The Death of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE created FOX and the NEOCONS.

[Tyler Durden]

Thanks to Ronald Reagan's cronies (I say cronies, because even REAGAN wasn't enough of a Neocon to foresee what would happen) the Fairness Doctrine died a miserable death by torture.

You know something? I miss NEWS. I don't want LIBERAL news because they have to counter NEOCON news; I JUST WANT THE FUCKING NEWS.

I am a very intelligent individual. I don't need ANYONE liberal or neocon to tell me how to think. JUST TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING AND I'LL MAKE MY OWN DECISION.

When/IF Kerry gets elected, I want the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE back in place by EXECUTIVE ORDER. He can do it with the stroke of a pen, and no other single act would do more to bring back REAL representative democracy that that one act.

I propose a email/snailmail campaign. Write Kerry, write your senator/congressman, write the ACLU, write the Southern Law Center. IT IS AS EASY AS WRITING A DU POST, and I hereby resolve to do just that, AND to bring up the subject ALL THE DAMNED TIME.

[cthrumatrix]

1. that's the last things TPTB want...intelligent individuals seeing through

their crap and corporate agenda's

[Az]

2. Other way around

The Neocons and Reagan destroyed the Fairness Doctrine and that pathed the way to Fox. You really have to go back to Nixon to see where this started.

Nixon got hammered repeatedly because of the media. He set about trying to find ways to undermine and coopt the media. When he was struck down (by the media) his cronies and the right still had the idea of taking the media as their primary goal. Thus they set about looking to overturn the advances of left by usurping the voice of the people.

Reagan road to the White House bouyed by the religious right. He used this power to unseat the fairness doctrine and from there they set about inundating the media with their twisted balance. Fox rose soon after that.

[DaveSZ]

3. It depends on Kerry

Will he represent those who vote for him, or will he be another corporate shill like Clinton?

The Executive grants him great power, and he can be an TR or FDR if he truly wants to be.

[Az]

8. Not really

Kerry is just a stop gap. There is no concerted effort on the left to retake the message. There is bearly even a message on the left.

Without an idea being placed before the people the people will simply be pulled into the darkness coaxed by the voice of the right. Kerry will simply moderate the damage done by the right. He is not going to reverse it. He can't.

The only way this nation has a chance is if a group of voices rise up for the left and begin challenging the right's dominance. Legislators cannot do this alone. They cannot lead us out of this mess. They need public support to get large changes through the system and its simply not there right now.

Kerry is truly ABB. But that is not a direction. Politicians will respond to what the voice of the people demand. It is the heart and mind of the people that we have to reach.

[tom_paine]

53. God that's so true..and so depressing!

Kerry particularly if he doesn't regain the Senate nor House, can only give us 4 years of a slowed slide.

And I think it's clear that it is IMPOSSIBLE to reach the Hearts and Minds of enough Imperial Subjects of Amerika.

They are too overentertained, propagandized, tired, harried, hurried, confused, ill eductaed and getting worse.

We need a Wholesale Shift, but even if the people wanted that, I do not believe Imperial Amerika has any avenue remainign for the Vocie of the People to be expressed (other than the Internet, which constitutes nothing "real", IMHO, not like an acutal trustworthy voting system)

[Sean138]

19. Care to elaborate...

On exactly how Clinton was a corporate shill?

[DBoon]

26. Didn't he support the Telecom Reform Act of 1996

which turned out to be very bad for media diversity, showing non-right views, etc? Repealing this law and reversing its effect on media consolidation w\should be a high priority.

I will support Bill against his critics with pleasure, this does not change the fact he really was a very conservative Democrat.

[Az]

32. You don't need to be a shill

All you need to do is not disrupt their current operations. Our rights are being erroded by the Corporations. They are constantly chipping away at our lives and finding new ways to enslave us.

The problem here is not the leaders. Clinton could well have had marvelous intentions. The problem is the people have been lulled into a slumber by those that would rule them. Politicians like Clinton cannot make a difference if the people do not stand behind their ideas.

The problem here is that a conservative leader can make a larger difference than a liberal leader. The reason for this is it is easier to destroy a thing than it is to build a thing. Liberal leaders need to build new structures to deal with new inroads made by corporations. This is an uphill struggle.

Meanwhile conservative leaders can simply tear away at the existing infrastructure shreading small peaces here and there or ripping out entire sections. With each peace lost their grip becomes stronger.

So in the end Clinton was not a shill for the Corporations. He simply did not have enough backing to make enough of a difference to change the course we are on.

[Hutzpa]

87. Not if the Have Mores get to him (Kerry) first....

our fight is with them, the have mores (Elite), they are the corrupt ones. "We have to find them and fix them" until then our battle will not be over. These people are inbreed in the system, its going to take a hell of a fight to fix them.


:think:

[Tyler Durden]

6. Nixonites were the first NEOCONS.

I don't dispute that. I only put forward that REAGAN the Teflon Man was the first rePuke to follow their lead and kill the world's best free press.

[Az]

10. Reagan was the benifactor

Reagan was the first puppet put forward by the Neocons. They learned their lesson under Nixon. Never let someone with aspirations of power lead the party. Hence the successions of idiots put on the platform by the right. They want their presidents charismatic and controlable.

[Warpy]

7. Lest you forget, the Fairness Doctrine was quietly overturned

and little reported in the news at the time. The two lawyers Reagan used to do this were Scalia (rewarded with a USSC bench and an enemy of the people ever since) and Bork (remember him, too nutty to slip through like Scalia did).

You're right, of course. I want the news, just the news, and all of it, not just the little part that flatters the GOP. I want the editorializing to be labeled as such, and the word "news" restricted to the people who do a good job of presenting all of it without comment.

[Baltimoreboy]

9. I think you want the impossible

Every story involves judgment. Even getting to that point involves judgment and everyone has an axe to grind.

Is a story about starving babies in Iraq bigger news than starving babies in China, Sudan or North Korea? Depends on your point of view.

How about missing girl stories?

Was the bank robbery in DC yesterday national news? No. But I have little doubt some network picked it up because the local station had some film.

[Az]

11. Impossible but necissary

The world is not black and white. We live in a world of degrees. While truly objective news is perhaps impossible we should not give up on the attempt for that reason. Reporters are taught to try to be as objective as possible. It is the NeoCon's that sell this mantra of objective news is not possible so why even try.

We try because in order to make the best possible descisions we need to start from as clean a base as possible. We need a foundation upon which to build our society. If we allow muddled opinions to flourish as the base of information we build this society on then the house of cards it builds will quickly topple.

[Baltimoreboy]

13. Who teaches them this?

A lot of TV newspeople don't even go to journalism school. They just look pretty.

My point is that the whole of the right and a good chunk of the left like it the way it is and will be. There won't be enough of a constituency to change, especially as the web morphs into TV and radio both.

(On edit, morphs doesn't have an es.)

[Az]

17. A lot more do learn this

Unfortunately the corporate system has coopted the educational system that turns out good reporters. If we are looking for some place to drive a stake into it would have the be the corporation as an entity.

I agree it is unlikely to change. There are not enough people aware of the problem and too many from both sides benefit in ways from its current standing. Thus the problem will continue until it becomes so unbalanced that matters turn so obviously unfair that individuals take matters into their own hands.

[Baltimoreboy]

20. I'm not even sure networks could handle the doctrine now

There are too many watchdog groups and everyone tracks things in too sophisticated a manner. Every group under the sun would be demanding equal time after an interview. The networks would simply drop news as a result.

[Az]

24. Agreed

The system has become utterly corrupted. The movie Network was utterly prophetic when it saw the demise of news once it came under the same financial criteria as other departments.

News was once considered a service the stations provided in compensation for the use of the publics airwaves. Once the news department was retooled to make money it was doomed.

[kentuck]

60. The old rules required the networks to give equal time ...

at no charge to respond to controversial issues. With 24/7 coverage, I don't think they would have a problem. It's not like every instance would be responded to...

[Baltimoreboy]

109. I think it would be a huge problem

Because groups are now so sophisticated. Everyone would be demanding free air time to counter what was said.

[depakid]

101. You've been using all the same tired arguments

that former FCC Chairman Fowler (who was a lobbiest and broadcast industry laywer) and his cohorts at the NAB used to rid the networks of all of their public interest obligations- of which the Fairness Doctrine was but one part.

Your argument against the scarcity rationale is utter nonsense- if anything, media consolodation has made scarcity an even MORE comelling reason to require that "opposing opinions from responsible spokespersons" be aired. So what if some people have 100 channels? They're all owned by the same 6 companies- and they all lie about the issues and they all engage in personal attacks with impunity.

Your argument about networks dropping news about issues of public concern is also flat out wrong. That contention has been the subject of several studies over the years- none of which found ANY evidence supporting it.

[Baltimoreboy]

110. My main argument is that soon websites and TV will be integrated

and I don't want the Fairness Doctrine messing with the web.

[sendero]

27. The talking heads...

... don't write the news, they read it.

[Baltimoreboy]

30. Some do, some don't

The big names write some of their own stuff.

[Tyler Durden]

21. Yes, BUT a "Bush Photo Op" is CAMPAIGNING, and requires BALANCE.

Starving Babies and missing kids ALWAYS were part of the "NEWS." What wasn't part of the news was Rush and his ilk given free reign to "editorialize" about how the left are "UnAmerican Traitors" without the broadcasting entity being required to give the other side FREE TIME to give the opposing point of view.

THAT is why they killed it: FREE TIME.

"Dahling, the Sicilians would rather eat their children than part with money, and they are VERY FOND of their children."
(quote from "Prizzi's Honor")

[depakid]

104. Scalia and Bork were actually on the DC Circuit

It was Mark Fowler (who was easily as corrupt and arrogant as Michael Powell) who orchetrated the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. basically, he just stopped enforcing it until he could come up with a bogus report that allowed him to repeal the rule outright.

Scalia and Bork first ruled that enforcement was a matter of FCC discretion, rather thn something mandated by Congress... and then later ruled in an administrative law decision that the FCC HAD TO eliminate it, based on the findings in the bogus report.

[Baltimoreboy]

4. The Fairness Doctrine Won't Come Back

Over time, it will become meaningless. The doctrine only applied to TV and radio. The web will incorporate both and be filled with advocacy media of every stripe.

[Tyler Durden]

15. WE are the last people who REALLY READ the papers.

The entire country lives on the swill and tripe of commercial television and radio.

The web is elitist: I know more Luddites than Webheads, the webheads I know are more than 75% well to do conservatives.

Poor people don't have laptops.

[Baltimoreboy]

16. 25% of people get their news from the web

And it won't be long before the web and TV are one entity.

[Tyler Durden]

23. Religion isn't the "Opiate of the Masses," it's FOX!

I don't even know anyone PERSONALLY and in the flesh who posts here. I DO know a PLETHORA of people who can quote massively from Fox, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, although most of those people could not define "plethora."

TV and Radio will always eclipse the web. Hell, "The Grid" premeires this week on TNT, and there has not been ONE SINGLE ACT OF ORGANIZED TERRORISM ON US SOIL since 09/11/2001. Go figure? Don't have to. The inmates are in charge of the assylum and have opened all the cells. The Paranoids are running the police, and the ones with delusions of granduer are running the government.

[Baltimoreboy]

29. Here we disagree

I see the future of TV totally intertwined with the web where, while watching a show, you see a product or a concept mentioned. You pause the show and check the web from the same TV. Heck you might even keep watching while you search.

[Tyler Durden]

34. Not if you make $8.60/hour.

(starting wage at the factory where I am an auditor.)

If you think otherwise, you don't have enough contact with folks at the bottom of the heap, and there is a SHITLOAD more of them than us.

I think your version of interactive tv is on the same level as personal rocket belts predicted in the 50's for the 70's: I will believe them when I see them.

[redqueen]

45. The poor are totally left out ... forgotten... dismissed... ignored

Yes, Virginia, even by liberals and Democrats

:(

[Baltimoreboy]

111. You are already working on something close to that`

I know people who download TV onto their PCs even now. And with on-demand cable (pretty cool), the idea is already pretty close.

[thebigidea]

66. well, until we get to your Jetson's future, what's wrong with pushing for

... the Fairness Doctrine?

[Baltimoreboy]

112. It's not the Jetsons, it's almost here now

And I just think the doctrine is unmanageable.

[JHB]

5. It didn't create the Neocons...

They've existed (and have been mucking up national defense policy) since the 70's.

Of course, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine undermined reasoned policy analysis on broadcast media, which worked in favor of the neocon's simplistic answers.

[eagler]

98. I feel that there is no more important issue than the restoration of the

Fairness Doctrine! It is the one thing feared by All neocons. They fear "a well informed electorate ". Without the FD the suppression of info will only get worse.

[Dems Will Win]

12. Congressman predicted the whole sorry mess in 1987:

One Congressman warns that with the end of the Fairness Doctrine, “Candidates would lose the right to reply, parties out of power would not be able to respond, radio stations could allow supporters of one candidate to dominate the news, and local and state ballot issues could no longer be covered.” Another Congressman said “I am concerned that . . . broadcasters could use the public airwaves as their bully pulpit. They could every day pound away at their point of view, with absolute, total disregard to the other point of view.” Twice the Congress passes the Fairness Doctrine into law and twice Reagan vetoes it.

The predictions about the demise of the Fairness Doctrine have unfortunately come to pass. Abandoning its responsibility to investigate stories that might harm the regressive Republican/Corporatist cause, the country has never been the same as the mass media, now regularly holds back newsworthy items and has been taken over by the conservatives. Even the New York Times and the Washington have succumbed, while Fox News and the Washington Times regularly omit key news and put outrageous slants on nearly all stories with gross impunity. It can all be traced back to the Reagan era.

[Q]

14. "Right-wing has a virtual monopoly..."

June 30, 2002

Commentary / Edward Monks: The end of fairness: Right-wing commentators have a virtual monopoly when it comes to talk radio programming

By EDWARD MONKS
For The Register-Guard


 http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/06/30/1f.ed.col.monks.0630.html
 
ONCE UPON A TIME, in a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest. That generally accepted principle was reflected in a rule known as the Fairness Doctrine.

The rule, formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, required all broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial matters of public interest. It further required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine arose from the idea imbedded in the First Amendment that the wide dissemination of information from diverse and even antagonistic sources is essential to the public welfare and to a healthy democracy.

The FCC is mandated by federal law to grant broadcasting licenses in such a way that the airwaves are used in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, expressing the view that the airwaves were a "public trust" and that "fairness" required that the public trust accurately reflect opposing views.

However, by 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was gone - repealed by the FCC, to which President Reagan had appointed the majority of commissioners.

That same year, Congress codified the doctrine in a bill that required the FCC to enforce it. President Reagan vetoed that bill, saying the Fairness Doctrine was "inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." Thus, the Fairness Doctrine came to an end both as a concept and a rule.

Talk radio shows how profoundly the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has affected political discourse. In recent years almost all nationally syndicated political talk radio hosts on commercial stations have openly identified themselves as conservative, Republican, or both: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Reagen, Bob Grant, Ken Hamblin, Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, Robert Dornan, Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing - there is virtually nothing else..."

[DaveSZ]

18. The demise of our great nation can be traced back to Reagan

The fish rots from the head down.

We can however make America great again if we choose to.

It takes effort, and a resolve of steel.

[Az]

22. Unfortunately

Corporations and marketting execs have been working steadily to replace our resolve of steel with a whim of steel.

People are far less likely to sacrifice much of anything any longer for matters that are important. Our cage has become too enticing. We worry that if we disturb things too much we will lose what little we have.

Consider the imbalance in the world. We here in the US control the vast majority of wealth in the world (someone with numbers wanna post them?). To make things right we are going to have to sacrifice.

The thing is the balance is going to come one way or another. Nature abhors a vacuum and Corporations are directly tied to natural laws. There is no social tie binding a corporation to a people or humanity. It will do what it has to do.

In this course the corporations look about the world and see labor costs substantially lower throughout the world. They cannot remain in the US. They will redistribute the wealth. Only they will control its flow and they will see to it that the power and control flow to them.

The only way to head this off is to stand up as a people and take back control from the corporations and direct the redistribution of wealth ourselves. Instead of focusing the process on the corporations we focus it on We The People.

But this entails sacrifice for those controling the wealth. There is no impetus for them to do so. Nothing except our humanity. And the Corporations are doing everything they can to chill that remnant.

Competition and fear are the primary marketting messages pumped into our society. We are driven further and further away from our fellow humans and made increasingly dependent on the corporations for our sense of security, entertainment, and meaning.

[MUSTANG_2004]

25. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea

The FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" was a questionable rule. When there were a limited number of broadcast outlets it had some justification, but in today's world where there are hundreds of options for getting news, it becomes more difficult (IMO impossible) to reconcile government oversight of news content with the First Amendment.

Personally, I don't see a problem with news outlets that reflect a certain political philosophy, especially when, like Fox, there's no attempt to hide it. Just like DU is a forum for Democrats, Fox is a news station for conservatives. What's the big deal?

[Az]

28. The problem is one of responsibility

Corporations are always going to favor Corporations. As such a corporate run news source is going to have problems representing things fairly.

Its a simple matter to begin swaying public opinion with all the marketting research and clout the corporations have. As such the people are effectively silenced and the Corporate Entity becomes the dominant voice in the nation.

The airwaves belong to We The People. We are able to set the terms by which they are used. We have given up this right and need to reclaim it.

[MUSTANG_2004]

31. Is FoxNews even broadcast anywhere?

I thought it was strictly cable.

[Az]

33. Cable is a large part of the problem

But Fox Network is a broadcast channel. Not as bad as Fox News but still a voice amongst the people.

[MUSTANG_2004]

37. Cable isn't a problem

Cable companies fund C-SPAN, which is the least filtered news outlet *ever*.

[Tyler Durden]

63. OF COURSE cable is a problem.

Ever heard of a "FRANCHISE FEE?" How about the use of public infrastructure and services to support their delivery systems?

ANY media, unless you get it scrambled off of a sattelite, OWNED by that particular media company, is a problem because they use PUBLIC RESOURCES.

[Tyler Durden]

35. Name one News Network for Liberals...

...or even one that truly practices BALANCE. The unbalanced neocon RIGHT WING media now totals over 50% of the market, with the other 50% only Republican or right LEANING.

55 million Fox views vs 40,000 DUer's:

Excuse me, but my "spider hole" is calling me.

You are deluding yourself, unless of course the status quo is the way you like it....

is this the case?

[MUSTANG_2004]

36. Fairness Doctrine is censorship

Regardless of whether I like what a network says, I think it is contrary to the First Amendment to silence them or force them to say or cover things that they don't want to.

Should DU be forced to allow everyone to participate? The idea is the same - the government being used to force fairness on unwilling outlets.

Personally, I don't watch Fox News ever. However, I know some people who do and like it. Who am I to tell them that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it says?

[Az]

38. Yes but

What has happened is that money, power, and access have coalesced into a system that shuts out the common person. Your's and my freedom of speech may be intact in the literal sense of the word. But when the corporations can effectively shout any other voice down freedom of speech loses some of its meaning.

[MUSTANG_2004]

48. Corporate control of the news

But as someone who gets 90% of my news from the web, and much of that from forums and blogs, I see far less corporate control of the news now that at any other time in history.

[Tyler Durden]

62. FOX does not own the bandwidth or the airwaves.

The use it at the sufferance of...THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

If they wish to hold a license to MAKE MONEY by spewing slanted editorial opinion as FACT, then they are accountable to the people for their licensure.

The only way to control this was through the FCC, which supported the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE until packed with Reagan Appointees, and invalidated by Republicans.

If an entity wishes to license public bandwidth/airwaves then they must act in the PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT protecting only the free speech of a selected elite.

What's in this for you that YOUR airwaves are freely used to LIE and MISREPRESENT YOUR CAUSES AND POLITICIANS/REPRESENTATIVES, unless of course we and the Left do not represent YOUR causes.

Again I ask, is this the case? If so, be honest. No one has used the "FR....." word. YET.

[MUSTANG_2004]

67. Bandwidth

Bandwidth belongs to the cable companies, not to the American people. As such, your argument that FoxNews uses it at the sufferance of the American people doesn't hold water.

As to whether I'm a "FR...", I'll ask you - since when does being a First Amendment advocate make someone a conservative?

To me it sounds like you want the Fairness Doctrine to shut up people who you don't agree with.

[Tyler Durden]

68. Since when did I tell ANYONE to "SHUT UP?"

Reasonable debate consists of presenting both sides of an argument, and as to bandwith, the Cable Companies own the equipment to OPERATE on the bandwidth: the medium itself is "franchised" from the locality for use, NOT OWNERSHIP.

The Public Bandwidth is not private property, and if you want to see this in action, try making a bid to your city to be the operator of the local cable system for a higher franchise fee, and just SEE how fast they dump the other company to allow YOU to operate the cable bandwidth IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

If they want to spew, fine. They should merely be required to BALANCE their editorializing.

I seem to remember FOX calling themselves "Fair and Balanced?" Here's their chance.

You may advocate for The first amendment all you like, but when the "News" organizations are owned by corporations with an agenda, and do not even ALLOW the other side to PAY FOR TIME to rebut, THEN who's practicing censorship?

[Q]

90. Why do you continue to misrepresent the Fairness Doctrine?

...and insist on spouting RWing talking points? It's NOT censorship to required that both sides be heard on important or controversial issues. The whole idea of a free press is to INFORM Americans about their government...thus allowing them to choose their leadership with INFORMED CONSENT.

- You continue bring up the phony comparison between DU and commercial broadcast and cable networks. THEY BROADCAST ON THE PUBLIC 'AIRWAVES' UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE FCC AND THEIR GOVERNMENT.

- It is not the 'same idea' at all.

- It's not about Fox being allowed to say whatever they want. That's not even CLOSE to the issue. The argument is about ALL news channels presenting a more balanced view and not shilling for one political party. That's not 'news'...it's propaganda for the Republican party.

[MUSTANG_2004]

94. What misrepresenting?

I've never tried to say it was censorship, at least in the meaning of stopping someone from saying something. I've said it was government involvement in content. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit just censorship, it prohibits abridgment of freedom of the press. Dictating what you have to include is abridging the power of the press.

As far as comparing it to opening up DU, perhaps that was a bad comparison, but if you say cable is a public airwave it seems like a minor step to say the internet is too. (And I don't think I "continually" compared. I mentioned it once or twice).

Regarding whether it stops a network from speaking, well, if they know they have to give away air time to the opposing side, it seems like it would stifle them. But again, the issue isn't whether there are good or bad results from it, the issue is whether the government should have a role (and indeed, whether it constitutionally is entitled to a role) in determining what the news media covers and how it covers it.

[Az]

96. Think of it this way

The Corporations want to blast their memes in my house 24/7. I do not want them to do this. Its my house. If they want to shove their advertisements into my house they have to provide a balance to it. That is my stipulation in my house. They do not have a right to blast their message in my house without my permission. It would be like me showing up at your house with a bullhorn and shouting 24/7 outside your bedroom windown. Freespeach is not the issue.

It is our airwaves. The corporations want to have access to them to push their products. We stipulate that if they want to do so they have to balance their message and provide a service that we deem reasonable to the community. If they don't like those stipulations they can take their business elsewhere. These are our airwaves.

[Tyler Durden]

107. You just changed your story.

That is a polite way of telling you that you're lying.

MUSTANG_2004 (79 posts) Wed Jun-30-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #35

36. Fairness Doctrine is censorship


Regardless of whether I like what a network says, I think it is contrary to the First Amendment to silence them or force them to say or cover things that they don't want to.

Should DU be forced to allow everyone to participate? The idea is the same - the government being used to force fairness on unwilling outlets.

Personally, I don't watch Fox News ever. However, I know some people who do and like it. Who am I to tell them that Fox shouldn't be allowed to say what it says?



Did you or did you not post this?

[MUSTANG_2004]

108. No change. Read the context.

You were trying to say that FoxNews spouts RW neocon rhetoric and you want to sic the FCC on them, armed with the Fairness Doctrine, to make them get rid of their conservative leaning. I was saying that, by not allowing FoxNews to say what it wants in the way it wants, you want to practice censorship.

My later post was replying to someone who took issue with my use of censorship, so I clarified that I was aware that the FD did not explicitly stop someone from saying something specific. That's why I said "I've never tried to say it was censorship, at least in the meaning of stopping someone from saying something."

I'm not sure why I'm even replying to you, since you're insulting more than discussing (and I've seen your post saying I was trolling). I'm at a loss as to why you're so hostile - I read your initial post, disagreed with it, said so, and why.

[Tyler Durden]

114. And seeing you are master at twisting words...

I NEVER stated that Fox News should be stopped from saying ANYTHING.

This is EXACTLY what I said: that if an entity editorializes on A PUBLIC MEDIUM UNDER LICENCESURE (Cable, Airwaves and similar items) then the Fairness Doctrine MUST allow that they MUST allow the opposing view.

There are NAZI and White Supremacist web sites all over the net. If FOX wishes to limit their HANNITY, O'REILLY spew ADVERTIZED AS FAIR BALANCED AND NO SPIN to the internet, GOOD ON THEM.

If they wish to use THE PUBLIC MEDIUM for this, then they must be required to put up response or else all the are is Right Wing sponsored and public supported PROPAGANDA.

I call you a TROLL as you continue with your "1st amendment" Right Wing talking points, and because you misquoted ME, and because you contradict your own comments.

If you want to come right out and SAY you're a Right Wing advocate, then FINE, DO SO. But what you're doing is hiding your true views behind a limited debate. THAT is TROLLING.

You can post all day here for all I care...I'm through trying to make you own up to the exact thread of what you're saying. I just hate it when good people waste time and bandwidth arguing with someone who is there just for the sake of arguing and can't keep their story straight. You REALLY should take notes when you post so you can at least appear to be consistent.

Again: I NEVER SAID FOX COULDN'T SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT. I DID say the if they wish to use public airwaves and cable bandwidth THEN THEIR SHOULD BE A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE TO PREVENT THEIR PROPAGANDA FROM BEING BILLED (AS PER THEIR ADVERTIZING) AS "FAIR AND BALANCED" AND "NO SPIN."

[YNGW]

39. I understand the point you're trying to make....

...but there are many on the other side of the aisle who'll say that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc... and the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc... and PBS, etc... promote left-wing propagnada, that they are networks for liberals. And they have just as much right to make that claim as we do that the airwaves are predominately right-wing. My right-wing friends tell me they went to these sources because they were starved for information that wasn't slanted left.

So, what's the solution? Will the FD even make a dent if reinstalled? Will the promise of "equal-time" even be heeded by the people, or will they tune in the half they like and tune out the rest? I'd have to say most will continue their current habits.

Food for thought.

[Merlin]

40. To those who say the Fairness Doctrine was bad, I say: BULLSHIT!

Save it for the dittoheads. This is pure rightwing pap.

The Fairness Doctrine worked then and it will work again.

It MUST BE REVIVED.

[MUSTANG_2004]

47. Well reasoned post

Very thoughtful post. I especially like how you use both profanity AND name calling to avoid the serious issue of the Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment being at odds with one another.

[Tyler Durden]

69. Similar to YOUR well reasoned posts...

...your being one of the top 5% of the nation who gets all their news from the web makes misuse of a public asset meaningless, right.

SURE.

[Merlin]

41. .. n/t

[Merlin]

42. ..These posts are not going to the right place.

I'm trying to reply to the guy above who says the FD is a bad idea. He's wrong. But the program won't post my reply below his post.
!#$^%$$&%&@#$!!!!#@@!#@!#!!

[YNGW]

43. Yes, it is

Look at the line. You're replying to post #25.

[Merlin]

99. Omigosh! Thanks! n/t

.

[w4rma]

50. "No attempt to hide it" = "fair and balanced"?

Since when has Murdoch's "news" outlets **ever** called themselves "Conservative" or "right-wing"?

[Q]

55. The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with...

...'government oversight of news content'. And the PROBLEM with allowing a 'news' outlet to 'reflect a political philosophy' is that the PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES...not the politicians or the corporate owners of media. A partisan network posing as a 'news outlet' is contrary to a free press. The idea of a free press is to allow both sides to speak and an unfiltered access to news and information about the PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT.

- An even larger problem is that the Left has allowed the RWingers to mischaracterized the Fairness Doctrine...making it look like an impairment to journalism as opposed to what it really is: an opportunity for both sides to be heard in a PUBLIC DEBATE.

- Comparing DU to a 'news station' is an attempt to misdirect the debate about a free and open society. Fox is nothing more than a (republican) state sponsored propaganda outlet that pretends to report the 'news'.

- The 'big deal' is that Republicans have perverted the meaning of a free press and the end result is a media that reports what the Bush* government tells it to report. Those who fail to comply are intimidated, threatened and fired. This is the type of media they have in third world and totalitarian countries and it's an insult to 'free' America.

[MUSTANG_2004]

58. Point by point rebuttal

"And the PROBLEM with allowing a 'news' outlet to 'reflect a political philosophy' is that the PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES"

Rebut: FoxNews is not a broadcast network. It's a cable network.

"An even larger problem is that the Left has allowed the RWingers to mischaracterized the Fairness Doctrine...making it look like an impairment to journalism as opposed to what it really is: an opportunity for both sides to be heard in a PUBLIC DEBATE."

Rebut: The Fairness doctrine allowed the FCC to require a station to cover specific topics, and, if the FCC thought necessary, to include certain points of view. In other words, the FCC can decide what is newsworthy and what constitutes full coverage.

"Comparing DU to a 'news station' is an attempt to misdirect the debate about a free and open society. Fox is nothing more than a (republican) state sponsored propaganda outlet that pretends to report the 'news'"

Rebut: What do you mean by state sponsored? It's privately owned and sells advertising. Or are you saying it receives public funding and/or tax breaks that other news organizations are not allowed? If so, feel free to list such funding.

"the end result is a media that reports what the Bush* government tells it to report"

Rebut: So you're saying giving the government MORE power to decide what news is broadcast will remedy the solution? It sounds like you think the government already has too much influence over the media, so how would giving Michael Powell even more be better?

[Az]

64. What we are saying is

that the way things stand currently the people are being silenced and fed a diet of Corporate swill. There is an ongoing campaign to sway the opinion of the people to favor issues that enable corporations to further their agendas. Their wellbeing is being placed before the people's wellbeing.

The fact is the wool is being pulled over the people's eyes. There seems to be no recourse available for the people to counter this effet. The idea of freespeach is nice but it has been run into the ground by the inherent greed of the corporate entities.

[redqueen]

44. People should stop covering for Clinton - it's pathetic

Own up to reality.

He campaigned on the fairness doctrine and said he'd work to pass legislation.

He had nearly 2 full years of a democratic congress.

They betrayed us in favor of corporate cash. (Thanks DLC Whores!)

Wake up already.

[Az]

46. Corporations are not People, they do not have the right of freespeech

The problem we have here is that our ... yes our airwaves have been taken over by the Corporations. They do not have our interests in mind. Their needs are different from our needs. Their agenda is vastly different from our agenda.

And yet we now measure our progress by the progress of the Corporations. The stock market and the economy are the chief measures of how we are doing. But they do not measure how we are doing. They measure how well the corporations are doing. And their needs are different than ours.

All hail the new Feudal Lords.

[redqueen]

49. I had such naive high hopes for the Nike case

Even if the SCOTUS had considered it, I doubt they would have addressed the issue of corporate personhood.

If I'm not mistaken, Scalia has said in the past that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. I hope he gets a chance to back that up SOON.

[MUSTANG_2004]

52. News media doesn't have the right of free speech?

So the Washington Post and NYT don't have the right of free speech because they are companies?

And the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the NRA can be muzzled because they aren't individuals?

I should point out that the First Amendment doesn't say "People have the right to free speech." It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

[Az]

54. The system is out of balance

Recognition of this is vital. There are those that are abusing it based on the twists and turns that have entered the system over the decades.

The freedom of the press remains. But the airwaves are the people's property. The corporations have taken them over. They twist their knife deeper into our minds with each regulation removed.

Money should not equal voice. Yet it does in this nation. It elects presidents. It passes laws. It is power. The poor are powerless. This was not the intention of our founding fathers.

The idea of a freepress was that it enabled even the poor to have a voice in the system. It guarnateed that no one could dominate the landscape. It gave the people an equal footing with Kings.

This is gone. The Kings have figured out how to shut the people down. They control the access to the medium of dialog and shut out any that do not play the game their way.

When the press was first established it was usually an individual or a small group of individuals publishing their ideas. This is no longer the case.

[Q]

56. For those who obviously have never read the Fairness Doctrine:

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

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.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC . In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

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.

-Val E. Limburg

FURTHER READING

Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest." Journal of Communication (New York), Summer, 1990.

Benjamin, Louise M. "Broadcast Campaign Precedents From the 1924 Presidential Election." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1987.

Brennan, Timothy A. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1989.

Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents, 1989.

Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California), October, 1994.

Donahue, Hugh Carter. "The Fairness Doctrine Is Shackling Broadcasting." Technology Review (Cambridge, Massachusetts), November-December, 1986.

Hazlett, Thomas W. "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment." Public Interest (New York), Summer, 1989.

Krueger, Elizabeth. "Broadcasters' Understanding of Political Broadcast Regulation." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991.

Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.

Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978.

Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.

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

[MUSTANG_2004]

59. Did you read the article?

In one post you say the Fairness Doctrine is necessary and here you post an article that says it isn't (note the last sentence: "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.").

Which side are you arguing?

[Q]

65. I'm arguing both sides in honor of the Fairness Doctrine...

- But YOU seem to be missing the point ENTIRELY. The public 'airwaves' are owned by the People of the United States of America. The government...through the FCC...provides a license to broadcasters as 'public trustees'...not trustees for a political party or ideology. A partisan network 'news' outlet serves a political party...not the public trust.

- The paragraph you quote is the argument used by those opposed to Fairness Doctrine...and it's an opinion...not fact.

- Putting recently history in perspective...we have evidence that the Fairness Doctrine worked to maintain a 'fair and balanced' public debate. Point and Counter-point. Open debate and dialogue instead of partisan monologue.

- The 2000 campaign and election was perhaps the greated example of the need for a 'fairness' doctrine. The American media printed/broadcasted hundreds of hours of anti-Gore stories without offering equal time or direct rebuttal of the charges. They literally accused him of being a 'pathological liar' on national networks without inviting anyone to challenge the distortions or correct the record. These reported distortions and lies became the 'truth' to a public that was never allowed to hear both sides of the story at the same time.

- Another good example would be of the pre-war coverage of Iraq. Pro-war Hawks were given most of the airtime while anti-war points of views were actively discouraged by the corporate, pro-war media. Worse...the 'free press' implied that anti-war opinions were unAmerican. Is this the type of free press you want for America?

[MUSTANG_2004]

70. I'm not missing the point

I'm saying that my point is that fairness or not, neither Congress nor the FCC should be telling cable networks what viewpoints and stories they have to cover. To do so is a violation of the First Amendment.

With Gore, he definitely got kicked, but IMO Bush didn't fair particularly well at their hands either.

As far as the Iraq war, it wasn't the amount of airtime given to the anti-war side, it was the people they chose. I remember a Larry King that had a show with an anti-war point of view. For that view they had Janeane Garofalo and Mike Farrell (BJ on MASH). The results were emabarassing (Farrell was ok, but Garofalo was painful to watch). The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have helped at all, unless the FCC were to have micromanaged it to the point of saying which guests are actually competent and well-informed.

[kentuck]

72. How can you argue that the FD is violation of First Amendment??

You seem to be terribly misinformed or have gotten your information from some very unreliable sources? What you are basiclly arguing is that if one corporation wants to buy up all the networks and say whatever they want, they have that right. Where is the 'violation' of free speech if I get on the airwaves and tell all sorts of lies about you and you request equal time to rebut it?? Please explain this "violation" you are so concerned about?

[MUSTANG_2004]

74. Fairness Doctrine

There's more to it than equal time to rebut attacks. It also includes that they must cover topics that the FCC considers to be of public importance, and must provide what the FCC considers to be balanced coverage for viewpoints.

If you tell the press what they have to cover, you've abridged their freedom, thus violating the First Amendment.

I should point out that at the time of the Constitution, the press was *extremely* partisan. The First Amendment wasn't written to protect only objective press coverage, it was meant to protect *everything*.

[Az]

75. But at the time

Affording a press was within a reasonable range of many. Thus each person could put out their view and expect it to have the same reach as anothers. Thus the chance of an idea to propogate was based on its merrits.

Now we have a system where the chances of an idea to propogate are based on how much money you put behind it. The fairness doctrine attempts to right this issue.

[kentuck]

81. So do you think the FCC under Michael Powell.....?

is more protective of free speech ? And do you think it is OK to spew partisan propaganda all day long, so long as it is Repub propaganda? I realize that at the turn of htis century, not just at the founding of our nation, that the press had an entirely different role. They did not see themselves as disposed to give "both sides" of the issues. However, with the advent of radio and television, that changed the way media operates. You seem to be assuming the Fairness Doctrine could never be changed or updated to serve the interests of the people? By the way, Rush LImbaugh is not about "free speech". He is about promoting one political party over another with hours upon hours of free propaganda. Are you saying we should not have a right to respond to that bullshit?

[MUSTANG_2004]

82. Powell is exactly my point

I'd rather have an FCC that has no enforcement power regarding content than have an FCC under Michael Powell that can decide what constitutes fairness and what viewpoints and topics must be covered.

[Az]

84. Um

That is pretty much handing the baby over to the wolves if I am reading your thoughts correctly. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and FOR the people. Corporations are doing their best to try to make the government forget about that FOR the people aspect. They want the people to be unprotected for their assault.

Since they have not been able to entirely dismantle the government they have instead opted for coopting its functions. Using money, influence, and cronies they are dismantling it from the inside out. Removing the governments ability to regulate the corporations in the people's interest is exactly what they want. You would hand it to them and everything in this nation would be lost.

[kentuck]

86. What kind of convoluted rationalization is that ??

So you want a toothless tiger? No power or authority needed whatsoever over our airwaves? I think that is dangerously shortsighted.

[MUSTANG_2004]

88. No, it's freedom. No oversight regarding political content. (nt)

[kentuck]

89. No. It's not freedom.

It's propaganda. It's control of the people's airwaves. The "free speech" argument is nothing but a red herring. Nobody wants to prevent anyone from saying anything. They only want the right to respond to outright lies and distortions. What is so wrong with that?

[Q]

77. It makes no difference whether it's airwaves or 'cable'...

...as both are licensed by the FCC and are subject to the same guidelines and regulations. What you don't seem to understand is that ANY entity that broadcasts on the public airwaves has to abide by FCC regulations and serve the public. They can operate as a corporation and make a profit as long as they stay within guidelines set by congress and the FCC.

- A majority of Democrats AND Republicans wanted to make the Fairness Doctrine a permanent law and regulation. Reagan and Poppy Bush* would have none of that...and they made sure it didn't become law with their vetos and crony appointments on the FCC.

- There was an investigation done after the 2000 campaign and 'election' that clearly showed a scores of negative Gore stories to even one negative story about Bush* It was proven that the American media SLAMMED Gore while treating Bush* will kid gloves. Do your own research if you don't believe how the press was biased against Gore and for Bush*. (As they remain to this day.)

- There was also studies done that prove that A MAJORITY of the pre-war airtime...on both broadcast and cable networks...was devoted to pro-war views and opinions. And OF COURSE it was the people they CHOSE. They intentionally chose PRO WAR pundits that would agree with the Bush* WH 'doctrine' of unprovoked, illegal invasion.

- The fairness doctrine would have indeed helped in both the 2000 campaign and the push for war in Iraq by allowing the OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY to be viewed/reported AT THE SAME TIME.

[kentuck]

51. And the same freepers that dislike the Fairness Doctrine....

would like for DU to open up and give the right-wingers equal time here??

[Q]

57. RWingers would demand a return of the Fairness Doctrine...

...if roles were reversed and the Left owned a majority of the corporate media. They don't WANT a public debate. They want to spew their talking points and smear their political enemies without opposing points of view or rebuttal.

- Meanwhile...Limbaugh was a driving force behind the elmination of the FAIRNESS doctrine:

November/December 1994

The "Hush Rush" Hoax:

Limbaugh on the Fairness Doctrine
By Jeff Cohen

"I, Rush Limbaugh, the poster boy of free speech, am being gang muzzled."

The broadcaster was crying censorship (Limbaugh Letter, 10/93) over congressional efforts in 1993 to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine -- which he labeled "The Hush Rush Bill," "The Get Limbaugh Act" and "The Rush Elimination Act of 1993." Limbaugh's daily on-air crusade generated thousands of calls to Washington, and helped derail congressional action. As usual, Limbaugh's followers were mobilized through misinformation and deception.

The Fairness Doctrine -- in operation from 1949 until abolished in 1987 by Ronald Reagan's deregulation-oriented Federal Communications Commission -- calls on broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover some controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine can hardly be a "Hush Rush" plan aimed at silencing him, since it was broadly and actively supported on Capitol Hill well before anyone in Washington had ever heard of Limbaugh. In 1987 (when he was still the host of a local show in Sacramento), a bill to inscribe the Fairness Doctrine in federal law passed the House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Voting for the bill were such "commie-libs" as Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).

In 1989 (when Limbaugh was just emerging as a national host), the Fairness Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again held on the doctrine, but interest waned due to Bush's ongoing veto threat. Yet when the same Fairness Doctrine emerged in 1993, with a new president who might sign it, Limbaugh egotistically portrayed it as nothing but a "Hush Rush Law." And his followers believed him.

And they believed him when he claimed the Fairness Doctrine was aimed at censoring conservative talkshow hosts (Limbaugh TV show, 9/17/93): "It's the latest attempt by the United States Congress to legislate against me, and talk radio hosts." Remarked Limbaugh (Limbaugh Letter, 10/93): "Why is 'fairness' so needed now? Because there's too much conservatism out there." In reality, not one doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born, and flourished, while the doctrine was in operation. Right-wing hosts often dominated the talkshows, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled.

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't require that each program be internally balanced, or mandate "equal time": It would not require that balance in the overall program line-up be anything close to 50/50. It merely prohibits a station from blasting away day after day from one perspective, without any opposing views...."

http://www.fair.org/extra/9411/limbaugh-fcc.html

[Az]

61. The dropping of the fairness doctrine handed the corporations a bullhorn

And they have proceded to shout through our electrict windows incessantly since they got ahold of it.

Unfortunately because we are up against an entity that does not have a sense of duty to its fellow citizens the balance has become upended. When the founding fathers conceived this nation they did not envision multinational conglomerates with the sort of power Kings could only dream of.

Freedom of speach and of the press were a guarantee to the common person that they would never be shouted down again. It was a balance struck. And like so many things from that time the playing field has changed since then.

Benjamin Franklin is an example of how an individual back then with a press (literally a press) could make a difference. It was on this that the freedom of the press was estabished.

But now organised artificial entities have absconded with our voice. A single person can call out the truth still but they are met with a massive onslaught critics all with their bullhorns aimed at tearing down any dissent with their corporate masters.

While a few may struggle through the nonsense to find the truth the overwhelming majority of people have been corrupted by this continuous drone.

While there may seem to be some conflicts between regulating the airwaves and freespeach it does not change the FACT that the corporations have created a machine which uses the media to churn out their propoganda in a way that the people will never be able to directly challenge. And in this way they have established the power that rules this nation instead of We The People.

[donhakman]

71. the poster Mustang got it exactly backwards

he said "now that we have hundreds of news outlets today compared to only a handful 20 years ago..."

Conglomerates have eaten everything they could lay their hands on.

Micheal Moore used to have to deal with dozens and dozens of distributors for his TV shows.
Now there are 3.

[MUSTANG_2004]

76. No, I got it right

When I was a kid, we had exactly two news outlets for daily news:

1) A local CBS affiliate
2) A local newspaper

Today, as part of my morning routine, I check out:
1) C-Span
2) BBC on-line
3) The Wall Street Journal website
4) Two Florida newspapers on-line
5) A wide variety of blogs
6) CNN.com, FOXNEWS.com, and ABCNEWS.com
7) Multiple forums, such as DU, which link to a variety of stories

As far as I know, each one of these is owned by separate parent companies.

[Q]

78. You seem to be confused and fail to distinguish between...

...the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (to include cable) and other kinds of mass communication. Why don't you do us all a favor and visit the FCC website?

- And YOU know damn well the RWingers wouldn't allow a Left-wing version of Fox 'news' to exist. They would call for return of the fairnesss doctrine just to keep that from happening.

[Tyler Durden]

79. No, you're like someone driving a HUMMER.

YOU can afford it, therefore, companies should be able to build it because YOU WANT ONE.

SELFISH.

And as to your lineup:

Except for BBC and MAYBE ABC news, you reveal your true colors: RIGHT WING.

FOXNEWS is an oxymoron, and C-Span is not a true news channel.
BBC is British and GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED so they are monitored for fairness.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL??? ONLINE??? Please.
Blogs. Written by REALLY INDEPENDENT JOURNALISTS. Yeah, and my ass chews gum.
CNN: about 10% of the time, the rest: FOX LITE.

You utilized filtered sources on the web, unaccessable to the masses, even if the WERE unbiased, which they aren't.

And as far as YOU know, your newspapers online are owned by GANNET, which is essentially USATODAY.

Give it a rest. The Fairness Doctrine protected the little guy and non-profits like the ACLU from being snoballed by the corporate broadcasters, which as far as I can see you wholeheartedly support.

[MUSTANG_2004]

80. Selfish?

Because I think the government shouldn't dictate to media? What is selfish about thinking the First Amendment means what it says?

As far as my true colors, what does where I look have to do with my opinions? Do you think only conservatives read the WSJ? Please, show at least a little common-sense. You may not like what I read, but at least admit that there's more choices now than there were 30 years ago.

And C-Span, while not famous for breaking news, gives unfiltered access to what's really happening in the government today, as well as discussing news of the day.

And no, only one of the papers is owned by a conglomerate.

As far as the Fairness Doctrine, if you believe the government should be involved in what topics get covered, that's fine. I don't.

[kentuck]

83. I do not recall that the FCC dictated what topics were to be covered??

Can you give the rule or regulation you are referencing?? Maybe we can get that changed for you? Would it be better then?

[MUSTANG_2004]

85. No, I don't have the regulation number

But here's an article that includes an example of a station being forced to cover a story (the article itself is very pro-FD):

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article=vn209fairnessed

"In 1976 when Congress was debating legislation on strip mine reclamation, radio station WHAR in Clarksburg, West Virginia, refused to carry any coverage of the issue. The station's owner said the subject was too controversial. Citizens used the Fairness Doctrine to force the station to air the debate -- both sides of it."

[kentuck]

91. Let's see.....strip mining....

in West Va? The stations get advertising dollars from pro-strip mining forces? Is it in the public interest? That's why on occasion regulations have to be enforced. The stations had no right to "hide" such an important issue from he people. Good decision. What's your problem with that??

[MUSTANG_2004]

95. Can't reconcile it with the 1st A

To go back to basics:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

For Congress (or it's creation, the FCC) to tell the press what stories it cannot ignore is most definitely abridging the freedom of the press.

[kentuck]

97. OK, I'll just walk in a theater and yell "Fire!"

Nonsense. Of course the people have a right to "protect" our 1st Amendment rights. You do not have a 1st Amendment right to lie and distort the truth on our airwaves. Sorry.

[depakid]

102. Yet another incorrect line of reasoning

I'll grant you this- you do have an uncanny grasp of the right wing's arguments-

Unfortunately, you don't seem to have read the federal caselaw. It's most certainly NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment to require the broadcast media to carry certain types or certain amounts of programing- whether it involves public issues, children's programming or political advertising.

Here are a few points and authorities to consider:

"The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

"The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others..."

"The danger that licensees will eliminate coverage of controversial issues as a result of the personal attack and political editorial rules is at best speculative, and, in any event, the FCC has authority to guard against this danger."

These of course come from the Red Lion case but they ca be found throughout all of the subsequent cases considering the various provisions of the Fairness Doctrine.

[MUSTANG_2004]

106. Violation in whose opinion?

The SC's ruling is the law of the land, but I think in the case of the Fairness Doctrine that they erred, or at least they would err if they allowed it to stand today when cable broadcasts are no longer a scarce commodity (I'll mention that there are probably more than a few here who would suggest that SC rulings are not always correct).

The SC has also said McCain Feingold isn't a violation of the First Amendment when it clearly is, and has made some other wildly incorrect rulings (Dredd Scott comes immediately to mind). So, while what the SC has to say is extremely relevant, it isn't gospel, especially in light of the crystal clear text used in the First Amendment.

[bagnana]

113. Scarcity is the issue

and that is exactly where we are headed: although there may be other outlets such as blogs etc., we are dealing with news sources using the public airwaves -- and with the amount of ownership consolidation going on both of radio and television networks I don't see how anyone could make the argument that these sources are becoming more varied. If McDonalds opens 2000 restaurants across town am I really getting greater diversity because I can drive to 50 different places to get the same Happy Meal? Networks have economic (and therefore political) interests that can drive the news they are willing to present. Is this a surprise? Free Speech is not absolute: someone can't break into my house and use my stereo system to blast their "free speech". These networks are using my (our) collective property and their use should be subject to my (our) public interest.

[gulliver]

73. An American version of BBC news

Fund a news-only network with government money. (Maybe start it with 10% of the money that is now going down the rathole in Iraq each month.)

Then make the national news network subject to laws. I.e., by design it foregoes freedom of the press. Editorial decisions can be challenged and reviewed in court, etc. The Fairness Doctrine would be the centerpiece of the charter of the organization and the standard by which its success is measured -- not profits.

It would be made available free to all Americans, and would have a well-maintained, openly accessible web site.

[laura888]

92. I agree completely. TV news is like a courtroom. Viewers are the jury.

Our opinion as to what happened (i.e., is he guilty or innocent, etc.) is made based on what is presented to us.

When TV "news" channels are allowed to present lies and propaganda, it is as if lawyers are allowed to present heresay as truth.

How can Americans ever decide a case (i.e., whether to go to war in Iraq) when there are no rules for presenting evidence??

[Hutzpa]

93. United State as a whole has a major problem.......

than the people would like to think. In the first instance, I have not been to that many states but from what I've seen in the ones I've been to I can tell the number one problem. NEWSPAPERS , most of the states that I've visited all have limited amount of Newspapers, for instance, in England where I'm from we have untold amount of daily newspaper its not even funny.

You take states like Washington D.C the capital, there are only two major papers there, Washington Times, Washington Post, now tell me is that Democracy, the whole of the freaking capital you have just 2 major paper covering the news, same in Maryland, Virginia, even worst in Texas with one, (Houston Chronicle) makes me sick to my stomach how the people have been redirected toward television.

There should be more than one newspaper, there have to be a diversity, something different, not what Uncle Sam wants me to hear. This is grass root problem that needs taking care of, there are so many being left behind its just unbelievable just thinking about it, my question is how many of you have actually thought about this issue? maybe none to one, not many, otherwise this would have been pointed out a very long time ago, unless majority of people wants it this way which I very much doubt, but this should be the way to point Mr Kerry. You have to start from the roots, as I mentioned in my post, this is one great way of finding and fixing them.

When you have newspapers that are not control by anyone, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to predict what will happen. Eventually people will see the facts for themselves and be able to make judgment rather than the so-called media that brainwashes them everyday.

How can the whole of freaking Texas read one paper, population 20 million plus, recipe for disaster. If DU'ers are really serious about helping Kerry, they can persuade him to create a committee to look into this.

[LunaC]

100. "People have been redirected toward television."

Excellent point! A bait-and-switch tactic that reduces intelligent thought to hit-and-run sound bites.

[spanone]

103. Humans just naturally fuck things up. That's why the Fairness Doctrine

was created. We must be motivated to tell the truth. Unfortunate but true.

[Liberal Classic]

105. Why should Air America

Be forced to provide a forum for conservatives? I do not believe it should. That is compelled speech.