FCC Chair: Fairness Doctrine Not Needed

[seriousstan]

Source: BREITBART


FCC Chair: Fairness Doctrine Not Needed

Jul 26 10:43 AM US/Eastern
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Federal Communications Commission has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine imposing a requirement of balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.
Martin, in a letter written this week to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and made public Thursday, said the agency found no compelling reason to revisit its 1987 decision that enforcing the federal rule was not in the public interest.

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

---cut---

Martin, in his letter, said government regulation was not needed to ensure public access to a wide range of opinion. "Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened even further since 1987," he wrote.

Pence, in a joint statement with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., welcomed Martin's position but said Congress should still pass his legislation so that no future administration or FCC chairman could revive the doctrine without an act of Congress.




Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QKB7000&show_article=1

[Demeter]

1. Certainly Not in "1984"

Sheesh!

[ananda]

2. not in whose interest?

The only interest served by having no FiM policy is that
of Bushinc and the corporate state.

[MADem]

3. Well, the FCC is packed with GOP shills right now.

Even the Democrats there are fucking rollovers.

Congress needs to change that rule, but realistically, it won't happen under this administration, and then, ya gotta hope the idealism won't fade once the corporate pigs start sucking up to our team. If they do change the ruling, they need to cast it in concrete, and put a ten year moratorium on any changes to the doctrine once they reestablish it. That way, it won't be an ON-OFF switch that the GOP turns off every time they take power.

[rurallib]

7. May I speak up for commisioners Copps and Adelstein?

They are not "fucking rollovers".
Commisioners Michael Copps and Johnathan Adelstein have been true heroes in trying to stop the current situation fro happening. Both were instrumental in drumming up the massive opposition to then chair Michael Powell's attempt "relax" ownership rules.
Copps and Adelstein have fought for more open media, against the end of net neutrality consistently. They are in a situation where they only have two votes and cannot legally stop the steamroller. I have heard both Copps and Adelstein deliver blistering incredibly cogent arguments against the insane policies that W is pushing only to watch the policy adopted by a vote of 3 to 2.
These guys are to me heroes and are truly among those who deserve our full support.

[MADem]

12. They've done much, much better since Powell left, I will grant you that.

But they kept their heads down while he went on his Brass Plated Jackson Titty Morality-over-the-Airwaves rampage, and his "Fines-a-Plenty" misadventures. If they'd stood up and screamed "A tit is not a threat to Democracy, but censorship of half the country's views is!" it might have gotten the guy gone sooner, or pushed the "critical view" of Bush we're finally seeing now to the fore.

They didn't gripe enough about that bullshit. IMO. They're doing it now, and I'm glad.

Adelstein knows how to work a news cycle--he used to work for Daschle, and Reid, and a few others when he was up on the Hill, IIRC. That knowledge might have been put to better use when all that crap was going on. My opinion--and mine alone. YMMV and likely does.

[eagler]

24. The media certainly has gotten more conservative since Powell left

Now Glenn Beck is on CNN and there is absolutely no competition over the airwaves over huge portions of this nation. There is absolutely no reason that competition should be stifled like that.

[IndianaGreen]

21. It was Bill Clinton who appointed the fascist Michael Powell as FCC Chair

Colin's son did quite a bit of harm when he ran the FCC, just as Bill Clintoon did when he supported getting the "public" out of public airwaves.

There are bipartisan fingerprints in our sad situation with media concentration and no Fairness Doctrine.

[eagler]

22. No it wasn't. . Bush made him chairman. Clinton appointed him

to the commission in 1997

[cyclezealot]

4. I suggest we contact Rep. Walden

and give him a piece of our mind.

[Bitwit1234]

5. Well he won't be FCC chairman much longer

wonder who the new democratic president will appoint and what HE will say.

[Robbien]

6. After two more years of the FCC dismantling all regs on communications

who gives a fig on who heads up the FCC in two years. There will be nothing to regulate. It will take decades of dedicated effort to establish any kind of decent communications again.

The rapid way these GOPers dismantle programs turning them into rubble is amazing.

[Raster]

15. These programs are dismantled so they can never be reconstituted.

The corporate overlords deliberately and systematically destroy any infrastructure that may pose a threat to their rule further down the line. I've said before and I'll will say again: we haven't just been looted, we are in the process of being strip-mined. We don't have to fear an alien race from the stars swooping down to parasitically assimilate us. We have immortal corporate personhood and its human collaborators and capos doing just that here and now. Case in point: the Texas-American Petroleum Mafia. How anyone--ANYONE--could continue to support an institution like, oh say, exxon/mobile, knowing full well to what lengths it has gone to deny global warming and diminish international awareness thereof is beyond me. Within the next 48 hours exxon will yet again announce RECORD profits. The TAPM has purposefully rigged gasoline prices to suck as much wealth from Americans as it possibly can before the gravy train runs out.

Wake up America!:kick:

[Kokonoe]

8. Well thats exactly right

I just saw on C-span as the same every day, that every other call must be a republican to counter everybody Else's common sense. Be it the democratic line, or the independent line. RIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRRRRRRRRRRDIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRDRIRRRRRRIRDRIRDRIRRIRRDRIRDRIRDRIRD.:shrug:

[Malidictus Maximus]

9. And if there was a 'Fairness Doctrine'

and the GOP in power; say they decide to claim that all of the "MSM' (MainStream Media" in crypto fascist speak), that is to say ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, is 'liberal' and thus conservatives should get equal time?
I'd rather deal with Rush and Faux news than having the federal government decide who is 'liberal' or 'conservative' and who gets air time.
Now the monopoly, the horror that is Clear Channel? yeah, wipe 'em out, and the recently relaxed rules regarding ownership of multiple outlets in any one market, there's room for big time improvement there, but beyond that - be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Just my .02

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. You are Sooooooo wrong on that.

Maybe you're too young to know what the fairness doctrine really was, before Reagan dismantled it.

The head of the FCC was not a politically active position - it was politically neutral, as was the head of the Red Cross or GAO. Congressional oversight guaranteed it stay so, because both sides of the aisle acknowledged that politically biased government airwaves would be dangerous to either side - that was when the expectation was that there would be swings back and forth between controlling parties.

Now, the parties are not in control - the corporations are, and are heavily invested in both parties. It doesn't matter to them who is in power, because both sides are controlled by corporate money. There is no swing back and forth, because the corporations control the pendulum. The lack of a fairness doctrine perpetuates that corporate control.

And it was precisely the loss of the fairness doctrine that brought us to this pass. The FCC can become a propaganda arm of the government only BECAUSE there is no fairness doctrine.

So there's your two cents, and raise you a quarter.

[Malidictus Maximus]

16. Interesting

"The FCC can become a propaganda arm of the government only BECAUSE there is no fairness doctrine."

Hmmmm. enlightening. No, I don't really remember the FCC as being anything other than the lapdog of contributors to whatever party was in power. Do you think it ever COULD (again) be set up to be anything other than a tool of whichever party was dominant? I am dubious.

Thanks.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. That is a problem --

mighty hard to stuff the egg back into the shell.

Reason 345 why I despised Reagan.

[Socal31]

11. I still dont think the govt

needs to be involved in private programming any more than they already are. People decide what is on the air through ratings...so yes, it all comes back to the evil $. Thats basically how everything works.....why expect something different here? PBS is a government funded entity, and is fairly liberal. Do we really want them interviewing O'reilly or Dennis Miller on a nightly basis?

[Drix]

20. Government is not a BAD word

You are wrong. There is no such thing as "private programming" on public airwaves. And people should not decide what's on the the public airwaves through ratings. Would you want public libraries only chose books by their ratings? Throw out all those boring science journals and replace them with copies of Hustler? Or how about our national parks. Let's clear cut Yosemite and Yellowstone and put up some casinos and topless bars because after all the market has decided that flashing neon and jiggling breasts make more money than nature trails.

The public airwaves is not a get rich quick scheme for radio networks. Public airwaves is to serve the public interests. Not the interests network executives.

[dmr]

27. Excellent post! Welcome to DU!

Shoot, I remember the days when ordinary citizens could get a few minutes to voice a viewpoint at the end of the local televised newscast. Usually the station's General Manager, once a week, would give an editorial on an issue, then the public was invited to come in and give their opposing or alternative view, or even a view on an entirely different topic.

I also remember the local stations informing the public when they were up for re-licensing and aired governmental contact information to the public in case they had concerns about the station's programming.

Those were the days when the airways belonged to the people, not big business.

Anyway, your response was spot on.

[Oak2004]

30. The guy with the most impressive ratings climb in TV news is Keith Olbermann

Yet you don't see the rest of television trying to imitate him.

In most of America there is *zero* alternative to Rush and his ilk on the radio, and thus no way they'll ever lose their guaranteed 100% market ratings.

TV is not determined by ratings: it is determined by the decisions of 5 media companies. Here's a quick lesson in Oligarchy 101: when you have as few competitors as this, you no longer have competition -- the market functions as if it were a monopoly because a kind of de facto collusion sets in among the owners. Look it up -- that's standard economic principle, not something I just made up, or something a bunch of censorship-crazed liberals cooked up.

Now: do you argue that "ratings determine programming" under monopoly conditions? That we need to let a monopoly decide all the information American citizens receive? Because that is what proponents of "let the market decide" are actually saying.

[Mechatanketra]

34. Ratings are a pitch, not a sale.

TV is not determined by ratings: it is determined by the decisions of 5 media companies. Here's a quick lesson in Oligarchy 101: when you have as few competitors as this, you no longer have competition — the market functions as if it were a monopoly because a kind of de facto collusion sets in among the owners. Look it up — that's standard economic principle, not something I just made up, or something a bunch of censorship-crazed liberals cooked up.

FWIW, I think you meant "oligopoly"; "oligarchy" refers to governments, not markets (although we're moving towards that too :eyes:). But the concept is spot-on — this is how, for instance, the tobacco companies have operated for like a century.

But a much, much more important factor to consider when judging how ratings affect programming is the critical fact about virtually all media people tend to let fly over their heads: you are not their customer, but their product. A TV station doesn't sell programming to viewers, but rather sells potential viewers to its advertisers. Thus, the highest rated show in the country won't stay on the air if nobody wants to sponsor it (directly or indirectly).

So not only do we have an oligopoly picking the information Americans receive, but the market the "let the market decide" people are letting decide isn't even us (i.e. the entire American public).

[damntexdem]

13. GOP to Americans: "Fairness not needed."

Nuff said.

[0rganism]

14. increased ownership regulation is where we should set our priorities, not content

There are some legitimate concerns with a "fairness doctrine" reenactment. "Balance" is even more ambiguous and subjective a term than "bias", and not something I'd want government agencies responsible for enforcing. Consider that even now, a majority of the public thinks network news is "liberally biased" and imagine, if you will, the current FCC (or a future FCC of similar configuration) requiring such "liberal" content to be balanced by additional conservative agitprop.... :puke:

We can and should look to ownership restrictions and antitrust enforcement, instead. It's comparatively easy to show in court that a person or agency owns or has controlling interest in an excessive share of media outlets, and provide some kind of reasonable and enforceable remedy in response. This would make a big difference in short order and we wouldn't have to try to "balance" a damn thing.

[eagler]

25. Even with more owners out there, nothing requires that opposing

points of view need be broadcast. The people are the losers and the airwaves belong to them not corporations. A new revised FD does not have to force anyone off the air but only forces accountibility!

[Kingofalldems]

17. Your link is from Breitbart?

[Leo 9]

18. (Here's another link) FCC Chair: Fairness Doctrine Not Needed

FCC Chair: Fairness Doctrine Not Needed

By JIM ABRAMS
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 26, 2007; 10:43 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine imposing a requirement of balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

Martin, in a letter written this week to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and made public Thursday, said the agency found no compelling reason to revisit its 1987 decision that enforcing the federal rule was not in the public interest.

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072600794.html

[Leo 9]

19. The Fairness Doctrine; How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

Published on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by FAIR
The Fairness Doctrine
How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

by Steve Rendall

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.

When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).

But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.

Variety (10/25/04) underlined industry concerns in a report suggesting that Sinclair’s partisanship was making other broadcasters nervous by fueling “anti-consolidation forces” and efforts to bring back the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine:

snip

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[Penance]

26. Screw Fairness

The other side isn't interested in honest debate. From tax "reform" to abortion to abstenence to war, their side isn't interested in facts. They just want their policy. A large part of the problem is that policies like the unitary executive and abstinence education are presented as legitimate. How about making it a felony to disseminate false information on TV or public airwaves? That should scare the crap out of Bill O'Reilly and Bill Kristol.

[Recursion]

28. I'm not big on the fairness doctrine

What it amounts to is forcing the media to pretend in any controversy that there are two equal sides. It's ingrained habits that we're still paying for today.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

29. Didn't 114 House Democrats just vote against restoring the Fairness Doctrine?

Another sign of just how deeply corporate America controls our party.

[Recursion]

32. I'm still not sure it's a good doctrine

A) it enshrines a two-party system, and that's enshrined enough
B) it makes the media pretend every dispute has two equivalent sides
C) it's fundamentally troubling to me for the government to mandate what a radio or tv show must have on it. As much as I hate Rush, I don't want him to be forced to have Democrats on his show.

[Oak2004]

33. No we're not

because facts are not covered by the Fairness Doctrine no matter what right wing shills scream about when faced with undesirable facts -- only opinion is. The Fairness Doctrine encouraged more fact-based reporting (less need to give equal time, that way). Were the FD in place today a reasonable argument could be made that excessive time spent, say, disseminating Exxon's global warming propaganda would warrant an equal time request (it not being fact-based), whereas the same could not be said for reporting that stuck to reporting the science, no matter how much the corporate fascists might pout.

There is a reason the right wing so loathes the Fairness Doctrine. They need unrestricted, unlimited opinion-mongering for their propaganda machine to run.

We had much more fact based reporting before the fairness doctrine was abolished. But after the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, opinion broadcasting became all the rage, because it's a whole lot more profitable to hire one guy to rant at the camera or microphone than it is to hire a team of reporters to ferret out facts.

I remember watching some pretty impressive instances of "equal time" back in the day. One example being equal time granted to give an opposing view granted to the 1968 convention protesters on a local station that had condemned the protesters.

[NewJeffCT]

31. If ownership was far less concentrated and not a profit center

for major corporations, we probably wouldn't need a fairness doctrine.