Is it time to bring back The Fairness Doctrine?

[pkz]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.

[onenote]

1. whether it is or isn't doesn't matter. It won't happen

There isn't enough support for it Congress. And all of the new FCC Commissioners are on record as being opposed to reinstating it. And its constitutionality would be tenuous today.

[Dinger]

2. Well Isn't That Special

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

3. Obama already nixed that idea

Most progressives want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and to reverse media concentration trend.

[pkz]

4. There is some support

Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.

Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” <20> an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
”

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

“ I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.<24> ”

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.

“ I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.<25> ”

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:

“ I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else — I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. ”

When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:

“ I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep.

A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back." <27>

Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:

“ Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows. ”

Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio.

[pkz]

6. I understand that some may think it would look bad NOW

but personally, I think a good offense is just as good as defense.

Liars should be called out publicly for what they are.

[doc03]

11. I remember years ago nobody was permitted own

more than a few stations. Companies like NBC, CBS, ABC and Westinghouse only owned a handful of stations, the others were just affiliates. Now you have companies like Clear Channel or Faux that can determine who we listen to or watch. If a right wing nut case like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin wants a show they automatically have hundreds channels that will carry them. It makes it practically impossible for a Progressive host to survive in that environment. Look at what has happened to Air America.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Look at how MSNBC got rid of Phil Donahue

despite his high ratings. General Electric supported the war in Iraq, so people like Donahue were problematic for their questioning the validity of the "facts" being used by the Bush regime to justify going to war.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Yes. A cross-country drive reveals the fact that broad swaths....

...of the land are an ideological RW radio monoploly. There's a spot in SW Ohio ... near the Indiana line... where one can hear three different versions of Rush Limbaugh's show at the same time.... and ONLY that on the AM dial.

The air waves belong to the people. Government's legit function in this case is to see that the our air waves are not *sold*.

[pkz]

7. I live in our governors' hometown

Limpballs is completely blocked...lol...coincidence? maybe.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. OK... WVA. Must be the mountains. Believe me.....

... he is EVERYWHERE.

[CrispyQ]

10. Yes.

Lou Dobbs & Glen Beck get 2-3 hours on radio & another hour on tv! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[nightrain]

8. it's well past time to bring it back.

[oxymoron]

12. Absolutely it's time. It's long past due.

It's time to play hardball with these fuckers.

[OHdem10]

14. The Democrats are in Power. The Party in power gets first dibbs.

No matter what the rules, our congresspeople do not do TV.

I have heard many explanations. Most of these excuses are
lame IMO.

My point is even with Fairness Doctrinem no Democrats on TV.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. K&R - Single Most Important Thing We Can Do, IMHO n/t

[zbdent]

16. how about just applying the standards that the Repugs demanded of Dan Rather?

that you can't run on iffy information? Like "fake" documents? It never was proven that what Dan Rather had was fake ... it's BEEN PROVEN that Obama's a natural-born citizen of the United States, but that doesn't stop the after-"Birthers" from getting in the media ...

[mkultra]

17. no thanks, i like the free press

No matter how stupid they are.

[Balbus]

18. It's not about the free press...

It's about not letting people say what they want, or letting people listen to what they want to listen to, or letting a business dictate the way they want to run their business.

Get with it! It's about we don't want people to be listening to any opinion that we find wrong.

[mkultra]

25. Sure seems like its about cntrolling what opinions people hear

Sounds like fascism to me. The last thing i want is some "patriot" telling me what i can or cant listen to.

[depakid]

29. Yep balanced debate is facism

Having a far right monopoly on the airwaves in communities all across America is a "free" press.

:crazy:

[mkultra]

32. The constitution doesnt garuntee us the right to a balanced debate

But it does for a free press. If you want balanced debate, turn the channel.

[depakid]

35. Obviously, you don't know the first thing about the constitution or broadcast law

and regulation.

[mkultra]

36. and clealry you do.

I know that simple government ownership of the frequencies and current rulings that allow the FCC to regulate vulgarity do NOT apply to opinion and commentary.


Near v. Minnesota (1931) - made it unconstitutional to shut down a newspaper, magazine, or periodical simply because it started publishing something scandalous, defamatory, or malicious. The chief purpose of the free press guaranty is to prevent prior restraints on publication, and the only recognized limitations are with wartime secrets, obscenity, incitement to riot, and calling for violent overthrow of the U.S. To extend those limits to scandal or charges of malfeasance in office is but one step away from a system of censorship.

So essentially, the supreme court has already ruled on the constitutionality of media censorship.

This is what i know. What have you got big mouth? Don't bring anymore of your bullshit unless your bring references.

[depakid]

38. You're citing the Near case?

:rofl:

The Fairness Doctrine(s) have nothing to do with prior restraint- although that's what the right (and apparently, some smarmy Dems) want you to believe.

Here are the provisions that were upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court (there are others which flow from adjuducations)

"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.

"(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, on other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or persons associated with the candidates in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including commentary or analysis contained in the foregoing programs, but the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall be applicable to editorials of the licensee).

"NOTE: The fairness doctrine is applicable to situations coming within <(3)>, above, and, in a specific factual situation, may be applicable in the general area of political broadcasts <(2)>, above. See, section 315 (a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 315 (a); Public Notice: Applicability of the Fairness Doctrine in the Handling of Controversial Issues of Public Importance. 29 F. R. 10415. The categories listed in <(3)> are the same as those specified in section 315 (a) of the Act.

"(c) Where a licensee, in an editorial, (i) endorses or (ii) opposes a legally qualified candidate or candidates, the licensee shall, within 24 hours after the editorial, transmit to respectively (i) the other qualified candidate or candidates for the same office or (ii) the candidate opposed in the editorial (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for a candidate or a spokesman of the candidate to respond over the <395 U.S. 367, 375> licensee's facilities: Provided, however, That where such editorials are broadcast within 72 hours prior to the day of the election, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph sufficiently far in advance of the broadcast to enable the candidate or candidates to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion." 47 CFR 73.123, 73.300, 73.598, 73.679

Key points of law:

No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech."

There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.

Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public.

Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed.

There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=367

[mkultra]

42. There is sanctuary

Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 <1959>) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:

“ A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio 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.<1> ”

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.


The expansion of the public airway is what lead the FCC to drop the fairness doctorine and declare that it was then in violation of the free speech clause.

[depakid]

46. That's convoluted thinking-

Up is down type stuff, since the obvious state of affairs since the repeal is that there is MORE restraint of speech (single payer is a topical example) and much less coverage of controversial issues of public importance

Indeed, According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03).

And those that do offer one side of the issue- and let hosts or guests look you right in the eyes and lie to you with impunity.

Not a prescription for a successful Democracy- as is clear to see.

[mkultra]

47. let me be concise then

It is plain to see that the court has never overruled fairness doctrine and has actually ruled for it in the past based on other circumstances.. There is no evidence whatsoever that the fairness doctrine, while it was in effect, improved the debate of important issues. The FCC dropped the doctrine because it knew it had become unconstitutional. If it where enacted today, it would be found in violation of the free speech clause.

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case:
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC
Although the court ruled that it did not violate first amendment rights, the court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered.

Five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate:
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo

In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate:
FCC v. League of Women Voters
This is the that set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987 to drop enforcement.

Simply put, It has not been ruled unconstitutional, but the court will clearly rule it so if it is passed and challenged.
Again, in my mind, this has nothing to do with the imbalanced state of afairs in media today. That issue is better handled by breaking up media ownership groups. It is about freedom of speech, which i support before i support fairness in the media.

[depakid]

49. What more evidence do you need than the appalling state of affairs?

Mark Fowler, former lawyer for broadcasters0 and Reagan's corrupt head of the FCC had been after the Fairness Doctrine for years- and actually failed to enforce it before he managed over the strenuous objections of Congress to overturn it. I know exactly how it went down. Makes me wonder whether you work for broadcasters, too.

The scarcity rationale still exists (turn on your radio driving across the country- or check out broadcast TV- but that doesn't matter- because there are other rationals behind the public interest requirements and the goals of the 1st Amendment.

Bottom line of course is that your country's been in decline and will remain unable to solve its problems as long as you have a corporate propaganda machine dictating the terms of the debate and lying about the issues.

Apparently, that's OK with you because you've got this twisted notion that "free speech" equals private censorship and the ability lie with impunity on the public airwaves- which btw: I've disproven several times on this thread.

In this sense, you deserve exactly what you get- though I do feel sorry for other Americans, who's lives will continue to be affected unless and until your media is de-consolidated re-regulated.

[mkultra]

64. yes, free speech does actually mean the right to lie with impunity

on the public airwaves. When it comes to political commentary, its this exact kind of speech that should and is preserved by our constitution. When one subjective party starts to decide what is "truth" is when we become shackled.

Ill take the private corporate lie machinery over the governmental lie machinery any day of the week.

You keep your government controlled media. Thanks but not thanks. Decentralize but keep it free.

[Oregone]

19. I like responsible press

But, hey, to each their own. Your Fox News free press that is inciting revolutionary activity and trying to breed domestic terrorism/assassinations makes me puke.

[mkultra]

24. yup, welcome to america, where freedom of speech is a right

Its advanced citizenship here. try to get adjusted.

[Oregone]

57. And half the block is bankrupt or meth heads

The manifestation of such freedom ain't always panning out so well. But congrats for the jingoism.

[Oregone]

20. Oh, BTW, the press is currently not free and completely censored

Journalists are censored by private media ownership. The fairness doctrine actually protects against media censorship by ensuring both sides of the story are given time (albeit not equal time).

[mkultra]

23. Yes, thats correct, private media ownership controls whats said

Which is whats best. Otherwise, when the political pendulum swings in their direction, they will bludgeon us with this tool.
If we want to force decentralization of media ownership, then i say go for it. But having the government dictate whats said on the news will always find its way into troubled waters.

[depakid]

30. The government doesn't "dictate" what's said on the news

it simply provides a mechanism to correct the record.

[mkultra]

33. the same mechanism is easily used to spread further lies

There is no way a system or mechanism can be create to moderate opinion. The government has no business in our religions or our media. Its as stupid as letting the military police the populace.

[depakid]

34. Please- spare us the right wing talking points

The fairness doctrine worked fine for 50 years.

Once it was gone you ended up with a culture of unabated dishonesty, personal attacks and private censorship of the public airwaves.

Best statement describing the dysfunctional corporate media after the demise of the fairness doctrine is the one below.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town , he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[mkultra]

37. there is no argument tha the radio is dominated by looneys but that doesnt really matter

They have a right to be that stupid. The FCC dropped the fairness doctorine because it felt that the number of transport venues for media had grown enough so that the rule was begining to restrain the press.

The FCC also suggested that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
“ The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.




Like i said before. Welcome to America. Here, everyone has rights. try to get adjusted.

[depakid]

39. You're making the same argument Mark Fowler did

which was based on erroneous findings. It was a corrupt and politically based decision (as were many in the Reagan administration) and as subsequent events have clearly shown- was a disaster for the goals behind the First Amendment and broadcast regulation.

More than that- it's probably the biggest single action that's caused the decline of the United States toward third world status.

[mkultra]

43. ad hominem attack

With a bit of erroneous wide spectrum assertion thrown in for demagoguery.


Fairness doctrine would no longer pass constitutional muster and, frankly, should never be invited into a free society as it does not seek to regulate anything that could cause actual material harm to the public interest. Anything that does is already regulated.

[depakid]

45. No- it's the EXACT same right wing argument- it had no merit at the time

(although it passed the "scintilla" of evidence test, due to the deference courts show administrative agency decisions.

And you're absolutely incorrect- the FCC could reinstate the fairness doctrine by making some very simple findings of fact about the sorry state of affairs in the American media, and following the APA.

And the fact is that you have almost NO DIVERSITY of opinion in communities all across the country and a broadcast culture of lies and personal attacks that's unhealthy for democracy and has led to an appalling level of corruption.

That's what happens when you sell the public airwaves to the highest bidder with no concern for honesty or the public interest.

[mkultra]

48. Public radio provides a balance of opinion

And it is available in almost EVERY community.

[depakid]

50. Hardly!

Who do think runs public radio? And what do you think that they discuss? That's right- the same corporate "news" and spin as the commercial stations.

[mkultra]

65. what do you mean who "runs" public radio?

public radio is non profit government funded radio. It is not corporate funded.

[Oregone]

58. Covering both sides of the story (preventing corporate censorship) will easily spread lies?

Riiiiight

[Orsino]

67. The rich old men who run our government also dictate what's said on the news.

They do a fine job of self-censorship.

[Oregone]

55. Yeah, its super good that truthy news is that which yields the highest profits for the owners

Who, well, are probably also invested in such fields as the military industrial complex and pharmaceutical companies. Real fucking sweet policy there bud.

[camera obscura]

21. +1

[LiberalFighter]

22. What we need is the Truth Doctrine where they could not intentionally lie on the air.

[Homer Wells]

26. YES!!!! nt

[billyoc]

27. Technology has rendered it moot. It wouldn't apply to cable channels.

[Vidar]

28. Way past time. Also time to regulate cable.

[depakid]

31. Agreed

[onenote]

53. why not go whole hog and call for regulation of newspapers?

Cable is a subscription service, just like newspapers. Why draw the line at cable?

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. The problem is not the Fairness Toctrine, it's the Telecommunications act of 1996

The corporate consolidation of the media is what gave us Clear Channel radio and FAUX Noize. It's what allowed AOL to buy Time Warner which had already bought CNN, which ruined that network. It's what allowed Bill Gates to launch a news network in partnership with NBC - though at least the MSNBC evening lineup has redeemed itself in recent years with Keith, Rachel, Ed Schultz, and sometimes Tweety, depending on which personality shows up on any given day.

Re-regulation and breaking up some of these corporate media giants is what's needed. Or restoring the original rules as to what a corporation is, and what it can do. (i.e. a manufacturing company and defense contractor such as General Electric shouldn't be in the media business in the first place)

[depakid]

41. Consolidation is a major problem, too

I would also restore limits on advertising- and make the license renewal process meaningful with respect to public interest obligations again- as opposed to the rubber stamp that Reagan made it into.

[onenote]

52. noting in the telcom act of 96 had anything to do with the aol/tw deal

The telcom act did a lot of things, some good, many bad, but nothing in that act had a thing to do with the AOL/TW deal, which was a total fiasco and has been all but undone.

Facts matter.

[Vidar]

60. You're definitely right on this one.

[BrklynLiberal]

44. It sure wouldn't hurt!!!!

[yowzayowzayowza]

51. Sorry, not innerested in legislating an army of liberal stooges, ala Alan Colmes.

Ya know they'll hamstring any 'alternate' views imposed on 'em. Then we'd be in court arguing about the imbalance of arguers. No thanks. Prefer all to jus show their real colors including Rachel.

[defendandprotect]

54. Of course . . !!! Otherwise you are creating a pathway for r-w propaganda and brown shirts--!!!

[Zavulon]

56. Fuck, no.

Even the appearance of silencing people is bad. Besides, Repug idiots ranting and showing their true colors is good news for us, not bad. Anyone dumb enough to buy their lines isn't going to vote for us because of some supposedly "fair" legislation. The damage the Repugs could do spinning this is a lot worse than anything they're doing now.

[depakid]

59. I guess some people like being lied to repeatedly day in and day out

and having no mechanism available to correct the record or for people to respond to personal attacks. For those folks, the dishonest and dysfunctional American media is precisely what they deserve.

[pkz]

61. at best it may shut down the talking points

the same rhetoric coming from so many and more than half do not even know what they are talking about.

[chrisa]

62. There's not a liberal / progressive / Democrat market on talk radio.

Forcing programs would just be money holes because nobody would listen to them.

[Sebastian Doyle]

66. That's an illusion.

Because corporate owned right wing radio chains dominate the market, it's difficult (or in some areas, impossible) for liberal talk radio to get a foot in the door. There are exceptions though. KPOJ in Portland was one of the first Liberal talk stations in the country, despite being a Clear Channel affiliate. They beat the right wing stations in the ratings, and the station makes money. But that's Portland. Would Fear Channel take the same chance in a less Liberal market.

Look at KPHX in Phoenix. That station's now in its third resurrection. Obviously, Phoenix isn't exactly a Liberal paradise, yet every time they try to kill progressive radio there, popular demand brings it back.

If the national corporate radio chains did not exist, and all stations were locally owned, with decisions made by owners who lived in the community, I think you would see a lot more liberal talk stations, even if the owners motivations were purely financial (as it is with KPOJ)

[cliffordu]

63. Absolutely.