FCC chair: Fairness Doctrine not needed

[babylonsister]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_ot/fairness_doctrine

FCC chair: Fairness Doctrine not needed

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Thu Jul 26, 10:43 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine imposing a requirement of balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

Martin, in a letter written this week to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and made public Thursday, said the agency found no compelling reason to revisit its 1987 decision that enforcing the federal rule was not in the public interest.

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

Pence and other Republicans in both the House and Senate countered by introducing legislation to bar the FCC from reinstating the rule.

Under the doctrine, first instituted in the late 1940s, broadcasters could lose their licenses if they failed to give free airtime to opposing sides on controversial issues.

Martin, in his letter, said government regulation was not needed to ensure public access to a wide range of opinion. "Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened even further since 1987," he wrote.

Pence, in a joint statement with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., welcomed Martin's position but said Congress should still pass his legislation so that no future administration or FCC chairman could revive the doctrine without an act of Congress.

___

[Jackpine Radical]

1. FCC Chair Not Needed, Jackpine Says (nt)

[racaulk]

2. Well of course, what else would they say?

Because the Fairness Doctrine would force them to be, well you know, "fair and balanced." :eyes:

And I always welcome the opportunity to post a link to this video on the matter:

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=3102542

:rofl:

[ChazII]

3. Sorry for the dumb question but

does that mean Air America will now have repugs on their stations? I go to Air America get away from the lies. :(

[Progressive_In_NC]

4. They way I understand it...

Yep, if somebody complains. The evening news would no longer be able to say things like "a failure for this administration" either (even if it's true). They'd have to tone it down a bit. NPR would be challenged too, and somebody would attack Keith O's show as well.

[ChazII]

7. I haven't researched all this but

if what you are saying is accurate, then l think it should not be brought back.

[Progressive_In_NC]

9. I didn't say the challenges would be successful

I can just see it happening. I don't think the corporate media would take it lying down.

[electprogdems]

5. The repukes are certainly afraid of the next election.

Pence, in a joint statement with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.said Congress should still pass his legislation so that no future administration or FCC chairman could revive the doctrine without an act of Congress

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. GPV to FCC chair: Bite me! (there really needs to be a smiley for this)

[0rganism]

8. think twice before advocating government-enforced "balance"

Ownership regulation? Hell yes, and we need a lot more of it. It's actually possible to show objectively whether someone controls too much media. Crack down on the big media conglomerates, and remind them what antitrust enforcement looks like.

Fairness doctrine? Much harder to pin down. Think about what it would look like when twice as many consider the network and cable news programs to have "liberal bias" as think it has "conservative bias". What would an FCC like the current one institute as a "fairness doctrine"? An hour of Fox News on any channel that shows any other newscast?

We can fight consolidation and make a positive difference in news coverage as a result. If we shoot for a new "fairness doctrine" we're setting ourselves up for some serious shit down the road.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. I'm so shocked!

NOT!

Things are going to change so much once the Dems get in power, the repukes are going to rue the day they started all this shit.

[Solon]

11. A lot of folks seem to have a misconception as to what the fairness doctrine was, and who...

would be affected by it. First things first, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. wouldn't have to change a damned thing, why? Because they are NOT broadcast stations, they are cable and satellite stations. The fairness doctrine ONLY applies to stations that share the PUBLIC airwaves, i.e. radio frequencies around your town. This includes radio and local television stations, generally, in most areas, Channels 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 30 and maybe a few others, depending on the locality.

As far as WHAT the fairness doctrine does, its actually quite simple, if you show a demonstrable right wing bias, then you must counterbalance it with some left wing programming or opinion as well. Generally, for most broadcast stations, this would mean that if one program, like Nightline, shows one side of an issue, then they have to show the other side, and give them equal time. This can be done in numerous ways, for example, take an issue, abortion, as an example, and dedicate one nights programming on Nightline to the Pro-Life side, and the next night's to the Pro-Choice side. Its either that, or they can be even handed and just present the facts, and any opinions are given equal time for opposing sides, a half hour of the program for one side, half hour for the other, etc.

This same type of standard would apply to radio as well. As far as my opinion, so far I haven't interjected with an opinion yet, so this post is fairness doctrine approved, even though it wouldn't apply to the Internet either.