We Don't Need the Fairness Doctrine

[Syrinx]

We only need to break up the huge media conglomerates and bring back local voices.

:hippie:

[FreakinDJ]

1. Bullshit - Democracy is at stake here

There is no way the Bush administration could have pulled off the Iraq invasion, Torture – the official policy of the USA, and deregulating Wall St and Banking to the point of sinking the World Economy had it not been for the complicity of the Corporate Media

[Syrinx]

4. Yes, it is.

Think about it. We don't need judges or clerks deciding who gets on tv or radio.

We just need a lot more tv and radio stations.

Break up Clear Channel, Citadel, etc.!

That's the direction I think PO is headed.

[depakid]

2. We need both (and more than that)

Essentially, the FCC has to go back and review almost all of the media obligations that applied for some 50 years prior to Reagan & his predecessors' irrational deregulatory frenzy- including the Faorness Doctrine and equal time provisions (which if enacted and implemented properly, could do as much- if not more for fair elections as campaign finance reform)

"Free" market solutions have proven ineffective time and again- and won't work to solve the problems by themselves this go round either.

[baldguy]

14. Allthe probems we have with our media grow from media conglomeration.

[RC]

3. We need the fairness doctrine reinstated.

Getting rid if it was needed for the neo-con's coup.

[Syrinx]

6. we must bust media monopolies

I don't want the government dictating radio schedules. I do want the government busting media monopolies.

[depakid]

8. Government has to dictate certain things- or they won't be done

Certain amounts of public affairs programming for example- or limits to commercial time (getting hours of "paid" programming off of the air are two examples.

Ensuring that there's balance AND that people who are attacked have the airtime to respond- and spokesppersons for issues that have been LIED ABOUT or misrepresented have the are provided the opportunity for airtime.

And that stations keep logs that can be used at the time of license renewal (that actually have teeth) -and also so that interested parties can complain to the FCC about failures to meet these public interest standards.

The "free" market by itself isn't going to reform the broadcast media any more than it will the financial sector.

[Syrinx]

11. I agree with everything you say

I just think busting up monopolies is about the best thing we could do right now.

[depakid]

13. Yep- divestiture is a start

and it wouldn't be difficult to gather the evidence for administrative rule making, since all none of the promises of deregulation have been met- and worse, public safety has been put at risk:

....here in North Dakota, where there are about 80 commercial stations, Clear Channel owns 23 of them. And through a quirk in the rules governing radio concentration, it owns all six commercial stations in Minot, the state's fourth-largest city, with a population nearing 37,000. (There is a public radio station, and a Christian station in the city as well.)

As the Federal Communications Commissions reconsiders media ownership rules for television and newspapers, many are examining the effects of the radio industry's consolidation, speeded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Opponents may try to drive the debate over media consolidation to the edges. Minot is one of those edges.

Clear Channel's stronghold in Minot has become a political lightning rod. In January 2002, a train derailment at 1 a.m. spilled a vast white cloud of suffocating anhydrous ammonia fertilizer over Minot. One person died.

The police were unable to reach anyone by phone at the local radio station, KCJB, that is the designated emergency broadcaster. Station employees had to be roused from their homes, causing a big delay.

The police said that because Clear Channel was piping in a satellite feed from elsewhere, human presence at the station was dispensable -- an assertion that Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, repeated in hearings on media consolidation. Clear Channel said that someone was always on duty during the night, but busy phone lines and technological misunderstandings resulted in the emergency failure.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EED61539F932A05750C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[RC]

16. You do not understand.

Elimination of the Fairness Doctrine is what gave the media conglomerates the power to control the airwaves. No counter points allowed.
Yes, break up the big media monopolies, by all means. But without the Fairness Doctrine in place, not much will change.

[KharmaTrain]

5. VERY WELL SAID...

And something I've been trying to say around this place for years. Bravo :applause:

The first step is to call for the long mandated "revisit" to Telcom '96...it was supposed to have been done in 2002 and wasn't. Just like banking needs to be re-regulated to save itself, so is the case with radio. Large corporations that have destroyed the medium must be limited to the number of stations they control, shorten license renewal periods and make public challenges possible and give preference to local ownership in granting and renewing licenses. Enough is enough.

We've seen what the netroots did with the internet...there's no reason it can't also happen to radio and television as well...just the focus and the opportunity.

Cheers...

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Iirc, the original justification

for the Fairness Doctrine was, in that the airwaves were public and free, there was an obligation to be even-handed. Eliminating analog eliminated the justification.

[Syrinx]

9. you can still get the signal over the air

I'm not sure if it's worth getting though. You have to get a new antenna and stuff.

[Egalitariat]

10. It will be good for us to get Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, et al off the radio

The Fairness Doctrine is the best way for us to do it. We control government now; it's time to use that control to advance our causes.

[423aaron]

12. Er.... That's a little spooky.

[Optical.Catalyst]

15. We don't need to get them off of the air. We just need to level the playing field

Right wing talk radio developed a monopoly position and is exploiting that position to benefit a narrow political view. This is not the type of Political Free Speech we are guaranteed by the First Amendment.

By simply having the right wingers like Limbaugh and Hannity back off of their 24/7 grip on the airwaves, the entire country will benefit from a balanced discussion.

We don't need to 'Hush Rush', we only need to get Rush to take a break so someone else can talk.

Besides, we need a few of them around to show the world what idiots they are.

[RC]

17. Thank you - You get it.

[mmonk]

18. We need news, real news people can rely on. We don't need propaganda

designed to back up any lies of government. We don't need entities like Fox News to be able to say their shows are news without a disclaimer that they are opinion.

[423aaron]

20. All news stories are colored by the reporter.

Be you Right or Left. It is damn near impossible to report on a story completely clean. Your view on the topic will in someway taint the story.

Wasn't it that cynical old bastard Twain that said something along the lines of " all news stories are absolutely true except for those that you have first hand knowledge of."?

The 1st amendment guarantees each of us the right to say most anything we like politically. It does not however guarantee us an audience.

I signed my name on the line. I was willing to die to defend our right to this and other freedoms. Even when I feel the given opinion is complete BS.

Aaron

[onenote]

19. the fairness doctrine in practice wasn't what some here think it was

The FD in practice,when it was in effect, did very little. Indeed, one can argue that it mostly served to discourage stations from presenting coverage of controversial issues.

For those that view it as a panacea, I'd be interested in hearing how they think it would work today. For example, let's say limbaugh or hannity offer up a rant against Kirsten Gillibrand's selection as NY Senator, focusing on her opposition to the war or her newly stated support of same sex marriage. Who gets time to present the "other side"? And what is the other side? Is it someone who likes Gillibrand because of her posiition on the war? Someone who likes her because of her position on same sex marriage? Someone who doesn't like her position on same sex marriage because she only came to it lately? Someone who likes or doesn't like her because of her position on other issues? How many responsive points of view get on the air and when does the daisy chain of responding to someone who responds to someone end? And who decides who gets to give the response?

Open for discussion

[Jack Sprat]

21. Yes, we need the Fairness Doctrine.

Some of us need it worse than others.