Bringing Back the Fairness Doctrine

[Smarmie Doofus]

>>>The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]>>>>>


"... to air contrasting views"

"... to air contrasting views"

"... to air contrasting views"

Can it be done? That it *should* be done is a given. But what exactly would it take?

Interesting reply to an earlier thread puts this in mind: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=77711

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I would suggest no one answer before reading this...

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-fairness-doctrine/

Most people will learn a few things.

(Note-- it's not whether we should but how can we)

[KoKo]

3. Recommend!

[Nye Bevan]

2. Made sense when there were only a few TV channels,

and few other sources of news and commentary.

But totally outdated and unneeded in today's world, when we have hundreds of cable channels including news channels like Al Jazeera America, as well as the internet.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. So.... it's ok for NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX to parrot gov't disinfo. re.....

WMDs/NSA/Drones/ etc. etc. w/o providing balance ( i.e. the truth) because the truth can be found somewhere on the internet or on an obscure cable channel?

And radio is still radio; is it not? Limited band-width and limited opportunities for licensure. No? What's to prevent NPR, for example, from taking money from Gates Foundation, for instance (which it does, BTW) and then providing a completely skewed, consistently misleading view of national ed issues ( which it also does, btw) which just happens to support Gates Foundation's analysis, understanding and "goals" re. ed "reform" in the USA?

"Don't seem quite right." Maybe FD is not as outdated as you think.

[Nye Bevan]

6. You can post the truth yourself here on DU.

Or start a blog. Post what you think the truth is and most of the world can access it immediately.

You couldn't do that in 1973.

[Blanks]

7. The difference is exposure.

If I type something here, it might be persuasive to both of the people who read it.

That hardly balances the millions of people who watched Hannity's stupid ass this week.

The opinions of the networks need to be balanced. If someone disagrees with me here, they can immediately balance it. Not true of the broadcast media. Something needs to be done.

[Nye Bevan]

8. So, your problem is that many more people choose to watch Hannity than (say) Rachel Maddow.

And your solution is to pass a law to make the Hannity show "fairer" by forcing it to include stuff to "balance it out".

And I guess your new law would also force Rachel Maddow to put right-wing stuff in her show?

Do I have this right?

[Blanks]

13. No. I don't have a problem. I disagree with you.

It isn't 'fair' because the little tiny influence that a blog may have doesn't balance the huge influence that the network news has.

An obvious bias should be balanced by an equal and opposite bias. You are probably correct in your assertion that just restoring the old law wouldn't work that well because of the changes in media since the original law.

However, since outright lying has been established as protected under the first amendment - we should be provided with a method of countering false information that is passed through mass media.

I don't have any potential legislation just sitting around the house or anything, but we need something to prevent people from being 'educated' into believing things that simply aren't true. There is a whole string of right-wing 'historical facts' that are not based on any kind of reality. They believe that the education system has a liberal bias so they can make that statement (liberal bias) and just make up whatever crap they want and call it history.

...but yeah, if we have an opposing view for Hannity, then there should be an opposing view for Maddow. I would think that honest journalists would want that balance. I don't know that it would be fair to require a network to provide air time to an opposing view, but if they were required to post a link on their web page to opposing views so that a viewer could look it up and get both sides, that would be fair.

[dotymed]

12. Honestly,

You cannot see the huge difference between the large corporate disinformation machines and the way under-funded independent
networks who try to inform you of the truth that these corporate networks will not inform you of?

Or posting on the internet?

REALLY? That PROVES the need for THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

[Enthusiast]

9. We need it more than ever.

We can't even get Al Jazeera America.

[Scuba]

10. That assertion is patently ridiculous.

[KoKo]

4. 'FCC Looks the Other Way as a New Wave of Consolidation Devours Local TV Stations

(This Stuff never stops. I had so hoped that Obama would Strengthen the FCC...but, it seems that's not to be. I think he must feel it's better for the Internet to Take Media to the People...rather than the AIRWAVES we've paid for OVER AND OVER...and and shrink with actions like this. This is why we need to bring back the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE so that EQUAL TIME could defeat the Power of Media Corporate Conglomerates that the Supreme Courts Decision gave them when it allowed unlimited Campaign Spending. Bringing back Fairness Doctrine would at leas be an Offset to that power!)



FCC Looks the Other Way as a New Wave of Consolidation Devours Local TV Stations
Free Press report reveals how Sinclair, Gannett and Tribune use shell companies to dodge FCC rules PRESS RELEASE:
October 22, 2013

WASHINGTON -- On Monday, Free Press released Cease to Resist: How the FCC’s Failure to Enforce Its Policies Created a New Wave of Media Consolidation. The report investigates how companies are using shady tactics to buy up TV stations and build new national media empires.

“TV consolidation is out of control, and communities are paying the price,” said Free Press Research Director and report author S. Derek Turner. “Companies are swallowing up stations at an alarming rate, often through deals that violate the law. If the FCC doesn’t start enforcing its rules, the damage to local competition and viewpoint diversity will be overwhelming and irreversible.”


The report comes as Sinclair Broadcast Group spearheads one of the largest waves of TV consolidation in history. The report also looks at tactics used by Gannett, Media General, Nexstar and Tribune.

Among the report’s key findings:

In the first eight months of 2013, 211 full-power TV stations changed hands, the highest level in more than a decade, and the fourth-highest year on record in terms of deal value. The latest surge of consolidation is unique from prior waves in that it’s taking place in small and medium-sized markets and involves companies that are not household names.

Sinclair Broadcast Group is leading the current wave of consolidation. In the past two years alone, Sinclair has closed or announced deals that will increase its holdings from 58 to 161 stations nationwide. These deals will more than double the number of markets Sinclair serves from 35 to 78, covering nearly 39 percent of the U.S. population.


The report also details how media companies are using shell companies to evade the Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rules, making inefficient use of the scarce public airwaves and depriving communities of diverse viewpoints and in-depth news coverage. Sinclair controls or will control 46 stations nominally owned by a third party, with 40 of these stations’ licenses held by shell companies Sinclair created for the express purpose of evading the FCC’s ownership rules.

While Sinclair started this wave of consolidation, several other companies have come along for the ride. Firms like Gannett, Media General, Nexstar and Tribune have collectively gobbled up billions in TV assets over the past year and are taking a cue from Sinclair’s playbook, using covert-consolidation arrangements like Shared Services Agreements to skirt the ownership rules.

“We’ve seen the effects of this so-called covert consolidation on local news already,” Turner said. “Stations in the same market air the same content, often with the same on-air personalities and production teams. You can literally change the channel and find the same exact news.”

In researching the shell companies held by Sinclair and the other companies that use these covert-consolidation tactics, Free Press found that in almost every instance, the only asset the shell company owns is the license, while the parent company controls the physical assets. For example, Sinclair is often the sole financier of its shell companies’ debt, and it reaps nearly all of the profits the shell companies’ stations bring in.

Perhaps the most damning evidence indicating the true nature of these covert arrangements is the fact that under Securities and Exchange Commission rules, these shell companies and their parent corporations are considered one and the same. When Sinclair communicates with investors, it makes no effort to hide the fact that it’s the true owner of these shell companies and their stations, repeatedly referring to them as “our sidecar companies” and “our stations.” In its SEC filings, Nexstar specifically lists among its assets all of the licenses held by its shell company, Mission Broadcasting.

“What’s good enough for Wall Street should be good enough for Main Street,” Turner said. “The FCC should recognize that these shell companies and the outsourcing agreements that govern them are merely a legal fiction created by companies like Sinclair, Gannett, Tribune and Nexstar to evade the ownership rules.”

The report also details recommendations to the FCC and incoming Chairman Tom Wheeler. Turner calls on Wheeler to deny the latest transaction deals, which Free Press and other groups have challenged, and to close the numerous loopholes in its ownership rules. The report also describes how the FCC can modernize its ownership rules to better reflect the capabilities of digital broadcasting. These changes would maximize efficient use of the public airwaves and promote greater competition and diversity in the local TV market.

“If Tom Wheeler wants to be an honest regulator, he should end the dishonest practice of covert consolidation,” Turner said. “By closing these loopholes, Mr. Wheeler and the FCC can give truly independent owners a chance to compete fairly to better serve their communities.”
PRESS RELEASE:
To read Cease to Resist: How the FCC’s Failure to Enforce Its Rules Created a New Wave of Media Consolidation, go to: http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/Cease_to_Resist_Oct._2013.pdf.

http://www.freepress.net/press-release/105089/fcc-looks-other-way-new-wave-consolidation-devours-local-tv-stations

[dotymed]

11. Yes, now I remember the 2011 RW push

to completely remove THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE language.

Our great "President for change", President Obama, "gave in" again, to the corporatists.
This totally fucked the hope that we could revive this Democratic protection.
Thanks Obama.
Sometimes I forget that Reagan is one of your greatest heroes. A Manchurian president could not have screwed us worse.

If we push hard enough (probably to a different president, we can still get this Democratic LAW (Bork....POS) put back on the books.

[Recursion]

14. I don't know... it has good and bad sides

The earlier one was something of a sledgehammer.