Just a word on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[eagler]

RW radio has mounted an all out attack on the FD because they know that it is being heavily considered in Congress. Their chief claim is that it will violate their freedom of speech and that it is an attempt to silence them. I did my graduate thesis on the doctrine and have been a proponent of it for years. I have always felt that we needed an updated version. For the record a new Fairness Doctrine will not violate their freedom of speech. If you haven't noticed, its the RW that has total freedom of speech over Americans' airwaves - too bad opposing views have no freedom over their own airwaves. The only thing an new FD will do is hold themm accountible for what they say. It would not try to put them off the air but merely give them some competition. The very fact that they are becoming so vociferous about this along with the fact that there is no opposition allowed against it is exactly why we need the Fairness Doctrine. The am/fm airwaves belong to all Americans not to the corporate broadcasters and they are allowed to broadcast whatever they want 24/7 and to not allow anyone to compete against them if they so choose. As it is now the RW is allowed to say whatever it chooses true or not.

[Kagemusha]

1. I thought the "being heavily considered" thing was debunked.

What gives? Senator Clinton participated in the denial that the overheard conversation that triggered this controversy ever happened.

[eagler]

2. Maybe it's not being heavily considered - I heard it on talk radio

That's my point.

[Kagemusha]

4. Oh. Well they got fed that by a Republican senator but it's bunk, ok?

It's scare tactics, it's an article of faith in talk radio that liberals wanna do this (which is true) and that the Democratic Party is gonna try to ram it through congress (which is unlikely as all hell)...

[Bitwit1234]

3. Clinton is not involved...Boxer is the one who is pursuing it.

The republicans are just looking for a way to swiftboat Clinton. And this poster is correct. The Fairness Doctrine does not stifle free speech. What it does is make sure that when a broadcaster says something it is true, and/or the opposition gets a chance to rebut it. All the lies, coulter, rush and the rest spew will have to be proved or they can't tell them.

[Kagemusha]

5. I'm familiar with the whole fairness doctrine argument...

Frankly though, I think the fairness doctrine was never fully in the tradition of the 1st amendment. There is no similar obligation for books. I mean, there never was. The free press is, historically, routinely unwise, loud, and vile. Talk radio reflects that tradition very well.

However, that's not really the point, maybe Boxer thinks this is a good idea, but the propaganda that Clinton is scheming with her to do so is something denied by both parties... and the Republican senator is apparently telling different versions to different people and they don't add up so well since one is from last week and the other is from several years ago, or something.

[Bake]

6. The idea is that the public owns the airwaves

Therefore radio stations must obtain a license to use a particular frequency. There are a limited number of usable frequencies on the AM/FM bands, as well as on broadcast TV frequencies. Broadcasters using public airwaves are required to act (cough, cough) in the public interest.

The analogy to books breaks down because while there is a finite limit to the amount of paper for printing books, that limit is not nearly approached by book publishing. Plus, the marketplace will dictate which books sell and which ones don't.

Bake

[onenote]

7. arguably, technology changes the analysis

Yes, broadcast spectrum is still limited. But the number of outlets has expanded enormously. Start with the number of over the air TV stations; multiply that by the ability of these stations to "multicast" so that each station is the equivalent of 5 or 6 stations; then factor in cable/satellite, particularly cable which offers public access capacity and leased access capacity by law (and that capacity is historically underutilized). THen weigh in the Internet, which offers exponentially greater opportunities for people to make themselves heard.

I'm not saying that the courts will necessarily come out a particular way, or even that they should. But just pointing out that the Red Lion analysis could face some updating in a world in which many radio stations stream their content over the Internet as well as over the air.

[mitchum]

22. Thank you, dbaker...

I was going to point out that that the public ostensibly owns the airwaves, while the public does not own the printing press

[Kagemusha]

27. I'm sorry, that's just not a strong argument.

Nevermind that the argument is moot because Sen. Clinton is not in a conspiracy to end talk radio here. But whatever---

The public, in a lot of cases, owns the land from which trees are cut down for the paper for the presses to print. The public owns the roads upon which the printed word is then transported. The public has never owned the TV studios themselves where the material for broadcast is created, but only the medium by which the messages travel, i.e. the air.

Of course it's a restriction on the first amendment right to a free press! The real issue is whether it is a JUSTIFIABLE one. Basically the justification boiled down to War of the Worlds and fear of use of the airwaves for demagoguery in pursuit of violent revolution by enemies of American liberty. That has not remotely ressembled American reality for decades. Whatever the woes of the United States, they have not been caused by violent revolution with vast swaths of bodies left bleeding in the streets; they have been through the political and legal processes over the course of decades.

It will always be a weak argument to argue that this reality has to be reversed through shutting the other side up.

[mitchum]

29. I agree that it is a weak argument, but it is an enduring one...

in fact, I believe there should be NO restrictions on broadcasting. No FCC licenses, etc...

[MonkeyFunk]

30. I think

the government should have no role in determining content, but there IS a role for them to play in ensuring the spectrum remains usable, and that means licensing, I'm afraid.

[Bake]

35. Nobody is shutting anybody up.

They can still say whatever they want to say. But the FD, in its time, did guarantee that nobody MONOPOLIZED the airwaves by ensuring that opposing viewpoints were heard.

And that was a good thing.

Bake

[annabanana]

8. "it will violate their freedom " to shut everyone else up.. that's what.

Time to 911 the wa-a-ambulance. . .

[BOSSHOG]

9. What a coincidence

the death of the fairness doctrine at the hand of ray-gun gave birth to monsters like limbaugh who could not make a living without lying and hating.

Very telling the two things conservatives fear:

- The Fairness Doctrine
- Swearing to tell the truth

[eagler]

12. Bingo

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. What amazes me is that many of these right wingers support competition

for public schools in the form of charter schools and vouchers. Yet, they oppose competition for talk radio. Hmmm.

[eagler]

11. What made it crystal clear to me is when Randi Rhodes

was being considered as someone who could add some diversity to ( i think it was clear channel)talk radio opposite Limbaugh,and he said that he would quit if that happened. He won. With out the Fairness Doctrine the airwaves are nothing but government propaganda. Talk radio is distinctly different in the fact that it is free, on everywhere 24/7, and it operates without any direct competition. That's unAmerican!

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Talk radio is government propaganda?

No it's not. Was it government propaganda when Clinton was President? Of course not.

[eagler]

16. It was certainly the propaganda of the RW Congress who

used it very effectively to destroy a president and to set the stage for what we have today. I would even go so far to say that talk radio is the #1 reason the Republicans were able to do so well. Maybe you don't remember the ceaseless attacks on Clinton by Limbaugh and Co.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Of course I remember them

which is why I dispute that it's government propaganda. It's right-wing propaganda.

[eagler]

21. After 911 it became government propaganda.I think that today

corporations have much more clout than any other entity and talk radio is their cheerleader. I also think that that is a very broad statement and that there are exceptions but overall I think it's the case.

[Uncle Joe]

13. They're afraid of competition, it's monopoly, they're in love with,

and I'm not talking about the game. Their ideas can't stand up to the light of logic, reason or compassion and they know it.

[Egalitariat]

15. Don't they have competition? Air America, Randi Rhodes, etc?

nm

[Uncle Joe]

17. They're afraid of an honest competition or debate within their own programs.

They can't handle real debate or disagreement with their own preconceived notions.

I would also suggest looking higher up the food chain, I believe some of the rare progressive programs or viewpoints are kept mostly for fig leaf purposes. They're not given market share of outlets in spite of higher ratings.

[eagler]

18. Left wing radio is VERY limited in its areas of coverage .

Over the vast stretches of the country there is no access to left wing commentators and when there is , they are relegated to the wee hours of the night and then for only a short block of time in most areas. The sad fact is that Americans are being denied the chance to hear opposing points of view and democracy depends on a well informed electorate. The RW says the market place determines what people listen to - That's bunk. You can't tell me that someone like maybe Randi Rhodes or John Stewart couldn't gather an audience over the major airwaves.

[mitchum]

23. Also it's not in the best interest of corporations to put left wing radio out...

there as a loss leader whose function is to catapult propaganda. Like they do with right wing barking heads.

[eagler]

31. I think john stewart on the radio might do quite well against limbaugh

just imagine or any number of centrists and left wingers. Tis a mind game you are playing. I too believe in the free market if it is indeed free and that means equal chance to succeed.

[mitchum]

32. But I still don't think that right wing radio generates the ad revenue alleged

If Limbaugh really does reach 15 million listeners a day, why are his sponsors hair loss and impotence cures? If he really did deliver that many listeners, his sponsors would be Ford, GM, and McDonalds. Sure, there is an audience for his blather, but it is nowhere near the number that is always touted. Limbaugh receives corporate subsidies in order that EIB (himself)can pay him $30 million a year. It is VERY important to corporations that Limbaugh and his ilk keep their "ideas" out there in the marketplace of ideas.
The same for Hannity, Ingraham, Savage, Reagan, Schlesinger and all of the other barking heads out there without any REAL job skills.

[eagler]

33. One final thought from me here.I think you're being very naive

in underestimating the power of right wing talk radio. Gingrich credited Limbaugh with the GOP victory in 1994 and the repugs have always used the power of THEIR media to stifle competiton.They are masters at that. But they are not invincible when challenged. I must admit though it does appear that the dems are laying down and are certainly in denial.

[mitchum]

34. Right wing radio does not persuade, but rather it fortifies already existing...

opinions.
Where are Limbaugh's big money sponsors?
You believe anything out of Gingrich's mouth? Yet, you call me naive...

[Selatius]

26. Air America went bankrupt several months ago. Poor management decisions. n/t

[wildbilln864]

19. agreed completely! eom

[KharmaTrain]

24. Are You Familiary With Telcom '96?

That's what led to the corporate destruction of the broadcast airwaves and opened the doors to the hate radio monster that exists today. It destroyed local ownership, stiffled local voices and made it profitable for the Clear Channels and other conglomerates to dominate the airwaves with the pollution we hear today.

If you're familiar with that legislation and broadcast history, then you'd also be familiar with the provision that required this bill to have been reviewed in 2002...which is wasn't...and should now be a high priority with the current Congress.

Returning ownership of the airwaves to the public...through giving preference to local ownership when assigning and renewing licenses, making license challenges less expensive and time consuming and restore limits to the number of stations a company can own in a market...breaking up the near monopoly of information and access.

Radio now is a private preserve of a handful of companies protected by Telcom '96...if you're looking to create more and diverse voices, Telcom '96 is where the problem starts.

[baldguy]

25. The "Fairness Doctrine" is well-named

RW radio makes up 90% of the available air-time, and has for decades (ever since Darth Reagan canceled free speech by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine). Yet they've only ever managed to eek out a minimal majority in all that time, and have never had an absolute Presidential mandate from the electorate.

If talk radio was really representative of free speech, then at best half of the available air-time would be carried liberal radio.

[Gabi Hayes]

28. REPEAL the 1996 Telecommunications act, which Clinton/Gore pushed, btw.

the only hope we have in getting some sort of balance in the political dialogue is to END media concentration, and to stop allowing conglomerates to own multiple outlets in the same markets

bring back competition

how many stations does Clear channel own?

Salem?

Infinity?

ABC?

how many TV stations/Newspapers do media congloms own?

this needs to STOP