Fairness Doctrine: Time to Bring it Back

[Wiley50]

http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2006/08/fairness-doctrine-time-to-bring-it.html




Friday, August 11, 2006
The Fairness-Doctrine: Time to Bring-it-Back

What a hoot: with the possibility that the GOP will be washed-out of Congress in the Fall of 2006, Republican-blogs, sites and think-tanks are pushing the notion of a conspiracy to silence their pundits with the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" at the FCC. Yeah, what a horrible-thing, they'll have to put opposing-views on their shows FOR REAL, how anti-democratic. In an undated City-Journal tirade, Brian C. Anderson likens a return of the Fairness Doctrine as..."the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short-run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what’s going on—and resist it." Oh sure, I'll take your word.

Yes Bry, democracy is in wonderful-shape since the GOP's control of Congress since 1994, and all-branches of government since 2000, great-shape. Telecom companies monopolize nearly all major-media outlets, and they even allow the Executive to spy-on Americans illegally. Still clinging-to the myth that there is such-a-thing as a liberal-media monopoly, he claims the right has only had a voice since 1987, when the Reagan administration eliminated the Fairness Doctrine as part of the FCC's mandate. Congress attempted twice to make the Fairness Doctrine a law in 1988, then 1993, unsuccessfully. Anderson--like many of his colleagues on-the-right--inaccurately writes that the Fairness Doctrine began around "1929", when it really began with the Radio Act of 1927, and the Communications Act of 1934. What was the Fairness Doctrine you ask? Here's the ACTUAL SECTION of The 1934 Communications Act that created the Fairness Doctrine as a mandate of the FCC, it's pretty-explicit about censorship:

§ 315. Candidates for public office

(a) Equal opportunities requirement; censorship prohibition; allowance of station use; news appearances exception; public interest; public issues discussion opportunities If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any -
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
(b) Broadcast media rates
The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed -
(1) during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and
(2) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.
(c) Definitions
For purposes of this section -
(1) the term "broadcasting station" includes a community antenna television system; and
(2) the terms "licensee" and "station licensee" when used with respect to a community antenna television system mean the operator of such system.
(d) Rules and regulations
The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

Hint: Reagan removed "number 4". How-much of this applied to the the Swifboating of John Kerry? It should be obvious to those who believe in a democratice-media. Any takers? Bringing-back the Fairness Doctrine as law would be a good first-step in retaking our country from right-wing corporatists.

[MissWaverly]

1. Yes, Bring it back

I am so tired of the 80/20 coverage now, even if they bring someone on who is a dem they have
3 righties standing by to shout them down, and could you see them trying to balance Ann Coulter
with who? The Unabomber?

[Wiley50]

2. Coulter balanced with half a feather

Physically and morally

Oh. You mean her nasty mouth....

[MissWaverly]

4. Yes, it would have to be someone balanced on the other side

Let's see, who could that be: How about the entire cast of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy

[trotsky]

3. Considering that to this day, Repukes still whine like babies about...

"liberal media bias," it seems we should be able to get their support to reinstate this!

[MissWaverly]

5. No, because they fear the truth

first they know they do not have the approval of the majority of the people, that's why they
have these shrill nutjobs spewing out their talking points while attempting to pretend that
they are either working class or middle class Americans. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter,
Sean Hannity; they all appeal to those who have been left behind by the upper class.

[Wiley50]

7. There are exceptions to that, Ms W

My ex Brother in law, a guy who in the '70's was my surrogate father
except instead of ballgames, he took me on acid trips.
Who was my 60's radical role model
A guy who had years of shit jobs and fed his family with food stamps at times

is now the top Liquor License broker in Florida
making $15-20 thousand a day

And it kills me that we can't hold a conversation anymore
because he's a Limbaugh ditto head right winger

I want to have conversations about ISSUES
He can't
He just goes off into a Bully Rant about Libruls......

It kills me

I used to love the guy

[MissWaverly]

9. What a shame, I feel for you

Look, my folks were like characters in a Stephen King novel so I learned to replace them with
people who could relate to me, It took me a while but I did, good luck to you. There's very
little you can do when someone closes down, but he may pull out of it.

[Lars39]

6. K&R

[Wiley50]

8. Thanks n/t

[Lars39]

10. And a Welcome

:kick:

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. Normally, I'd Be Against The Fairness Doctrine

I don't want to see facts "balanced" by winger diatribes.

But since we live in an age where reporting the facts have become a luxury. . .

[laura888]

12. Is this really possible...

...when Hillary Clinton goes to dinners with Rupert Murdoch?

[upi402]

13. Yes! n/t

[tomreedtoon]

14. Bring it back...PLUS local station responsibility!

Local stations used to be responsible for being RESPONSIVE to their local community. They couldn't just claim they were supporting children's education by running "The Smurfs" on Saturday morning; they had to prove that they went into their community, listened to suggestions from educators and tried to implement them.

Same thing for racial minorities, religions, social advocacy groups and the like. They used to be invited to meetings by the station's general manager, the minutes were recorded, and the FCC file had to show how these groups were helped - with documentaries or with public service announcements aired throughout the day.

Now, with most TV stations owned by megacorporations without limits (familiar to all those Clear Channel clone radio stations) there is no local responsibility. There is no community involvement. Instead of being a public forum, local TV stations are like McDonald's franchises, slopping up whatever cholesterol-ridden stuff their corporate masters order.

Maybe they'll stick those shows in the dead hours on Sunday morning. No matter. At least the TV stations will be forced to be good citizens in their community, instead of just another bunch of exploiters.