Should the fairness doctrine be reinstated?

[begin_within]

Seems like a lot of right-wing radio commentators are pretty scared by the possibility.

[marybourg]

1. Other --

At the beginning of the next Repug President's term.

[Writer]

2. No, because it's completely inapplicable to today's media environment.

The Fairness Doctrine was never constitutionally tested. Even still, it only referred to broadcast stations that were fully under the jurisdiction of the FCC. Cable stations and the Internet need not apply.

Why we keep foolishly wasting our energy on believing this will be the news media cure-all is beyond me.

PS: In order to make it "reflect the new media landscape" you'd have to break the First Amendment.

[cynatnite]

3. I agree...

I don't think it's feasible and probably never will be.

[Luminous Animal]

7. The internet is already open to practically anyone who wants

to express a view.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I don't really think you understand what the Fairness Doctrine was. It did not mean that the likes of Rush, et. al., was required to host alternative views, it meant that the station licensees had to make bandwidth available to an array of views and that reflect the demographics of their coverage. Also, because the airwaves are publicly held, licensees were considered to be operating a public trust with which they were responsible for offering conflicting points of views on important issues.

And yes, the Fairness Doctrine was constitutionally tested... see Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC.

[Writer]

11. I am a doctoral student studying mass communication.

My Master's thesis has an entire section detailing the fall of the Fairness Doctrine.

I understand it quite well... and Red Lion only codified the portion referring to responses to personal attacks - not to the entire rule.

I think the problem is that not enough people understand their media system, and this is causing a lot of unrealistic expectations and faulty movements.

[certainot]

16. and the biggest soapbox in the country is distorting the whole

issue with coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition of lies and distortions, as it has been all other major issues since reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine 20 years ago.

[Cetacea]

18. Exactly. Huge advantage for the Right. n/t

[depakid]

27. The Red Lion rationales applied broadly to the entire panoply of fairness doctrine(s)

As you probably know, there isn't one Fairness Doctrine per se -but a series of FCC rules and ajuducations based on common themes- some, but not all of which have been written up as appeals cases in various jurisidictions.

The fall of the fairness doctrine was indeed a disgusting scene- and the final nail in the administrative coffin that Mark Folwer designed for it was rendered by none other than Scalia and Robert Bork.

:mad:

That said, there's no reason whatsoever that the FCC can't put it (along with other regulations Fowler got rid of) -back into force simply by gathering the appropriate evidence (which there's PLENTY) and following the provisions of the APA.

[depakid]

28. Without question, It's necessary for broadcast radio

and a damn good case can be made for TV as well.

Furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever that jurisdiction can't be extended to monopoly or oligopolies like cable TV and satellite, through revisions to the Cable Act of 1984.

As to the reason why people are interested- and why it is NECESSARY to our democracy can be summarized right here:

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. 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).

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), 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

[FreakinDJ]

4. Only if you want Democray in America

[4 t 4]

5. * overturned it-right ?

in that case bring it back yesterday.

[FreakinDJ]

6. If they overturn it you'll never see Jeb Bush in the WhiteHouse

the "Trillogy of Terrible Presidents" would not be complete

[backscatter712]

9. No, Reagan overturned it. But the Fairness Doctrine had problems, and needs changes.

I'm not sure it's possible to bring it back without serious changes.

The biggest problem with the Fairness Doctrine was that it was hard to enforce. Also, while the FCC can regulate the radio/TV broadcast spectrum, they can't really apply the same rules to cable TV channels, or to newspapers, or to the Internet - I'm not sure I could comply with an Internet Fairness Doctrine - my blog is flagrantly left wing, and I make no apologies or attempts to hide that. Demanding I put some right-wing stuff on my personal blog to bring "balance" is silly.

I personally think a more effective tactic would be to bring back stricter ownership restrictions on media companies. Make News Corp, Clear Channel, GE, and the other big media conglomerates sell most of their TV stations, radio stations, cable channels, newspapers and web sites - and NOT to each other! We shouldn't have 90+% of the media outlets in this country controlled by a half-dozen big corporations run by rich right-wing douchenozzles like Rupert Murdoch. We should have dozens, maybe even hundreds of small media companies competing on a level playing field.

Do you think Clear Channel could afford to take down an Air America station and replace it with an all-Limbaugh-all-the-time station with a fraction of the ratings if they could only control one or two stations in a metropolitan area? Do you think that the market could support so many right-wing blowhards like Rush or Hannity if individual radio stations were more constrained by ownership limits and had to actually make money on all their radio stations rather than being loss-leaders for companies that want propaganda to get right-wingers elected so they can get more no-bid defense contracts?

On top of that, we should be focusing on implementing net-neutrality legislation, and keep the Internet free. Today, literally anyone can spend $10 a month, plus a $50 setup fee, and can set up his or her own web site. If Comcast has its way, they'd have us paying $2000/mo on top of the fee to the web-hosting service, just to allow the web site to reach Comcast customers. Really, we need to avoid this:

[certainot]

20. but would the planet be crispy by the time demonopolization made

it through the courts? we need something NOW- it enables the obstruction and we don't have time to keep 1000 stations blasting GOP propaganda 24/7/365.

good points but much of the opposition to net neutrality will be generated on talk radio by enabling GOP reps working for those companies.

we need something ASAP for the talk radio monopoly- we wouldn't be in this mess without it. it effects all other issues and slows all progress.

[backscatter712]

23. Gotta start sometime.

Besides, ownership caps are something that's been in the FCC rules for decades, and have withstood court scrutiny.

For that matter, if FCC-specific ownership caps don't work for some reason, there's always anti-trust laws - go Sherman on their asses.

I do think that a low-level Fairness Doctrine can be brought back specifically for radio and broadcast TV - those use public airwaves and can be regulated - something on the order of "You can't just broadcast all Rush, all the time - you have to mix in a little bit of the other side for balance."

That will be much harder to implement for cable channels, newspapers and Internet outlets - those do not use public airwaves, and you run into First Amendment issues if you try to implement the Fairness doctrine there. On the bright side, there is more bandwidth in those channels - we're not using a scarce resource like radio frequencies - there can be as many newspapers, as many cable TV channels and as many web sites as the market can support. In those cases, I'd say ownership caps are a better idea - prevent monopolies. And for the Internet in particular, which IMHO will be far more important than AM radio, we need to make sure big business can't bowdlerize is, which is why we need to push for Net Neutrality legislation, and maybe push for telco regulation - force cable companies and phone companies to make their cable Internet and DSL/VDSL/FioS networks available to third-party ISPs so customers have more than two choices for Internet service. Make sure wireless broadband is also similarly protected, so there are far more choices in wireless broadband ISPs.

I think the Internet saved our butts - millions of people got their news from the web, and were able to get unbowdlerized news and commentary they would not be able to get from corporate-controlled radio, newspapers or TV. Those people were better informed, were able to see through the Bushie propaganda, and as a result, we now have President Obama and a Democratic Congress. It is vital that the Internet be protected as a free and open community.

[certainot]

17. you're right, democracy and bipartisanship are impossible

as long as the GOP has a near total monopoly of the AM air waves.

[aikoaiko]

8. No it was a bizarre violation of the 1st amendment.

I have no idea how the goverment could claim the airwaves any more than air.

[begin_within]

10. Well, someone has to decide who gets to use what frequencies,

and that decision should be done by the public interest, not by some private interest.

[aikoaiko]

35. Sure regulating use is fine, but I'm not ok with regulating content.

[Luminous Animal]

13. The government didn't "claim the airwaves".

The airwaves belong to the public. The government regulated the airwaves on our behalf.

[aikoaiko]

36. Yes, my choice of words was poor, but I don't like the idea of regulating content

Managing the use of airwaves is fine, regulating content is not.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Interstate Commerce

In the early days the government avoided trying to regulate the airwaves...and it became a confused mess. Radio signals do not recognize borders and in its early days without government intervention it would have not only greatly hampered the development of radio but television and other wireless communications as well.

The "own" the airwaves in "our name"...just like they claim other natural resources. Just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[aikoaiko]

37. regulating use for organization is fine with me, but regulating content is not.

[KharmaTrain]

40. No Argument There...

I'm a strong advocate to revisit Telcom '96...return station ownership to local hands and making it more accountable to the communities they're licensed to. I worked in the media when it was more locally oriented and saw how it was a valuable source of information as well as a very creative and fun medium as well.

That said...I have long been against any type of censorship on the airwaves...even if the content is offensive. You can't hide these things and by demonizing them you only make them more attractive. The way to change radio is from within...from restoring it to a decentralized nature and open the doors to diversity in programming and ideas.

Cheers...

[stillcool]

12. Bust up the monopolies..

and allow for independent news sources to compete.

[baldguy]

21. This is more important.

Competition will allow different viewpoints to be aired.

[backscatter712]

24. YES!!! Break up the media oligopoly!

Six, yes six corporations control 90+% of the radio, TV and newspaper outlets in the United States: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG and General Electric.

Media consolidation has gone way too far. These companies need to be forced to sell most of their media outlets.

If we have 50-100 media companies competing in a market regulated so the sharks don't eat everyone else in the tank, we won't see so much right-wing propaganda, and we'll see actual real journalism make a comeback.

[mikehiggins]

14. Absolutely

Anything the Rushs and Hannitys hate is great by me.

Anything broadcast over the public airwaves should be subject to equal time and fairness. The net, being effectively private, is another story. At least now it is not dominated by rich and the Reich. If that changes maybe the doctrine would have to be expanded.

And no one should own more than one media outlet in any media market.

And, and, and...

I can dream can't I?

[begin_within]

19. I'll buy that.

They would have to delineate what types of programs would be subject to the fairness doctrine and which ones would be exempt.

[certainot]

22. just mandating the blowhards had to take real calls from real

callers instead of call screeners making sure limbaugh and hannity always got butt kissing worshippers would make a huge difference. they wouldn't last long.

or requiring them to post daily searchable transcripts- their sponsors and station staff would freak out from complaints.

[travelingtypist]

25. Other --

McChesney's media reform crusade has some good, modern ideas.

[yowzayowzayowza]

26. No, but we do need some sorta "Actual News" label/logo/jingle...

broadcasts/publications could utilize to alert information consumers that the truth is being told at pain of serious criminal & civil penalty. Feaux Nooz MUST NOT be able to lie with impunity as they've plead in court.

The Fairness Doctrine is just too slippery a slope.

[depakid]

29. The fairness doctrine provided a mechanism that did almost EXACTLY what you ask for

If some broadcast host lied about an issue of public concern, stations were required to provide airtime for responsible spokespersons to set the record straight with opposing views.

Pretty simple really- and effective (as numerous studies showed).

[yowzayowzayowza]

31. 'Balancing' LimpLimb outa prominence dudn't seem like...

the way to deal with 'em. I'm more concerned that information consumers knows when they're gettin alleged facts and by extension when they may or may not.

[depakid]

32. Here's how it worked

Limbaugh (or any other propagandist) makes a dishonest claim- and a responsible group would be entitled to present accurate information on the issue.

It was a pretty mundane thing.

The announcement went something like this:

And now, for an opposing view from a responsible spokesperson (such and such from _______).

This was followed by airtime- usually about 30 seconds- though sometimes longer.

Logs were kept on programming and compliance- and they were presented at license renewal time (in the 80's license renewal had some teeth- there actually WAS a chance a station could lose its license and probably WOULD HAVE for abhorant behavior that's become routine today).

You could also complain to the FCC if your spokeperson was denied rebuttal time- or if you weren't allowed to respond to a personal attack.

[yowzayowzayowza]

34. Oh, I'm plenty old enuf to remember how it werked!!!

Unfortunately. I jus don't like the balancing act it requires on opinion pieces as tiz always gunna be subjective. If Feaux wantz to intersperse only r/w opinion pieces with their content labeled as factual, I don't really care. :shrug:

[FLAprogressive]

30. While I would like to see it reinstated -- I fear that it would only embolden the RWers more. nt

[Festivito]

33. Should certainly apply whenever a medium is non-enterable.

If a radio dial is full, if one cannot broadcast under full power, if there is no other competition for retention of information, and, ... the list goes on.

Then there needs to be a fairness, lest we the people lose our free speech.

[Clarence Birdseye]

38. Why, in the name of all that is holy, would you want to give the government the power to

determine what is "fair"?

And as you answer that, explain how it is a good idea to give that sort of power to a republican president (and there will be another one, eventually).

And explain why a regulated (important consideration) outlet would even bother airing political discussions?

And explain how it would affect those outlets that are left leaning ... do we have a government representative in the newsroom?

Jesus Christ, what a really lousey idea.

[ThomWV]

39. I don't know to be honest but it seems to me that it promotes 2 parties too much

The fairness doctrine, it seems to me, sort of limits the discussion to only those Parties that the Government recognizes, meaning that only 2, and occasionally 3, voices to be heard. So the legitimacy of law is added to those opnions but not to others. I would suggest that on many matters there are more than two sides, or even three much of the time.

[progressoid]

41. Yep or four sides or five sides or even no sides!

There is this assumption that opposing view would be a liberal Democratic view. AND that all liberal Democrats have the same opposing view.