Let's push for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

[alfredo]

This is inspired by BLM's thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2661164

We need to get back to elections determined by ideas, not by the political leanings of the media giants or the check book of the corporatist. Since the end of the Fairness doctrine the big money from the landed gentry and corporate board rooms have controlled the content in our political discourse. Would bush be our decider now if the media was forced to give equal time to Gore or Kerry?

So maybe we should try an experiment. Let's brainstorm a drive to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Let's see if we can push this issue. There's plenty people here who can call their representatives, write letters, and call the media. Let's see if we can push this agenda.

Without the fairness doctrine the media moguls and the super rich have the upper hand in the political debate. It's time to fight back. Remember, whenever there's a coup, one of the first thing the insurgents do is seize the media. the corporatist have seized our public airwaves and our democracy is suffering. Stand up and fight.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Hell yeah!

K&R

NGU.

[The Deacon]

3. Great Idea -

I'm going to write my Congressman on Monday, which should be preaching to the converted. Of course writing our Senators might not have as much effect - Saxby Chambliss is SUCH a tool!

[alfredo]

6. McConnell and Bunning here. Both a waste of DNA. Still I will let them

know how I feel about the fairness doctrine just to see how (or if) they reply.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. This is ABSOLUTELY issue Number 1

But unresolvable until we win an election.

K&R

[Poiuyt]

10. I agree. This is EXTREMELY important

He who controls the airways, controls the country.

[Selatius]

4. The Fairness Doctrine can be used to silence dissent

Just talk to Richard Nixon.

[alfredo]

5. It depends on how the law is written.

As it is, it is difficult for us to get our word out, and for our candidates to get a fair shake in the media.

[Selatius]

8. Call me radical, but I see it as a band-aid solution on a gunshot wound

The only reason why the corporate news media leans right is precisely because it is for-profit and corporatized.

As A.J. Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one." The people, themselves, have no "press" to speak of.

I guarantee you the next time Republicans win power, they will gut the Fairness Doctrine again, and you will be back at square one. It would be a circular loop that I'm not interested in repeating into eternity.

I would say the ultimate long-term solution is news networks that are owned and operated by the people themselves. News networks supported by fees from its customers. For example, get 10,000,000 people to donate 5 dollars a month to a start-up news organization, and you have 50,000,000 in operating revenue a month.

The people decide what they want to hear. A good example is the radio stations. Station directors and DJs determine what is played. If they want to boycott the Dixie Chicks, then fuck the directors and DJs, go somewhere that people can freely choose to hear their music. Go to satellite radio, which is supported by customer fees. Because you pay, you decide what you want. That's an example of freedom that--I believe--can also be applied to the flow of information.

[alfredo]

13. Sounds like public radio.

[Agony]

19. Hmmmm. Agreed, I think we need to bypass the public broadcasting model

This might be worth a try.. http://www.iwtnews.com/home

[alfredo]

7. Here's the fairness doctrine explained

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm


FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is 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.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

[kiahzero]

11. That would only apply to local TV and radio

Cable and Satellite aren't able to be subjected to the same restrictions as broadcasters.

[alfredo]

12. Even local would be an improvement. But yeah, I'd like to see

it extended through cable and satellite.

[kiahzero]

14. That's impossible

Only reason the Fairness Doctrine could be implemented at all comes from the fact that Broadcast TV and Radio relies on licenses to use public airwaves. Cable and satellite media (as well as newspapers, which I neglected to mention eariler) wouldn't be able to put under such a restriction without violating the First Amendment.

[alfredo]

17. That's true. I guess the best thing to do is for like minded

people to buy or start our own media outlets.

[calmblueocean]

22. More people should read your posts. The Fairness Doctrine is dead.

The only reason it was enforceable in the pre-Reagan era was that there were so few electronic communication channels.

In some ways, I think it was a better world because there was a sense of accountability. Today, Rush can spout hour after hour of lies, and no one has the chance to get on his show and tell his listeners the truth. But the world has changed, the genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in. We need to find better ways of communicating our message if we want to win, and not depend on muzzling our opponents.

[rinsd]

24. Why in God's name would you want that?

You want the FCC to have a direct reason to have their grubby little hands involved in cable/satellite?

[papau]

9. Reagan ended it by ending a FCC regulation -next Pres can reinstate same

way.

And if we get both houses we can actually pass a law to reinstate it, as the Dem Congress did in the last years of Reagan only to have hin veto that bill.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. this would help a lot!!

[alfredo]

18. Bringing up the issue would show the reps are against "fairness."

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Another reason it is ESSENTIAL we take back Congress!!!!

If bill is passed, and vetoed, veto must be over-ridden.

[tomreedtoon]

20. And then restore the "public service" requirement for licenses.

TV stations are not required to provide air time for public service shows, or to address community concerns. These were dropped about the same time as the Fairness Doctrine.

The end result was that TV stations ceased covering local issues, or even mentioning groups with local concerns. It used to be that TV stations didn't simply save and record the number of complaints about lack of coverage. They had to call in members of the community - churches, minority organizations, public service organizations - and ask how they could serve their needs. Then they had to address those needs through programs, public service announcements and the like. And present those to the FCC when their licenses came up for renewal.

Why should this matter? Well, maybe not all politics is local, but a lot of it is. Even if these shows were aired on Sunday, when most of you were asleep, it tied the TV station to the community. Today, stations only respond to the corporations that own them, and their only responsibility is making a profit. Forcing TV stations to be good citizens of their community, instead of just another McDonald's franchise, would do more than make them responsible to their community. It might help remind people that they are part of a community, and not just an audience passively watching commercials.

[alfredo]

23. The only stations that do such things are Public Radio and TV.

Of course the right wing hates them almost as much as they hate gays.

[tomreedtoon]

25. Yes, NOW. But it wasn't always that way.

The TV station where I work used to do regular public service. Had to, in fact, as they were in an ownership conflict, and had to look good for the FCC. Then the FCC dropped its requirements, the station was sold to a huge broadcasting conglomerate, and the attitude became "the public be damned, but not until they've watched the late news and gotten our ratings up."

[alfredo]

26. It seems like everything is in service of corporate wealth.

[Hidden Stillness]

27. Agree--From "Our Voice" to "Their Product"

This is the larger issue. When the broadcast industry was deregulated and the FCC requirements abolished, the entire world of media consolidated and changed character immediately, and their coverage of issues became just another finished product of the corporate assembly line, totally cut off from the interests of the people. When the Reagan Administration and lobbyists killed the Fairness Doctrine during the '80s, TV and radio changed immediately--I remember it. There instantly started to be commercials on TV directed not at the general audience, but at other businesses. I had never heard of such a thing before, and was very offended. Commercials telling businesses how they can increase market share, "advertise with us," etc., get people to buy, etc., and cutting us right out of the loop. Then the next stage, where Mass Comm and broadcasting manuals started instructing students that the media does not even really address itself to the audience, but to sponsors, that they "sell" the audience to the sponsors, and that the sponsor was the "real" audience--a total shift, that had never before existed. Representative Louise Slaughter, who has been fighting to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine ever since it was killed, has also commented (to Bill Moyers on "NOW" a couple of years ago, etc.) that the media change was instantaneous, that this was the law change they were waiting for, and that the filth of the Limbaughs, etc. instantly sprang up all over AM radio at that point, with all liberal opposition now cut out. Reagan also allowed passage of a bill they don't generally talk about, that was just as devastating: killing the old requirement that a certain percentage of network TV content--fiction/movies/series--must come from independant producers. When that was killed, all content could come solely from the closed system of the corporate owner of the network, cutting off the last of the outside access.

This is dangerous and threatening not only because one side of an issue is presented and the other is not, but because it now allowed for completely organized campaigns of disinformation since, because no other opinion needs to be told, a steady stream of lies, distortion, slander, etc., and censorship of the correct answer, is no longer against the law. There is no law. Not only is only one side of every issue told, but everything all the time, is only told from the perspective of the corporation, and not objectively, about the corporation--only, from it. Therefore, there are no regular reports of corporations caught breaking tax and lobbying laws, raiding pensions, busting unions, etc., which would eventually get people angry and reacting--no, there are only corporations "under seige" for some nebulous reason or other, I can't remember... When they were slandering John Kerry with the Swift Boat Liars, who was there to turn to, to correct the story and tell who these people really were? Only the guilty parties!

Studies over the years, conducted by the newspaper industry as it has fallen, have always shown that people who read more than one newspaper, with a different slant on things, are more educated about the issues and have better critical thinking faculties, because they are always aware of the multiple nature of things, and that it takes many perspectives to tell a whole story. When the media is reduced to 4 or 5 corporate owners, and one perpective, no one can remain knowledgeable, and you aren't supposed to. One single unbroken stream of propaganda, all of one type, eventually erases even your own memory. I remember when people used to ask Boston Red Sox slugger Carlton Fisk "Did you ever see the famous film of the 1975 World Series home run?" that Fisk "directed fair" and out of the park, and Fisk always answered, no, that "I didn't want to get that film in my head, because then I wouldn't be able to remember my own memory of it"--like that. The neverending stream of lies has otherwise intelligent people actually claiming that they "remember" that Reagan was popular (!), when no such thing ever happened:

The 1991 book "The Illusion of a Conservative Reagan Revolution," by Larry Schwab, had a chapter called "The Illusion of President Reagan's High Popularity," (chapter 3), which contained Gallup polls--back when Gallup was still a scientific polling organization, and not a corporate/Republican front, as it is now--tracking public opinion on Presidents over many decades. Part of it is this:

Results of the First Gallup Poll Rating in Each Administration from Eisenhower to Reagan:
Eisenhower__78%
Kennedy____72%
Johnson____78%
Nixon______59%
Ford_______71%
Carter______66%
Reagan_____51%

Yearly Average of Presidential Popularity Ratings, 1953-88
President 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year 6th Year 7th Year 8th Year
Eisenhower___70______65______71_____73______65_____55_____63______61
Kennedy_____76______72______63
Johnson_____74______66______51_____44______42
Nixon_______61______57______50_____56______42_____26
Ford________54______43______48
Carter_______62______45______37_____41
Reagan______57______44______44_____56_____61_____62______48______51

There has not been a popular Republican President since Eisenhower, who was a moderate, sometimes liberal, non-partisan. The danger of the unending propaganda flow, is when you start believing that you yourself thought of the opinion--"Reagan is popular," etc.--and don't even know anymore, that there was no such thing, and that it was planted in your mind.

Other FCC rules that no longer exist, are that music radio stations had to have five minutes of news, on the hour, so that people will be at least moderately informed--that is gone. There are no more "opposing viewpoint" editorial opinions on local news, which you yourself could get on, to answer an editorial that the station had previously made--gone. Now, even news itself is not news: no investigations of corporations themselves, ever, no background, no straight news that skips the slant and smirk; I even sat through--yesterday and today--hour after hour of TV "news" coverage, by every single "local" station, on the opening of a new store! It is fucking unbelievable!

With no rules on access or balance, the Republican/media/corporate lobbyist conspiracy is able to coordinate their slander campaigns as never before, to deadly effect. Their Republican Ney and the Democrat Jefferson are indicted at the same time, yet there is wall-to-wall coverage of the Democrat, and total censorship of the Republican, the one the leads to the entire Republican-lobbyist structure of criminality that, if exposed, would bring them all down--but it won't be exposed, and therefore, the death of the FCC rules of balance and access have actually allowed criminal conspiracies to flourish, and they can't be stopped.

There are many comments from many people over the centuries on how, if we don't have a free press with good news coverage, the people cannot be informed and there eventually is no democracy; that we are all slaves, shut out of the process. This is where we are now: polls showing that almost 90% of people want the minimum wage raised--yet it never happens; corporations don't want it. Polls showing over 90% of all people want rich people and corporations heavily taxed, want universal health care, want good jobs protected, want pensions--yet it never happens; corporations don't want it. The more complete and total control these corporations--with their anti-Amercian vested interests--get over every facet of our system, right down to what you are able to think and remember, or what you believe exists, the more completely everything is doomed--and don't wait for the liar with the sales pitch to help you then, either....

[rman]

21. bill to reinstate it vetoed by Reagan

FAIR
January/February 2005
The Fairness Doctrine
How we lost it, and why we need it back
By Steve Rendall
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

<snip>

A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer(8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.” Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

<more>