Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

[proud2BlibKansan]

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 6:25:00 PM

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Barack Obama

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html

[anonymous171]

1. It is a distraction from the real problem: Media Consolidation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. That is why I bolded that portion in my OP

I think he is right on this.

[jefferson_dem]

6. Precisely. Regulating content in the name of "fairness" is virtually impossible to implement...

and an even harder position to defend.

Ownership and consolidation needs to be the focus.

[Radical Activist]

23. I remember bringing up at a MoveOn house party that we need to break up the media.

This was two years ago. The people there didn't know what I was talking about and had no concept of the problem. They changed it to "fairness doctrine" because that's what they understood and had been reading about from MoveOn. It is a distraction and I never liked the over-emphasis placed on it.

[midnight]

2. Another old fashioned idea.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Yep

And a common slam from the right wing. Obama is smart to take this position.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. It can easily be skirted. Remember, Colmes is supposedly giving "the other side of the issue"

[Demit]

7. Love the part about 'yap yap TV'. So this is really an issue ginned up by Republicans.

"One year ago, the House passed a bill, from Indiana Republican and former radio talker Mike Pence, that put a one-year moratorium on funding any Federal Communications Commission reimposition of the doctrine. Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), suggested that the amendment was a red herring, a nonissue and that it was being debated, such as it was -- no Democrats stood to oppose it -- to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and "yap yap TV," who had ginned up the issue. ... It was a permanent version of that moratorium, also pushed by Pence, that Pelosi was reportedly saying would have no chance."

I agree that this is not something worthy of being on the 'Hot List'—things that must be addressed immediately. And I like that Obama is thinking of approaching the problem from other angles.

[Peregrine Took]

8. Sickening. Every day I hear something else I can't stand.

[FrenchieCat]

11. You are unfortunately putting the cart before the horse.......

until the media is diversified, i.e., the conglamoration is stopped, the Fairness Doctrine doesn't have shit to do with cable content.

The problem these days are the cable stations not having to report the truth, and these cable channels are owned by giant corporations who also own networks (most of the time).

The fairness doctrine would not affect MSNBC, WAPO, Newsweek, CNN, Times, or Fox.


The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

and........ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3368837&mesg_id=3368937

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

13. gee, that's too bad.

[Undercurrent]

19. Sickening?

What is sickening is that everyday I see Obama bashing on DU. I barely post because of it. I joined this site, a DEMORATIC site to support OUR candidate - who ever it turned out ot be.

The primary is over.

Please.

Can't we just support our candidate without the circular firing squad?

:(

[scheming daemons]

9. I'm against the "fairness doctrine" too..... Let the marketplace of ideas decide

We're winning the war on the internet..... Repukes are winning the war on the radio.

There's nothing that says we can't have an immensely popular radio figure..... look at what Keith O. is accomplishing on cable news.


If our ideas are better, and if we have compelling and entertaining radio hosts, we'll get heard.


If we keep trying to sell the likes of Janine Garafalo, we'll keep getting hammered on the airwaves.


Get talent on the air.... Rachel Maddow is talented and she's gaining audience share.


We don't need the government to artificially prop up our ideas. If they're good ideas (and they ARE), they'll win in any marketplace.

[jefferson_dem]

16. Agreed. I'm very uncomfortable with any effort by the government to manage media content.

Regulating ownership rules for greedy corporate conglomerates is a different story.

[depakid]

25. Mandating airtime for opposing opinions or to refute personal attacks

is a pretty objective deal, don't you think?

No government involvement in content- it's simply leveling the playing field for everyone.

And in the end- that not only promotes a better informed citizenry, but more rational and successful public policy.

[scheming daemons]

26. I disagree.... you assume there are only two viewpoints to each issue...

Do we give libertarians equal time with Democrats and Republicans?


What about the American Communist party?


Or the American Nazi party?


"levelling the playing field" assumes that ALL points of view are equally worthy of airtime. They are not. IN an open market of ideas, the BEST ideas will get an audience.

If our ideas are better, we won't have to worry about artificial "fairness".

[depakid]

28. The doctrine(s) stated "opposing viewpoints from responsible spokespersons"

That included libertarian types. In that respect, unlike what many here have grown up with, it really WAS a marketplace of ideas (as opposed to a corporate monopoly).

And one heard these announcements all the time on the radio and TV as the station gave people the opportunity to respond- which gave listeners and viewers in communities all across America the opportunity to actually hear other points of view (along with accurate facts and corrections of character assassinations).

Hate radio therefore, didn't exist to the extent or the appalling degree that it does today - because station owners would be flooded with requests to correct lies and to counter personal vilification.

So, they tended to get it right in the first place- and behave like adults, not name calling children.

In essence, America once had the same sort of responsible, fair and accurate media that one can still find in Canada or Australia (to name but a few). Believe me, it's a pleasure listening to or watching actual news abroad, though somewhat depressing to consider that it'll never exist in America again.

[jefferson_dem]

35. Mandating airtime and requiring "opposing opinions" amounts to content regulation in my view.

The playing field should be leveled with stricter ownership and licensing rules. Why mandate perfectly balanced political parity on every broadcast channel? That's neither feasible (with so many diverse channels and competing viewpoints out there today) nor desirable.

Anyway, I tend to be a free speech/press absolutist and prefer the marketplace sort the winners from the losers of political debate.

[Radical Activist]

21. Heh. I liked Janine much better than Rachel.

And as much as I love Amy Goodman, she makes a boring radio host.

[depakid]

24. Oh, it's done very well on the public airwaves, hasn't it.

Unfortunately, you're too young to remember what it was like when America actually had a fairly unbiased and accurate media where standards of fairness were honored upheld- usually voluntarily, as they still are in other countries:

Where vile personal attacks could be responded to by the person whose character was impugned- and were therefore rather rare;

Where propaganda and censorship by station owners on issues of public concern could be countered by responsible spokespersons with contrasting views- with the facts via airtime on the owners' stations.

Where false statements of fact weren't uttered every single day repeatedly and incessantly with impunity- to the exclusion of anyone who might correct them.

Formerly, both sides on an initiative campaign were heard on the public airwaves- lies could be refuted- whereas now usually only ONE side is ever heard or at best drowns out the other with money.

Nowadays even in the most progressive cities, like Eugene Oregon all one can hear is far right propaganda.

Fact is, the corporate media as it stands is a classic example of what economists call "market failure- with Eugene being the prime example:

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the commercial talk stations in his town he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,”

Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

For more on why the fairness doctrine was so important and how it actually worked to EVERYONE's advantage (other than the hate radio jocks that is) see:


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

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

[scheming daemons]

27. I'm all for fairness in OWNERSHIP... but not for imposed fairness in CONTENT

Not all viewpoints on every issue are equally valid.


The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there are only TWO points of view on every issue.


There are not.


Every point of view is not deserving of equal airing.... if our ideas are better, they will "sell" better with the American public and the public - via the free market - will demand that those viewpoints be represented.


Otherwise.... look for challenges by the AMerican Nazi Party and NAMBLA to get "equal time" on the airwaves.

[depakid]

33. "challenges by the AMerican Nazi Party and NAMBLA to get "equal time" on the airwaves." Please

That's was never how the law worked- and would never be how the law would work.

Though that IS the sort of inaccurate corporate propaganda that I've heard tossed about with impunity by those invested in hate radio.

[wyldwolf]

10. ya know, it's kind of funny

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on board with Obama now.

But during the primaries - especially very early (like last summer) - people on DU (including myself) pointed out repeatedly that Obama is not the person many of his supporters think he is.

One by one the reasons were stated (and this isn't an attack because I agree with him for the most part on these), all having to do with his adoption of third way DLC policies.

[anonymous171]

14. Except that Obama is against media consolidation,

something Bill helped along when he signed the Telco act of 1996.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. And we need to break up our media

That is the answer, not the Fairness Doctrine.

[Catherina]

18. OTOH, many of his supporters had no such delusion

and never attacked you over it. Some of us repeatedly admitted he was a neoliberal so please don't paint us all as gullible ingenues. I still don't regret my support because the reasons we couldn't support the others haven't changed.

You should be happy. In the end, you win either way.

[Radical Activist]

22. Obama has an excellent progressive platform on media reform.

It would undo some of the mistakes of the Clinton years. He's exactly who I thought he was in the primary.

[crankychatter]

17. his positions are crisp.... this after the fact Primary Debate is fuckin bullshit

and the trolling is going to be preempted with the old ignore feature... I'm really done reading this crap

they came out of the bin after the Primary and one by one, they're going back...

ya'all support the nominee like old people FUCK

"constructive criticism" here, is outright disruption... useless rehashing of known and long resolved matters

[Radical Activist]

20. Good. I agree.

We don't need more government control over what's shown in the media. We need to break up the conglomerates. Restoring the fairness doctrine isn't the right approach.

[depakid]

29. Why on earth anyone thinks it's government control to require opposing viewpoints

is beyond me.

Yes, breaking up conglomerates is a good idea- but even then you'll end up with widespread CORPORATE CONTROL over everything you hear- which will inevitably be to the exclusion of progressive ideas (or anyone who doesn't have the money to buy time).

It's gotten to the point where people have been propagandized so long that even without knowing it- they've become corporate minions- supporters of the very entities that oppress them.

[Radical Activist]

30. Becuase it involves the government forcing the news media to alter its coverage.

That would be the definition of government control.
We'll see how much you like it when the Nazi Party or other right wing extremist groups use it to get on the airways, as they did in the past.

[depakid]

32. That is so whack it's hard to know how to respond

You don't think right wing extremists already dominate the airwaves? You must too young to remember moderation or have a strange idea of what right wing extremism- or fascism is.

Fascism by its very nature is the melding of corporate and state power- the VERY BEST example of which can be found all across America's corporate media!

Your current policy IS FASCIST and it IS PROMOTING WAR, HATRED OF ETHNIC GROUPS AND TORTURE WITH IMPUNITY EVERY SINGLE DAY.

And in MOST communities- there is NOTHING ELSE. Zero, Zip, Nada.

The fairness doctrine prevented that for 50 years- and if in place, may well have kept us from being lied into the quagmire of Iraq- or any number of other irrational policy paths that Bush and the Republicans and DINO's conned Americans into.

[Radical Activist]

34. You wrote:

"And in MOST communities- there is NOTHING ELSE. Zero, Zip, Nada."

Yep, that's the problem. There's no alternative in most communities. That's why breaking up the media is important.
If all the media in an area is controlled by one company then they'll find ways to get around the fairness doctrine. They'll just define "equal time" as time for a moderate and time for a fascist. Like they do now.

And if we have a fascist government then why would you trust it with the power to fairly regulate what you see and hear in the media? How will the next Republican President (after Obama) rig and abuse it for their own purposes? I'm skeptical of any solution that requires us to put our trust in a conservative government to fairly implement it. A decentralized media will at least give us access to more worthy sources of information.

[depakid]

36. Breaking up the media doesn't equal diversity of opinion

or objectivity with respect to FACTS and ANALYSIS, any more than having more cable channels means you have more choices for quality programming. 100 channels of garbage vs. 30. Choose your poison.

You are right with respect to one thing, though- if the FCC and an independent judiciary won't enforce the law- and if the law doesn't have some teeth e.g. the threat to fine AND yank licenses, it won't do much good in promoting a fair, accurate and accountable media.

[Median Democrat]

31. C'mon People - Keep The Eye On The Ball - Media Consolidation!

Lets not lose sight of the ball here, and that is the growth of big media monopolies due to GOP control over the composition of the FCC. Obama is on record that he opposes a relaxation of these rules, which will have direct financial impact on Big Media companies like Disney (ABC) and News Corp (FOX).

I am not crazy about trying to make the government the thought police. Afterall, imagine the Bush Administrations implementation of a fairness doctrine. Be careful what you ask for!

The best defense to a monopolization of political thought is to oppose the growth of media monopolies. The fairness doctrine is a distraction from the real issue of the growth and influence of Big Media.