Bring on the BROADCAST FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:
I have no dog in this fight anymore, but I want my binky back. I want the Broadcasters, who are using the peoples radio and TV spectrum, to provied fair and equal access to that spectrum if they are going to politicise it.
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/9/20123/9148] maybe you want to keep the status quo
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/10/1014/6144], It's truly up to the American people, and I think it needs debate in the Print media. The BROADCASTERS are not looking to have their political clout lessened again. By the way for you free speech proponents, I am one. I find it rather strange that there is NO opposition voice on the Media. (actually it is not strange at all.)
A binding fairness doctrine provides a wall of protection for a broadcaster who actually seeks to play fair in the political arena.

I so do agree!!

Good post, Ed!!

Ed, two friendly barks. Good post. Right on target. THE DOG

That post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is already a Fairness Doctrine. It was established by the FRC, then later the FCC.


http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

It was challenged in the Supreme Court with Red Lion vs FCC in the 60's. The SC ruled in favor of the FCC and deemed the Fairness Doctrine constitutional.

quote:

That post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is already a Fairness Doctrine. It was established by the FRC, then later the FCC.

Did you read the link you posted?


"By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
That post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is already a Fairness Doctrine. It was established by the FRC, then later the FCC.


http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

It was challenged in the Supreme Court with Red Lion vs FCC in the 60's. The SC ruled in favor of the FCC and deemed the Fairness Doctrine constitutional.

AH, Have you not noted that those FCC rules have been changed by our friends from the right?

In the 80's, there was an attempt to pass it as a federal law instead of just an FCC regulation. Regan vetoed it because he felt it would be giving the government too much power. Bush did the same and I agree. The Fairness Doctrine wasn't changed by those on the right. It still exists, but is pretty much ignored by the FCC as well as broadcasters.

quote:

It still exists, but is pretty much ignored by the FCC as well as broadcasters.

What are you not understanding here?

quote:

1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

quote:

The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
That post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is already a Fairness Doctrine. It was established by the FRC, then later the FCC.


http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

It was challenged in the Supreme Court with Red Lion vs FCC in the 60's. The SC ruled in favor of the FCC and deemed the Fairness Doctrine constitutional.

NashBama,

Note the increased respect indicated by the Capitalizations.
The article you posted is an accurate history of the Fairness Doctrine. That is the history of a doctrine that maintained a balance in broadcast material that was vital to FULL debate on political issues.
What it, and you, and the owners of the corporate media are NOT saying is that in the absence of such a doctrine, opposing viewpoints are minimized.
Consider if you will, this particular debate. As of this moment, 84 people have viewed this subject, 8 replies have been posted, by 6 individuals. Had the same debate been brought up on the lowest rated radio talk show in Alabama, the numbers would be higher by multiples of hundreds regarding observers, and by whatever number time permitted regarding responses.
The reality is, this debate is not public, it is limited by the nature of the forum. It is a debate among us. No others are exposed to it, and no change will result unless it "escapes" the bonds of the limitation. It is limited ot this forum, and unless the Editors of the sponsoring newspaper take notice, and do some reportage, as you have done, and seek some opinions from authorities on the law and regulation of broadcasting, and publish the results, this debate will never go beyond these posts. In other words, the chances of this issue getting a general airing in public is pretty small.
Under the now defunct "Fairness Doctrine" had this debate been brought to a talk show, on an over the air broadcast station, the right of response, with equal time, would have extended to every citizen. Opposing views would have been aired, regardless of who held the views. If the owner of the station said that the Fairness Doctrine should be restored, ANY individual with an opposing view would have access to that owner's radio frequency for an amount of time equal to the time the owner had used to promote restoration of the Doctrine.
For example, if Rush Limbaugh spent 32 seconds saying that the issue of Equal Pay for Equal Work was a stupid and dangerous plan to weaken the American Economy, EVERY PARTICIPANT in the American Economy would have the right to 32 seconds of air time, on every station Limbaugh made the statement on. The risk would be that station owners would be required to permit people who opposed his political positions to use "his" facilities to access "the people's" airwaves. The result would have been a DEBATE, NOT A DIATRIBE. I think that would be excellent radio, entertaining, and enlightening, and it would force fairness and balance. It was in fact how the talk show system worked before 1987. Guess what, it worked, talk show hosts were challenged by their listeners, and the only excuse for cutting someone off was the time constraint, repetition of a previously presented arguement or obscenity violations. Of course you have to be over about 40 to remember the talk shows of 20 plus years ago. They did generate controversy, serious, wide ranging and topical controversy. You do have to be at least 50, assuming you were listening to Talk Shows at age 30.
FOX news would genuinely be "Fair and Balanced. Presenting an opinion during a news show got demand responses for equal time to respond. No one got away with raw propganda, if a city tried to ban smoking in restaurants, or allow package sales on Sunday, the mere report of the proposal meant that people had access to the air for responses. It was good for the society, and it was not anarchy. If a businessman was quoted as saying that he should be allowed to sell beer by the glass on Sunday in a sports bar. Someone, and ONE person could ask to be allowed to present an opposing view, and would be granted the same amount of time to present that view. More importantly, if a television or radio station allowed George Bush and John Kerry to present their political agendas in a broadcast debate, Ralph Nader, and other QUALIFIED presidential candidates would be on the same platform to present their agendas.

quote:

Originally posted by Mott The Hoople:
The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

Let me make one little correction, vestiges of the Fairness Doctrine remain in the regulations. Equal Access to Paid or Free Time for Political Candidate Ads. Equal Access to Political Action Groups on the same standard. But, the regulation does not apply to any other controversial postion presented on a broadcast station. ALSO. The fairness doctrine never applied to any media reaching the consumer by any method other than over the air on a frequency in the Commercial Broadcast spectrum.
It NEVER applied to Cable Television. It looked like it did, because Cable Companies carried over the air broadcast stations. But HBO never was under the Fairness Doctrine, anymore than your telephone was. Newspapers have never been under the Fairness Doctrine either.

Ok, here goes. I will risk being accused of plagerism.
Dear Friend,

When George W. Bush addresses the American people tomorrow night on the future of Iraq, the media will be faced with an important choice:

In the critical post-speech coverage, the media can turn to conservative talking heads who parrot White House talking points for analysis, just as they have done for years, or they can recognize the changes in Washington demanded by the American people and provide progressives equal time to respond to Bush's remarks.

Use the links on the right to contact the major networks and make sure they offer progressives equal time to analyze Bush's speech!

In September, the networks broadcast Bush's prime-time speech -- in which he repeated his campaign rhetoric about Iraq -- without offering Democratic rebuttal. ABC and CBS didn't even report the Democrats' request for equal time.

If we are to ensure that the president's speech receives the full consideration and response it deserves by serious news outlets, we need you to act now.

Please contact the major cable and network newsrooms (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and CNN-HLN) and tell them you demand that their post-speech coverage include the opportunity for a full and equal response by prominent progressive leaders.

Let them know that having three conservatives and one journalist on a panel to discuss the president's Iraq policy just won't cut it anymore.

Use the links on the right to contact the major networks and make sure they offer progressives equal time to analyze Bush's speech!

This November, the overwhelming cry for change sent shockwaves through the corridors of power in Washington. Now, we expect those same cries to be heard on our airwaves as well.

Only by working together and demanding change can we make certain that the era of one-party rule over the nation's news airwaves comes to an end.

Sincerely,

David Brock

I hope you people who look to the trivial for your assessment of facts recognize this as ME, sharing a letter from David Brock with you.

Brock founded the organization Media Matters for America.
He has a lot to say here, and on his website, do a google, for "media matters for america." And, for those of you who have already decided that I am a flaming gay, liberal, atheist with horns, check out David Brock's bio by googling (you guessed already) David Brock.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EdEKit:

My slip up is showing, here are the links, I have no idea if they will work, I copied and pasted them.
Progressives Deserve a Voice in Coverage of Tomorrow Night's Bush Speech on Iraq

Please contact the major cable & network newsrooms by clicking the links below. Tell them you demand that their post-speech coverage include the voices of prominent progressive leaders.

ABC
ABC News

CBS
E-mail: E-mail form

NBC
NBC News

CNN
CNN

Fox News Channel
FOX News Channel

MSNBC
viewerservices@msnbc.com

CNN Headline News
CNN Headline News

quote:

Let me make one little correction, vestiges of the Fairness Doctrine Equal Access to Paid or Free Time for Political Candidateremain in the regulations. Ads. Equal Access to Political Action Groups on the same standard.

That has nothing to do with "the fairness doctrine".

"Political File. Stations must keep a file containing records of all requests for broadcast time made by or for a candidate for public office. The file must identify how the station responded to such requests and (if the request was granted) the charges made, a schedule of the time purchased, the times the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. The file must also reflect any free time provided to a candidate. The station must keep the political records for two years after the spot airs. You can find the political broadcasting rules elsewhere in this manual."


The above is from the FCC site.

quote:

Ok, here goes. I will risk being accused of plagerism.

Quotation marks?

Mott,

You are right on the specifics. The Fairness Doctrine is GONE. But its going was not permitted to be total. Thus, requirements for equal access for paid political advertising.

This idea of being fair is like every other ideology of the liberal thinkers. The majority of newspapers and television stations minus FOX news are so far to the left they make Ted Kenney look conservative. There wouldn't have to be a fairness doctrine if liberal radio hosts could offer some significant issues for debate other than Bush stole the election and that he lied to us. The advertisers decide who's on the radio with their money. This is capitalism at its best. The fairness doctrine represents the socialist mentality of the left. What a joke.

quote:

You are right on the specifics.

Correct

quote:

The Fairness Doctrine is GONE.

Correct

quote:

But its going was not permitted to be total.

Wrong

quote:

Thus, requirements for equal access for paid political advertising.

The equal access for political ads is part of the Communications act of 1934 (enacted 1937).

Equal access was in place before, during and after the "fairness doctrine".

The fairness doctrine wasn't put in place until 1949...Equal access was already in place.


"The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy."


Complete article