could be used against something that you agree with/support and you would be completely apoplectic that the FCC overstepped it's authority.

[shcrane71]

45. There are not many times that I long for the "good-ol' days" of the 50s or 60s, but

when it comes to what sort of programming I can pick up on my AM/FM radio dial, I sure do wish we had a strong FCC that enforced the Fairness Doctrine.

[melm00se]

47. can't enforce what is no longer on the books.

[shcrane71]

49. It's still on the books.

[onenote]

51. WRONG.

Excuse the "shouting" but apparently my earlier post on this subject didn't get your attention. So I'll restate.

The FCC ruled that the FD was no longer in effect in 1987 (in a decision upheld by the courts). But the FCC didn't bother to take the ministerial step of removing the provision from the Code of Federal Regulations (not that unusual in my experience: for example, Congress repealed regulation of rates charged by cable operators for "expanded" service effective 1999, but there are still provisions in the FCC's rules that it hasn't gotten around to deleting that refer to that regulation).

Anyway, in the case of the FD, a bunch of RW legislators trying to drum up a good fundraising issue among their supporters claimed that the fact that the FCC hadn't ever gotten around to deleting the provision from its books after declaring it no longer in effect was somehow a threat to rush and company. That was total BS of course.

But the matter is settled now: on August 22, 2011 the FCC did "formally" remove the dead letter FD from its books (without having to go through the formal rulemaking process that ordinarily would be required if it was repealing a rule that was actually in force). In announcing the deletion of the FD and other "obsolete" rules from the Code of Federal Regulations, the FCC noted that "the Fairness Doctrine is not currently enforced by the FCC and has not been applied for more than 20 years." The FCC went on to state that the elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction....striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead."

[shcrane71]

53. Link please.

I provided you with one. It's only fair you should provide me with the news article that states the Fairness Doctrine has been eliminated from law.

Thanks.

[onenote]

56. Here you go.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fcc-eliminates-fairness-doctrine-rules-225933

[melm00se]

60. Not since August 2011

[shcrane71]

61. High time to bring it back, don't you agree? n/t

[melm00se]

64. its not a popular opinion here

but no.

[shcrane71]

65. The Left has ceded a monopolization of public airwaves to the Right for decades, and we see

where that's gotten us: all-male, religious contraception panels before Congress, and our public airwaves used to brow-beat any opponent on the Left.

Boycotts aren't going to work in taking Rush off AM hate radio -- Yes, the Right Wing crazies HAVE the monopolization of a whole communication medium all to themselves. Great thing about this medium is that it reaches most of rural America where free FM, television signals don't reach. And it's often difficult to get broadband access.

Are you a Libertarian Melm00se?

[melm00se]

68. in some aspects yes.

Where you and I (apparently) differ is that I look at the media landscape in its entirety and see how it has progressed over the last several decades.

Lets look at the media landscape from 1949 (inception of the Fairness Doctrine) to 2011 (the final end of the FD):

In 1949, as a consumer of information, your electronic sources of information was limited to AM band radio broadcasts and that was just about it. While TV and FM bands did exist, they had not come into their own as sources of information (that came much later). So at this point in time, the Fairness Doctrine made a certain amount of sense.

Less than a decade later, TV began to become a household staple. During the period ca 1950 - 1976(ish), the vast majority of Americans were limited to 3 stations (local ABC, NBC and CBS) and possibly a local PBS outlet. So, once again, the information consumer was still limited to a relatively small numbers of outlets and the Fairness Doctrine had a role to play.

(Before I continue, you will notice that I have omitted the FM band - I do this because the vast vast majority of FM stations provided music only formats due to the superior sound quality possible on the FM band. FM stations as news outlets is a relative new phenomena) .

Now, in 1976, a true electronic revolution began. In Atlanta, Ted Turner formed what would become a staple of TV today: the nationally broadcast TV superstation: TBS. TBS, as it was uploaded via satellite and made available to local cable companies brought non-local programming into local markets. TBS was followed up (from an entertainment POV) with numerous other "superstations" some of which survive in their original forms (WGN out of Chicago is one) but others have morphed rather dramatically.

Out of the 1st superstation came the next big advancement and that was CNN which in turn spawned numerous other news/information outlets.

So what does this all mean?

By the mid-1980s visionary folks began to see the writing on the wall: the electronic media landscape was going to change from a small limited number of outlets to a larger number of outlets providing a wide range of view points on innumerable topics. So the Fairness Doctrine began the march down the path of superfluousness. During this time period, the average consumer went from 12 stations or so to having access to 20-30 (thanks to the now ubiquitous cable box).

As we continue the march towards the current day, the 1980's visionaries were proven right but on a far larger scale than even their wildest imagination could come up with. Today, the consumer has potential access to several hundred (the dreaded cable box capabilities march onward) and I can't count how many news type outlets - the Fairness Doctrine continued to move further and further back in the closet of useless things.

the one thing that the 80's visionaries couldn't really imagine the explosive growth of an entirely new medium: the internet.

The internet brought something to the electronic media universe some that mere cable/satellite providers couldn't do. It brought the consumer:

1) Current and relevant print media sources from not only their small piece of the world but also from the world at large. In pre-internet days, you might have seen out of town newspapers but generally only their Sunday editions and then it might have been several days after the fact. Ditto for magazines. Don't even start on internationally produced/published sources.

2) Video sources. The internet brings far more video sources than any cable/internet provider could imagine bringing in and from far far more places.

3) Blogs/independent commentary. The internet gave voice to uncounted numbers of commentators and their analysis. Take DU as an example: in the pre-internet days could you imagine a 150,000 progressive voices meeting on a daily basis to discuss issues and share information?

4) the future. Who knows what the internet will bring 2-5-7-10 years from now. Today's internet is almost unrecognizable when compared to it's iteration from just 2 years ago.

All of these factors and the evolution of electronic media frontier does something that the Fairness Doctrine could (and did) never do: brought to your doorstep opinions from across the political and social spectrum on issues from the 4 corners of the globe.

While all of this was happening the Fairness Doctrine continued to diminish as a needed public policy and it was finally removed from the books as unneeded and unnecessary regulation.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as it was would not really have the impact most folks think it would and it, in fact, could take a nasty unexpected turn.

Take FoxNews: they are a cable only outlet and thus exempt from a license threat by the FCC. As to Limbaugh: the Fairness Doctrine, as pointed out above, would not apply to him directly but rather to the stations that carry him. This would require approximately 600 individual actions, most of which (if not all) would be challenged in court delaying any enforcement of the rules and the USSC (where it would ultimately end up) has traditionally sided on the free speech side and if that case is successfully argued the enforcement action goes down in flames - - meanwhile Limbaugh would continue to blather on. There is also the distinct possibility that he moves off the OTA and ensconced himself on the internet which is no longer limited to a physical location with the advent of mobility devices (iHeart radio/Pandora/Live365 all come to mind - which all can be received on a smartphone or via the internet).

Now what about that nasty turn? It the fervor to ensure "fairness" Congress might very well reach to write the law/regulation to encompass not only OTA media outlets but also the internet. How could they do that? the FCC has some regulator control over telephone lines that make up the internet and a little prest-o-change-o, the FCC now can extend it's neo-Fairness Doctrine tendrils out on the web. Then the door is truly open - places like DU could be forced to allow for alternative viewpoints. Would you really want a bunch of freepers posting? it could happen

My final point is: if all you do is focus on this 1 small sliver of the electronic media pie of which talk radio is an even smaller slice of the pie (there are approximately 15000 radio stations in the USA but only 1861 are classified as "News/News-Talk or Talk" formats - that is less than the number of Country stations - source and Limbaugh is on 590 of those - 4% of the radio spectrum and then for what? 3 hours a day) you run the risk of looking petty and fall into the Republican trap/meme of trying the silence them and/or taking away their 1st amendment rights.

[shcrane71]

69. Thanks for the long, meandering justification for the Left handing the public airwaves to the Right.

Your argument doesn't stand. Why was Ms. Fluke choking back tears as she explained that it meant the world to her that Obama said her parents were proud of her? If no one is listening to Rush, then she could just ignore his slander, no? I mean, no one listens to AM talk radio... puuhleeze (you're not a from a rural state are you?). It's not as if his denigration of her spread to other media forms... oh, wait, it did. Oh well, bullies will just be bullies and we should just ignore them, right? Who cares that they have a microphone over public airwaves that should be being regulated by the FCC?!?!

Continue to write as much as you want about history that makes no difference to the debate at hand. Justify a broadcast spectrum being ceded to the Right. Regulatory capture has happened. You don't care about that. Possibly you're a Libertarian who doesn't believe in any sort of regulation. Insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb -- that's a GREAT way to win an argument, Rush does that a lot.

You can respond if you'd like with an argument that addresses the issue, but try not to use the word meme or trope. Everyone hates tropes nowadays.

[melm00se]

70. you know

Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2012, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

you keep moving the ball. When the pillars of your current argument a destroyed, you change direction of your argument.

As evidence, I hold up your exchanges with Onenote and Kharmatrain.

If no one is listening to Rush, then she could just ignore his slander, no? I mean, no one listens to AM talk radio... puuhleeze

I never said that I will thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

Did Limbaugh legally slander Ms Fluke? That will entirely depend upon one key fact: Is Ms. Fluke a public figure? The case can be made on both sides. The "she's not a public figure" is a pretty obvious one. On the other side of the argument, a case could be made that by (1) choosing to appear before a political committee with the cameras rolling and (2) on a political topic that was receiving significant news coverage Ms. Fluke shed the protection of a private figure and became a public figure. The law extends significant protection the private figure but significantly less to the Public figure (see: NY Times vs. Sullvan).

(you're not a from a rural state are you?)

no, worse: a southern one. Even if I were would it make a difference?

Justify a broadcast spectrum being ceded to the Right

so assuming that 100% of the talk radio stations are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week nothing but rightwing extremism (which is quite a stretch but lets go with it) that only accounts for 12.5% of OTA radio stations. So the right controls 12.5% of the radio spectrum. that leaves 87.5% as unknown.

Does playing rock and roll, jazz, country and the like have a political ideology?

Oh well, bullies will just be bullies and we should just ignore them, right? Who cares that they have a microphone over public airwaves that should be being regulated by the FCC?!?!

The FCC retains the right to regulate the broadcast spectrum (what station goes where, call signs and the like) but, with very few exceptions, is prevented by a little thing called the 1st amendment. So, under the current FCC regulations, which one - specifically - did Limbaugh violate?

Possibly you're a Libertarian who doesn't believe in any sort of regulation.

hmmm....let's see what I actually said:

in some aspects yes

(emphasis added)

how does "some" morph into "all"?

Insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb -- that's a GREAT way to win an argument, Rush does that a lot.

Where at all did I state (or insinuate) that anyone is "dumb". I provided a complete answer backed up with the reasons behind my answer.

You can respond if you'd like with an argument that addresses the issue, but try not to use the word meme or trope. Everyone hates tropes nowadays.

point of fact: you're the only one in the entire thread that used the word "trope"

[shcrane71]

71. huh??? AM radio carries jazz?? Where you from?!?! And, you're missing the point.

It's not about how many rock, jazz, blues, country stations are on the AM dial. I welcome you to come to anywhere that's not very populated. Check out how many AM radio stations you can get on your radio dial in the parts of those states that are away from the population centers. For giggles, let your car radio scan for FM stations. It's fun to see it cycle, cycle, cycle, never picking up a signal.

K, we're left with AM stations: One jackass that has a microphone for hours, every weekday, and then he hands it over to his cohorts (Dr. Laura and such), COUNTRY music stations (with a little Western thrown in there to mix it up), and religious stations. That's. All.

Now in populated sectors, Left-leaning people CAN listen to NPR, but be careful. Admitting to being an NPR listener can be hazardous to your career. You will be labeled as a LIBERAL (and that could cost your promotions, and better job assignments). It didn't use to be this way. I don't know what happened? It must be all those rock, jazz, WBN, and cable stations that you've been going on about.

[unionworks]

72. I am near

the new york - Canada border. There is a Canadian station (a.m.) that plays 20's and 30's swing -jazz every Sunday nite.

[shcrane71]

73. Oh, you lucky dawg... 1. It's beautiful up there. 2. Canadians are really nice aren't they???

3. I *love* swing. Sometimes I'll stream the CBC because it does my heart good to hear people not afraid to show that they care about their neighbors. One poor guy with five kids lost his home to a fire, and the community pitched in and built the family a new split-level entry. The stunned Dad just kept saying it was a "mansion!". And then the interviewer wanted to make sure that the Dad would still be getting his assistance checks! Really?!?! America has gotten so mean that we hate to give assistance to disabled veterans.

[unionworks]

74. If the thugs win

...at least I won't have far to go! A lot of the swing songs from the 30's are so dirty double meaning they would never play them in the U.S.. Canadians have a sense of humor and historic importance as opposed to silly prudery.

[shcrane71]

76. Take me with you!!! I want to live amongst the Canadians and their good AM radio

stations! I'm willing to bet the AM station you're listening to isn't available on streaming is it?? (Fingers crossed that I"m wrong).

[unionworks]

78. I will send you

The info via DU mail when I get it! I believe it was a CBC station.

[shcrane71]

79. That would be great! Thank You!

[onenote]

77. Well put,melm00se.

As I have stated, I understand the frustration of those who don't like the current state of broadcasting. I'm not thrilled about the level of ownership concentration myself.

But there are a few considerations that those advocating for increased regulation of the content of broadcast stations need to keep in mind. First, what is the standard going to be -- if its the standard of the original fairness doctrine, you may be disappointed since it never was used to prevent someone from getting to speak or that every utterance on one side of the issue triggered "equal time" for those with a different point of view. Second, how comfortable are you with allowing the government to be the arbiter of content disputes --- do you think an FCC with a majority appointed by a repub president is going to be even handed? Third, once we get started down this slippery slope, where does it end? I've seen calls for regulation of subscription services as well as "free" over the air broadcasting. A lot of broadcast content is now available over the Internet. Why stop at the electronic media? The fellow that delivers my daily newspaper gets to my house by driving on public roads. Absurd? Maybe, but if lines are going to be drawn they better be clear and rationally drawn. Finally, there is the political reality factor: the FCC can't enforce the fairness doctrine today because it decided years ago that it did not serve the public interest. Before it could reinstate the FD, it would have to conduct a new proceeding and accumulate a new record that would justify the return of the FD. Just starting that proceeding will be a gift from heaven for the repubs who will milk it for all its worth in terms of scaring their base into thinknig the big bad liberals want to shut them up. And even if the FCC had the political will to find that the FD is in the public interest, that decision will be challenged in court and based on the current make up of the court, its a pretty safe bet that it would be struck down, thereby handing the repubs a victory that they will trumpet as proof that they are the defenders of the first amendment and liberals are the enemy. Bullshit? Of course, but why give them the opportunity?

[shcrane71]

80. If ever Americans resolve the issue of regulatory capture (the FCC rolling over while giving the AM

spectrum to Right wing haters), Repugs can decry Liberals all they want. Hell, they already do. Sorry, I just can't stop laughing because it's so ludicrous to be scared of what they're going to say about Liberals, the Left or Progressives -- just look at what happened to Sandra Fluke.

If seen the alternative to regulation, and regulation doesn't scare me. Nope... not at all. It's not as if the FCC doing their job will give Liberals the same microphone the Right has had for two decades. But it can decrease the propagation of hate. Don't be scared. It'll be OK. Let's pull ourselves out of this abyss.

[onenote]

81. I think its prudent to be scared of undefined "regulation" of speech

I'm still waiting to see a description of what form of regulation you think is appropriate: who and what is regulated? And where does it stop. Limpy has influence that goes beyond the size of his audience. But then again, so did Breitbart. Does that justify regulating speech on the Internet?

The devil is in the details. Without any details, signing of for "regulation" of speech is not a route that I would choose to go down.

[shcrane71]

82. I know you want to compare of very different media outlets, but those comparisons don't

work. It's a savvy argument. Don't get me wrong. All the more clever to mix that with a straw man fallacy that someone saying, "oh hey, shouldn't Rush at least be FINED for his three day sexual rant on AM radio," is a censor and that will lead to censorship of the Internet.

You're slippery slope doesn't work. The FCC has been a victim of regulatory capture for quite some years now. Remember the hullaballoo in 2003 when all sides of the political spectrum opposed Michael Powell's relentless push to allow more media monopolies in every market? Guess what that was? Say it with me... regulatory capture.

The right has monopolized the AM airwaves. That's wrong. I'm sick of it. You're not.

[onenote]

83. I'm not ducking the question: What will this "regulation" you are advocating entail?

Who will regulate? What will they regulate? And how will they regulate? If you want to put aside the issue of whether the rationale for the regulation would not or could not extend to other media, that's fine. Let's leave it at broadcasting. When you propose that broadcast content be regulated, what exactly are you proposing? What would be allowed or not allowed under the rules you believe should be (and could be constitutionally) adopted.

[shcrane71]

84. LMAO You've ducked the OP question since this thread started.

You're funny. Do you know that when you apply for a license from the FCC that they ask you what type of programming that you're going to provide? You can be denied you're First Amendment rights if someone already provides a similar type of programming in your market. Egads! That's CENSORSHIP!

Puhhleeeze. Limbaugh is many things, but he's NOT censored.

You're attempt to evade and obfuscate the OP is telling. I don't think you truly care about the First Amendment. Monopolization of the AM airwaves by one particular viewpoint ensures that others do not have that microphone for their voices. Why don't you want to hear liberal voices on the AM dial?

[onenote]

85. I've been practicing communications law for 35 years. You have a very flawed understanding

The FCC doesn't consider the type of programming the applicant is going to provide when it decides whether to grant a license application. They really truly don't. Indeed, stations change formats (radio) or network affiliations (television) all the time and no one loses their licenses for doing that.

From time to time a station sale is objected to because it will result in the loss of a community's only station of a particular format (e.g., "Free form music" or "classical" or "talk&quot . And the FCC routinely denies such objections. As the FCC stated in one such case: "it is well-settled policy that the commission does not scrutinize or regulate programming, nor does it take potential changes in programming formats into consideration in reviewing assignment applications."

You can go online and find the current FCC application form (FCC 301) Check the instructions on Page 7:

Item 8: Programming. Applicants for broadcast construction permits need no longer file a specific program
service proposal. Nevertheless, prior to making the certification called for in Item 8, the applicant should
familiarize itself with its obligation to provide programming responsive to the needs and interests of the
residents of its community of license. See Programming Information in Broadcast Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 5467
(1988).

Your passion is admirable and as I've indicated, I actually support the imposition of additional regulations. For example, the FCC's rules purportedly bar one entity from owning/controlling more than one TV station in a local market where both stations are affiliated with a major broadcast network. But the FCC has looked the other way as stations circumvent that rule by having stations that ostensibly have separate ownership enter into agreements whereby one of the stations controls most if not all of the operational decisions of the other station. In addition, with the advent of "multicasting" it is becoming increasingly common for a station to broadcast the programming of one major network on its "primary" signal and to broadcast the programming of another major network on a secondary channel (the so-called "D2" channel). Those loopholes need to be closed and stations have to be ordered to divest themselves of control of multiples stations in a market.

But I'm still not sure what it is that YOU think the government should be doing in terms of regulating broadcasters, although this most recent post seems to suggest that you'd be fine with the government deciding who gets a license based on their political point of view--an idea that I find rather alarming.

Finally, we've had a civil exchange on this topic, so I'm rather disappointed and not just a bit disturbed by your suggestion that I don't really care about the first amendment and that I'm actually pursuing some hidden agenda to keep liberal voices off of radio. That's bullshit. My support for ownership caps is directly tied to my support for creating more opportunities for diverse viewpoints to be heard. But I don't want the government to be empowered to decide which particular viewpoints get heard and for how long or to decide who gets to represent a particular viewpoint.

[shcrane71]

86. Duck, duck, duck... duck, duck, duck...

Ah, so as a "Communication Lawyer" I can only assume that is why you've been so obstinate about pursuing any regulatory means to stop the regulatory capture of the AM radio dial.

Honestly, you should support a citizens campaign to slap Limbaugh with an FCC fine, and any other loony (proudly) liberal ideas that progressives have about making the FCC work for citizens. It'll bring more work for you. Money, money, money!

This is a board for progressives. Is it censorship to remove hateful, troll-like behavior of freepers? Are you "alarmed" by that? By your logic, censorship is censorship regardless the medium (public airwaves, the Internet, subscription services).

[onenote]

87. You keep digging yourself in deeper don't you?

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2012, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

First, you don't have a clue what type of entities I represent. Believe it or not, there are a lot of progressive groups and individuals that are very concerned about the government exercising control over the content of broadcast speech.

Second, I don't have the slightest problem with DU removing any speech it wants to remove. DU, in case you haven't noticed, is not the government. And the First Amendment, something which it has become clear you are only vaguely familiar with, only applies to action by the government. Put it this way: if a moderator wants to tell either one of us to shut up, that's their right. But if the government came in and declared that you or I couldn't continue to espouse our particular points of view, I would object vehemently and I would hope you would too. Similarly, I would hope you would join me if the government came in and told DU that it couldn't remove a particular poster's comments.

In short, as has been abundantly clear throughout this debate, my concern is with the state making decisions about who gets to speak. You seem much more comfortable with the state making those decisions.

I doubt we're going to bridge that divide.

PS - You can thank me at some point for updating your understanding of the role programming plays in broadcasting licensing decisions. At least, presumably, you won't be making that mistake again.

[onenote]

48. Reimposing the FD isn't going to be a panacea

The "good old" days are long gone.Moreover, the FD didn't prevent Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan from getting elected and its repeal didn't prevent Clinton and Obama from getting elected.

And as I've shown, the FD of the "good old" days might have (and I emphasize might since I don't know the full content of the stations carrying limpy) resulted in a warning or a fine, but it would never, ever have resulted in the FCC ordering limpy off the air.

[unionworks]

50. Welcometo D.U.

And thanks for the well written O.P.. of course there are some who will try to make your experience here a negative one, especially if they see you are a talented and articulate poster. We aren't all idiots. Lots of great people here!

[shcrane71]

54. I really appreciate that. Thanks Unionworks!

Hi right back atcha!

[Puzzledtraveller]

75. Thank you!!!