Return of the fairness doctrine

[oly884]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx

Thoughts?

[Seanz0rz]

oh, thats a tough one!

personally, i agree that tv and radio should balance their time, unless they are proclaimed for one candidate or the other. the web, on the other hand, i think should be left alone. as an international entity, i think it transcends the scope of the govt. for me, as a student in an university, ive learned and been taught that the web is never a reliable resource, except when it is sited back to actual printed text.

i just think that with all the government control on everything else, the web should be the one free place. also, in many cases tv and print are the only sources of information for many people, so i think they should be "fair and balanced" as possible (with any writing there is always going to be some bias, its inherent in reporting.)

[oly884]

oh, thats a tough one!

personally, i agree that tv and radio should balance their time, unless they are proclaimed for one candidate or the other. the web, on the other hand, i think should be left alone. as an international entity, i think it transcends the scope of the govt. for me, as a student in an university, ive learned and been taught that the web is never a reliable resource, except when it is sited back to actual printed text.

i just think that with all the government control on everything else, the web should be the one free place. also, in many cases tv and print are the only sources of information for many people, so i think they should be "fair and balanced" as possible (with any writing there is always going to be some bias, its inherent in reporting.)




The government has no business controlling what news corporations should or should not say. That should be left up to the free market. If a news corporation voices a particular political opinion over another cough*newyorktimes*cough then they carry they will be the ones responsible for any lost business. Why do you think more democrats watch CNN, MSNBC, et al. and more republicans watch Fox News? Those companies CHOOSE to have a lean one way and they forfeit a certain amount of business over it.

Letting the government control what these companies say or should not say is an outright violation of the first, and most important, right of ANY free person.

[Erich_870]

The government has no business controlling what news corporations should or should not say. That should be left up to the free market. If a news corporation voices a particular political opinion over another cough*newyorktimes*cough then they carry they will be the ones responsible for any lost business. Why do you think more democrats watch CNN, MSNBC, et al. and more republicans watch Fox News? Those companies CHOOSE to have a lean one way and they forfeit a certain amount of business over it.

Letting the government control what these companies say or should not say is an outright violation of the first, and most important, right of ANY free person.


AMEN!

Air America can't stay afloat without constant bailouts. It's the free market's place to weed out failed ventures. You shouldn't pass laws to make someone else pay for it.

Erich

[fustercluck]

I think it's ironic. This euphemistically titled legislation does exactly the opposite of what it proclaims. This is another trespass on the constitution. We have accepted other more mild transgressions from govt. and are now conditioned to surrender freedom nay, some voluntarily advocate it with some distorted understanding of the nature of govts.

We focus on the title and not the result of legislation. That's why they euphemize it every time.

[edit] Supreme Court 1969 decision
"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.[5]
The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered. Without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court also concluded in a subsequent case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."

[fustercluck]

The legislation to restore the fairness doctrine is officially titled " The Media Ownership Act". Interesting. I suppose that by default the media should all be owned by Govt.? Which other govt. types own the media? What are their records relative to individual liberty and other freedoms we consider to be human rights?

[corax]

I don't think the gov't should get involved in the media at all unless there are "egregious abuses of the public trust" - which, in itself, would be a definition to debate over. There's already enough "hushing" done with the media and gov't reporting. I guess a logical part of the dumbing down of America is that we're no longer supposed to have a strong opinion, we need to be convinced both sides of any argument have weight - otherwise it might incite action, which profits the gov't nothing.

Having the gov't mandate "equal time" or "weight" is a joke, and internet regulation, I think, would be near impossible - would Oly have to make opposing view points to his available, or would it only apply to a site/thread/blog with x number of views? Didn't they try to pull the non-profit status of NPR a year or so ago based on such an argument - that there was a specific lean that needed to be eliminated because it runs counter to the definition of non-profit status?



I think it's ironic. This euphemistically titled legislation does exactly the opposite of what it proclaims. This is another trespass on the constitution. We have accepted other more mild transgressions from govt. and are now conditioned to surrender freedom nay, some voluntarily advocate it with some distorted understanding of the nature of govts.

We focus on the title and not the result of legislation. That's why they euphemize it every time.


[cough] Patriot Act [cough]

[fustercluck]

Tell me Corax what your perspective of the patriot act is. Presumably it is a euphemism. How would you describe it and why?

[Bob98SR5]

I don't think the gov't should get involved in the media at all unless there are "egregious abuses of the public trust" - which, in itself, would be a definition to debate over. There's already enough "hushing" done with the media and gov't reporting. I guess a logical part of the dumbing down of America is that we're no longer supposed to have a strong opinion, we need to be convinced both sides of any argument have weight - otherwise it might incite action, which profits the gov't nothing.

Having the gov't mandate "equal time" or "weight" is a joke, and internet regulation, I think, would be near impossible - would Oly have to make opposing view points to his available, or would it only apply to a site/thread/blog with x number of views? Didn't they try to pull the non-profit status of NPR a year or so ago based on such an argument - that there was a specific lean that needed to be eliminated because it runs counter to the definition of non-profit status?



I think it's ironic. This euphemistically titled legislation does exactly the opposite of what it proclaims. This is another trespass on the constitution. We have accepted other more mild transgressions from govt. and are now conditioned to surrender freedom nay, some voluntarily advocate it with some distorted understanding of the nature of govts.

We focus on the title and not the result of legislation. That's why they euphemize it every time.


[cough] Patriot Act [cough]


agreed that media outlets are free to choose how they present news. money dictates whether a business stays in business, and the news business is not unlike any other. how did cnn capture a greater market share from fox? turn lou dobson into a virulent anti-illegal immigration show host.

by the way, the fairness doctrine in and of itself was a democratic effort to insert itself quite forcefully into talk radio, a staunchly pro-republican media channel. most notably, hillary clinton spearheaded this effort as she and her husband bill clinton were constant subject to talk radio's effective criticism and attacks. however, little was said how the fairness doctrine applied to mainstream tv media and newspapers.

all political bullshit, all the time :)

[corax]

Tell me Corax what your perspective of the patriot act is. Presumably it is a euphemism. How would you describe it and why?


The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" is a deceptive euphemism. I think the name comes from Bush's "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude early on. "If you don't accept and agree to this you are not a patriot and must be Anti-American" I see it as a tool that, while it could be valuable and put to great use, in the hands of the typical human has too great a potential for abuse and weakening civil liberites in pusuit of the illusion of security. That said, I don't completely disagree with the entire thing. Interdepartmental co-operation and the sharing of information is one part I agree with. Background checks for Hazmat licensing, US Victims of Crime Fund amendments and some anti money laundering provisions get my thumbs up as well.

The NSA wiretapping abuses and the extent with which National Security Letters were handed out is well documented. I don't buy the whole "if you have nothing to hide" argument for it. Previously, illegally intercepted communication could not be used in a court of law (though there were other ways to admit "illegal" evidence). They ruined that one themselves like I thought they would by over-use.

Indefinate detention based solely on suspicion. Unauthorized property searches. Operation TIPS. Infringement upon freedom of association, even if there is no intent to participate in illegal activities. Extraordinary rendition . . .

I particularly don't like the expansion to include "Domestic Terrorism" in the act which has too broad a definition and has been construed to include economic disruption - as a former employee at a national activist organization my wife was/is on an NSA watchlist along with other employees even though the organization only promotes non-violent protest. Greenpeace and WTO protesters were also named domestic terrorists.

So no, I don't agree with it completely

[fustercluck]

Whom would you say is responsible for that legislation?

[corax]

I thought it was drafted by the Dept of Justice, though I'm not sure of any one person who could lay claim to it. I do know both parties just about fell over themselves passing it through the House and the Senate, with a few dissenters of course.

[oly884]

Off of Drudge:

FLASH: RASMUSSEN Poll release at Noon Eastern:

47% Favor Fairness Doctrine for Radio, TV...

31% Want Government Requirement for Bloggers to Abide by Guidelines...

Don't know about anyone else, but that worries me a bit. Makes me wonder how many people realize what it is...

[oly884]

And for those of you who are wondering what it says, exactly:

Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA)

The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.
Media Ownership Reform Act
(Please note that Hinchey will be introducing an updated version of MORA in the coming weeks.)
Bill Summary
I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting

Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.

MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations

Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.

There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.

* MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households.
* The legislation would re-establish a national radio ownership cap to keep a single company from owning more than five percent of our nation's total number of AM and FM stations.
* The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.
* Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from aving conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.
* Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.

III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation

MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.

IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process

MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.

V. Requires Reports for Public Interest

MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.

Infringe on free speech much, who gets to say what is OK and not OK? Oh, that's right people appointed by the president, who clearly would be non-partisan...


This bill is the one of the most f'ed up things I've seen in a while.

[oly884]

And see what the commies have to say:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/31/13334/3833

[oly884]

And the Rasmussen report:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_ radio_tv

[fustercluck]

I thought it was drafted by the Dept of Justice, though I'm not sure of any one person who could lay claim to it. I do know both parties just about fell over themselves passing it through the House and the Senate, with a few dissenters of course.


True. Most politically conflicted types like to rest the weight of the patriot act squarely on the shoulders of the republicans and specifically the Bush admin. The hope, I'm certain, is to let it pull the admin under to drown.

The fact is as you've demonstrated. This is law passed by a profound majority of both houses and the executive. Those who dissented are only in good standing because the Iraq conflict went largely unjustified where WMDs are concerned.

I believe that if we were being hit like 9/11 every six months, the patriot act would be not only fortified, but demanded by every thinking individual in the nation where self preservation is primary. Everything is relative. It could be that the patriot act is only euphemistic because of it's success and that of other facets of the overt conflict with terrorists. Peace at home has a lullaby effect.

[fustercluck]

Maybe we could have China's fairness doctrine....

[corax]

True. Most politically conflicted types like to rest the weight of the patriot act squarely on the shoulders of the republicans and specifically the Bush admin. The hope, I'm certain, is to let it pull the admin under to drown.

I think the Bush admin. did that well enough themselves. He was unpopular when he took office, and for the most part appears to have all the mental and political maturity of a frat boy.



The fact is as you've demonstrated. This is law passed by a profound majority of both houses and the executive. Those who dissented are only in good standing because the Iraq conflict went largely unjustified where WMDs are concerned.

not sure how the Patriot Act had anything to do with a pre-emptive military strike on a country with no confirmed weapons that could reach us nor any involvement in 9/11.



I believe that if we were being hit like 9/11 every six months, the patriot act would be not only fortified, but demanded by every thinking individual in the nation where self preservation is primary. Everything is relative. It could be that the patriot act is only euphemistic because of it's success and that of other facets of the overt conflict with terrorists. Peace at home has a lullaby effect.


I don't think we're in nearly as much peril as the media and gov't would like us to believe. So long as we live in fear of the unknown threat the gov't can move nearly unhindered in just about any way it pleases. I think it's been proven that if we are attacked on our own soil, we are very likely to stomp on any group or country (unless of course it's Saudi Arabia) who might have been even partially involved in such an attack. Such full scale military reactions are the deterent.

"If it is committed in the name of god or country, there is no crime so heinous that the public will not forgive it."

[Bob98SR5]

I don't think we're in nearly as much peril as the media and gov't would like us to believe. So long as we live in fear of the unknown threat the gov't can move nearly unhindered in just about any way it pleases. I think it's been proven that if we are attacked on our own soil, we are very likely to stomp on any group or country (unless of course it's Saudi Arabia) who might have been even partially involved in such an attack. Such full scale military reactions are the deterent.

I would say that the media is no friend of the current administration and to lump them with the bush administration is not a good pairing. and i would furhter disagree that the govt can move nearly unhindered. we have govt and quasi-govt, non profits, aclu's, etc as a check/balance, regardless of what party is in charge.

also, the assertion that it is proven that if we are attacked...it has been said by bin laden that he considered us a paper tiger after moghadishu, hence he became emboldened to plot and plan. moghadishu, i believe, became one of the green lights for bin laden to continue training jihadists to bring down america and other western nations.

it will be curious to see if obama wins and a democratic majority in the house and senate will dismantle the patriot act and what that will mean to jihadists. will they see this as a green light as they saw moghadishu? will it mean more attacks on our own soil, despite the enactment of the PA, there have been no attacks on our soil? i hope not, but in my humblest of humble opinion, the terrorists want a weak appeasing US leader who does not see terrorism as a true threat to us and will dismantle things like the PA to appease his constituents.

[Small_words]

The great thing about freedom, whether it be of expression or commerce, is inherent in the name. A person is free to choose what is best for them, whether that is listening to NPR or Fox, reading the Wall St Journal or NY Times, or if I want to invest in foreign stocks or domestic T-bills. I hate the idea of the Fairness Doctrine because it will limit what privately owned organizations can do with their investors money. The trust in the individual or group of individuals to make decisions that are in their best interest is a central tenet of being American. I know our forefathers thought they were smarter than the average bear and they were, but they were also individualists and made the country a loose federation of states because they figured each state can take care of itself. I cannot understand anyone who would blithely stand by and let other people make decisions for them, especially Congress. I believe the only thing that can get more poeple to take responsibility is to get more people outdoors. Nature is the most honest encounter because it presents everyone equal problems and rewards. If you fail to pack a lunch, you get hungry. If you fail to bring a jacket you may die. If you plan ahead, you will be warm and fed and see the most beautiful things imaginable. The same attitude of preparation and responsibility that the wilderness fosters is what too many people seem ready to abandon while playing X-box and watching Survivor.

[fustercluck]

My opinion is that the politically charged talk radio cat is out of the bag. They may choke it off of the public air, but it will resurface with even more ferosity in another form; maybe satellite r downloadable subscription. There is too much money to be made and too much power at stake. I know for a fact that those whom the Left wishes to suppress will use the doctrine to strangle the mainsteam media with oppositon traffic and create a disincentive to participate in that.

The only long term gain will be had by news print (maybe), satellite, internet (or black market web casting and blogging). Again, you'll never put that cat back in the bag.