Corporate/RW Media: Fighting Media Ownership Diversity By Attacking The "Fairness Doctrine" Strawman

[Median Democrat]

Corporate/RW Media: Fighting Media Ownership Diversity By Attacking The "Fairness Doctrine" Strawman

You may agree or disagree with the fairness doctrine, which was an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

The fairness doctrine was and is controversial, and strong arguments can be made for reviving it. However, Dick Durbin's proposed amendment does not re-implement the fairness doctrine. Instead, it just requires the FCC to promote "diversity in communication media ownership":

/snip

SEC.9 FCC Authorities. (a) Clarification of General Powers. – Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

SEC.303B. Clarification of General Powers. (a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required – The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. …

/snip

The Durbin Amendment says nothing about the fairness doctrine. It talks about media ownership. However, the right wing media is not letting facts get in their way, as they carry out the will of the media's corporate owners. In various right wing sources, a whisper campaign has begun to attack efforts to diversify media ownership, and fight the growth of media monopolies, by characterizing such efforts as censorship and a revival of the fairness doctrine. This campaign of lies is similar to the efforts to brand Obama's relatively modest tax increases on wealthy Americans in 2011 socialism.

Here is a sampling of the disinformation campaign, which is going on to undermine efforts to promote diversity in media ownership:

Inhofe Warns Broadcaster Licenses Could Be Revoked Under "Durbin Doctrine"

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94010

With Limbaugh Battles Raging, Republicans Unite Behind Media Freedom

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/With-Limbaugh-Battles-Raging-Republicans-Unite-Behind-Media-Freedom-40580382.html

Bozell: Disavow Durbin's Fairness Doctrine Amendment

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bozell_durbin_doctrine/2009/03/05/188805.html

Pelosi Backs Talk Radio Regulations

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/pelosi_durbin_amendment/2009/03/08/189685.html

MRC's Bozell: FCC Nominees Must Vow to Protect Talk Radio Before Confirmation

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/03/04/mrcs-bozell-fcc-nominees-must-vow-protect-talk-radio-confirmation


If there was any doubt that the right wing noise machine is merely carrying out the will of its corporate owners, then this strawman campaign should dispose of such doubt. You may agree or disagree with fairness doctrine, but Durbin's Amendment does not re-impose the fairness doctrine. It merely promotes diversity in media ownership, which threatens the ability of Big Media to grow their media monopolies.

[Peace Patriot]

1. Of the two main principles of the "Fairness Doctrine," its anti-monopoly principle

is the most important. The principle of "balanced coverage" on issues of public importance is harder to implement and enforce in a meaningful way. I remember the midnight broadcasts of dissenting opinions in the 1960s and 1970s that were so boring, everybody turned them off--if they were up that late watching old movies. The public service component of "balanced coverage," however, is extremely important, as a requirement for use of the pubic airwaves (for instance, the broadcast of important public events, national or local). Also, the notion of "balanced coverage"--even if it was ineffectively implemented--was deeply influential throughout the media, encouraging more objective journalism even in print newspapers and news magazines.

But the anti-monopoly principle is really the main thrust of the Doctrine. No one--and certainly not a handful of rightwing billionaires--should have a monopoly on news and opinion, in any region, or in the nation as a whole. Monopolies over broadcast and print news, often combined in entertainment conglomerates (and in NBC's case, with war profiteering businesses), are extremely damaging to freedom of speech, one of two core principles of democracy--the other being transparent vote counting (which we have also lost). The internet is our only hope and refuge as to free speech. That is a positive development. But as to the rightwing tripe that spews into our homes via TV, and over the radio--free speech, "balanced coverage" and all of the essential values of objective journalism have been lost, and this horror has bled over into newsprint as well.

Some new version of the Fairness Doctrine is absolutely needed. I would structure the proposal this way:

1. Bust up all news/entertainment monopolies. Re-create competition, by encouraging small, creative, new businesses to take over the broken up parts of these monopolies, on a small scale.

2. Ban all private money from political campaigns (or alternatively, ban all political ads on TV/radio). And: require licensees of the public airwaves to provide 4 to 6 weeks of 24 hour, or prime time, coverage, prior to every election, with all broadcasting devoted to public debate and candidate access to the voters.

------

Re #1: This would include conglomerates that control book publication, newspapers and news magazines, movies, TV/Radio and/or cable, as well as other businesses. Bust out the book publishers, say, from Time-Warner, and, if there are several book publishers, bust them apart from each other. They must become small, single enterprises, with no relation to the parent corporation. The same with other elements of news/entertainment monopolies or conglomerates. A TV broadcaster cannot own a newspaper. A newspaper owner can only own one newspaper (and no other news/entertainment businesses). Thus, the profits from advertising are spread around to millions of new, small businesses, which compete with each other to be the best--and will serve their communities far, far better than monopolies and conglomerates have.

Re #2: The notion of "balanced coverage" is a two-part problem. The first part is the humongous, dreadful, putrid, democracy-killing influence of "organized money" (as FDR put it) on the parameters of public debate, and on who can run for office. Today, you have to have a million dollars in hand, to even think about running for Congress. That is DEATH to democracy. Its driver is the enormous cost of TV/radio political ads. And you can solve this problem at the same time that you solve the problem of wall-to-wall corpo/fascist bullshit on TV/radio. You ban political ads (or all private money), and require that all public airwaves be devoted to public debate in short campaigns, prior to elections, as a condition of the license. The applicants for such licenses will know that they cannot count on any profits during those periods--and they either accept that condition or they don't get the license, and it goes to a more public spirited business. We are long past due for this in the United States. Are we going to take our political life seriously, or not?

[annabanana]

2. The only time we ever hear the term "Fairness Doctrine"

in the media it is either the RW shaking in it's boots that it's about to be reinstated, and will be used to "drive our talk shows off the air"

or

it is someone in corpomedia (or even on the "left") saying that "No one is talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine". . so don't get your knickers in a twist..

I did not even know that there was an anti-monopoly aspect to the fainess doctrine. I sure wish this was better known across the blogosphere...