House votes to ban FCC on ‘fairness’

[babylonsister]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-votes--to-ban-fcc-on-fairness-2007-06-29.html

House votes to ban FCC on ‘fairness’
By Alexander Bolton
June 29, 2007

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.

It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.

House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.

Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

more...

[Hubert Flottz]

1. These people are nuts!

Are they on drugs?

[ixion]

2. why yes, they are. But instead of drugs they call them

pharmaceuticals, so it's a-okay, double-plus-good, one hundred percent 'Murikan. :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. It sounds like they're afraid to be challenged..

[Cooley Hurd]

3. First off, the Boxer-Clinton meeting was bullshit started by serial liar Inhofe...

Secondly, no one wants to regulate talk radio. What is wanted and needed is re-regulation of broadcasting licenses to diversify ownership (which is in the public's best interest, especially when it comes to local radio and its obligation to the public).

Silly repuglicans...:eyes:

[Frogger]

7. I don't understand

I thought the Democrats ran the House, as they do the Senate.

What the hell is wrong with this picture!

[Cooley Hurd]

11. Of course, but it's not about controlling content (via an updated "Fairness Doctrine")

Check out this article, which explains how an updated Fairness Doctrine wouldn't necessarily change the imbalance of talk radio (which, presently, favors of the conservatives). It explains it much better than I could:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/55269

The problem is that the "Fairness Doctrine" never really had much teeth to begin with - it's the consolidation of media ownership. To tackle the problem of media ownership, they need to re-regulate the licensing of of the airwaves.

[Frogger]

41. I guess my point is

that the Dems control the House. Nothing can pass it without wide=spread Dem support.

Or Dem spinlessness.

[Tigress DEM]

39. We need more than FCC monitoring. We need to break the corporate strangle hold on public airwaves.

I for one will read the article referenced by Cooley Hurd.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/55269


ALSO, I am not sure if I trust the current FCC to do anything to improve the situation. The guy there now got it dumped on him and is doing what he can but if the entire Congress can't get *ush to release documents with subpoenas, I don't know if the FCC can do enough with investigations and oversight.

Rather address the corporatization of the media.

Without balancing through licenses, all we're going to get is Clear Channel setting up FAUX liberal outlets. I'm even worried that the affiliates that have taken over Air America's slots and filled with "Progressive Talk" are going to make them play the game in the end anyway.

These days I'm hearing Ed Schultz in Al Franken's old slot in Air America MN and he sounds like what Rush or Bill would sound like if they weren't drinking the koolaid. At first he was a progressive with a bit of good old boy in him, now he's reading the same talking points, but saying he's on the middle left.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. 113 Democrats voted for this amendment

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll599.xml

[Breeze54]

32. Seems that's 113 "DINO's" that need to be replaced!! Voted OUT! n/t

[LWolf]

5. I'm sorry to see this.

:grr:

[mediawatch]

6. well there is always venezuala

I hear they have they implemented it.

[redqueen]

58. you're funny

enjoy your stay

[truebrit71]

8. I'm glad we all worked so hard to get a majority in both houses...

..I'd just like the congress-critters to remember that they're the FUCKING MAJORITY once in a while...:grr:

[Poll_Blind]

9. 2 more recs people! If you can spare them, much appreciated.

This is devastating news....

PB

[annabanana]

10. By a vote of 309-115 . .!?!?!?!?!?!

What EARTHLY reason could Democrats have had to vote for the continued ascendancy of RW reactionary hate Speech?

HOW was this justified?

It makes NO sense to me.

[mediawatch]

14. Let me try and explain

RW hate speech is popular. Not sure why, but it is. People have the right to listen, I think it may be called freedom of speech.

You have an option to either listen to it or not. You can also have a LW "tell it like it is" on another station, channel or even after the RW show.

Do you realize you are all up in arms because of A M radio and a few cable stations. There are hundreds of TV stations you can turn to and there are other radio stations you can listen to. I think I need to know why Hanni ty, Rush and Fox have people in a tizzy.

produce and support your own "fox news" only call it "right news" have your own rush who trashes bush and his cabal.

[wtmusic]

29. Not that simple

You and I can balance viewpoints rationally, take both sides in, and make sound judgements (well in my case, sometimes :-))

The Fairness Doctrine came along in the 30s when in Germany someone was using "unfairness" to manipulate an entire nation into submissiveness. Most people do not bother with questioning what they hear, and there is a very real danger of entities using disproportionate access to the airwaves to advance ideas which, left unchallenged, result in undemocratic policies.

The FD has nothing to do with censorship, but responsibility.

[mediawatch]

40. you know what I know?

as I watch my father when I am in his car listening to RW talk radio. It is the hight light of his day. He starts talking aloud. I put on WKOK one time for him to listen to. It lasted maybe 15 minutes before, (in using my father's words) "damn liberals they are destroying this country" and then bang back to Rush. My father is 77 years old. He minds his own business, he just wants to live life in his peaceful way. He earned it. He paid his dues.

In my opinion this is like Chavez not renewing the TV station's license cause they said things "he" didn't like. Funny,lots of you on this board saw nothing wrong with what he did. Which would explain
why you want to pull a doctrine that was created in 1949. They needed it then. We had 3 stations on for like 12 hours a day. They needed access to all opinions so they could have a variety of public debates.

Thanks to technology we have access to all information and multiple opinions. My father knows Rush is a RW just like he know Moore is a LW. He chooses
who he wants to listen to. You just don't like who he chooses

[wtmusic]

42. Not true

I don't care what he chooses. Problem is, he isn't choosing at all -- he's letting Rush do the choosing for him. There is absolutely no debate going on on Rush Limbaugh--there is the furthering of an agenda using a loudmouth and a mute button. And somehow I think your Dad could live life in a more peaceful way without Rush -- bad for his blood pressure. :-)

Of course that goes for Randi Rhodes too. You could take an entire afternoon of Randi and condense it into about 5 minutes of truly astute commentary, and throw the mindless cheerleading away. It's bullshit. Talk radio (at least of the propagandistic political variety) would be doomed, and I say the sooner the better.

How do you know that I approve of Chavez not renewing a TV station's license for saying things he didn't like? Apples and oranges.

[mitchum]

43. Does your father benefit from Social Security, Medicare, and other things...

from those "damn liberals"?

[mediawatch]

48. Otton von Bismarck

came up with the idea of pensions

It slowly evolved in this country starting with the revolutionary war. Soldiers were the first to get a pension.

[mitchum]

51. And those "socialist" programs I referenced are not pensions

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Fairness doctrine required equal time.

It did not ban or censor anyone. I'm sorry that the rightwing bullshit media system has successfully confused you on this issue. Too bad that the fairness doctrine is no longer in place as it would have required that opposing viewpoints to the pervasive rightwing propaganda were given equivalent airtime. Instead, as there is no fairness doctrine anymore, you only hear one side of the story. Get better informed and learn to analyse issues rather than just parroting positions.

[spanone]

12. God forbid we play fair.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Fairness Doctrine Doesn't Mean Fairness

Thank goodness this think was defeated! Remember who was sponsoring this...right wing nuts who are finally getting gored by their own ox. Couldn't happen to a bunch of bigger scumbags. They sure looked the other way when Rushbo sang "Barack the Happy Negro" but cross them on being a racist and let's reimpose the "Fairness Doctrine".

I'll state it again, this doctrine had little to do with the content of Talk radio and would do little to "force" Progressive or liberal voices onto hate radio stations. Just on the face of it...especially those who favor freedom of speech...this would be government imposed censorship. Now do we really want that?

The game here isn't in content, it's in OWNERSHIP. It's time to push for a revisit of Telcom '96...reinstituting laws that were designed to keep radio local and diversified...making it possible for move local voices and opinions to be heard...rather than that of a handful of large corporates.

Liberals and Progressives have been the right wing in the marketplace of ideas...and there's no reason it can't be done commercially and successfully on commercial radio. It takes playing smart and realizing what created this mess...and Telcom '96 is far more the culprit than the Fairness Doctrine ever was.

[Cooley Hurd]

16. Exactly - you put it much more succinctly than I could...

:thumbsup:

[KharmaTrain]

20. No One Listens To Me

But I post this anyway. Thank you for noticing.

[Lochloosa]

21. Thank you for getting to the heart of the problem.

It's all about ownership.

[KharmaTrain]

23. I'm working on a possible firxt journal...

I just spewed out a background on the history of the Fairness Doctrine, Talk Radio, Radio Regulation, Ownership and other issues. ALso the factors that I saw, first hand, that led to the rise of hate radio and also the failures in establishing success liberal or Progressive Talk.

Seems few really understand the root of this problem and many appear not interested in learning. That's one of the biggest problems I've encountered for years in working with Progressive and Liberal radio.

[wtmusic]

28. Hmm.

How is demanding equal time censorship?

From someone who lived through 25 years of fairness (until the mid-1980s) I can tell you this: there were no cries of government censorship and the media was a hell of a lot more responsible than they are now. You're correct about media ownership, but that's only half the problem. Whether big or small, media will ALWAYS represent corporate interests.

This was a political stunt initiated by Republicans because they knew it would fail. They need it to fail. And you want to help them?

[KharmaTrain]

31. Define What Is Really Equal Time...

Is that requiring every conservative must be balanced with a liberal on all talk shows? How about Independents or Libertarians or Wiccans or American Workers Party or.... And then, one needs to define where the Fairness Doctrine would kick in. How far does Rushbo go before he goes from being an "entertainer" as opposed to presenting an opinion that would require an equal time response. And who plays cop here? Just curious how you square these issues.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to Public Service and News programming...never material classified as "Entertainment". Many of the rules that the Fairness Doctrine applied to were also wiped away with Deregulation. What kept things in check were other elements of relicensing...Ascertainment. Today, license renewals are like applying for a new drivers license. Again, thanks to Telcom '96.

When you start imposing regulations on content, you are imposing censorship as you are dictating what is aired and who airs it. This was a pre-emptive strike and diversion by the broadcast lobby. They'd love to have people focus on the "Fairness Doctrine" while not looking at the imbalance regarding ownership and the destruction of local and minority ownership.

Cheers...

[wtmusic]

33. The Fairness Doctrine applied whenever there was a "personal attack"

or a "political editorial":

"The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond."

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

In practice (and I personally witnessed this many times) stations would offer the opportunity for an "opposing viewpoint". It could be an Independent or Libertarian or Wiccan or American Workers Party member or whatever. It was usually a hodgepodge, sometimes an out-and-out nutcase, but always refreshing.
The Fairness Doctrine did not at all dictate what is aired, just that at least two sides of an issue are aired. I don't see any problem with that at all.

[KharmaTrain]

34. Editorial...Not Talk Shows

The FCC encouraged editorials in those days...I had a station manager/owner who was to the right of Atilla The Hun who did a daily "commentary"...and, yes, there was the disclaimer on there about offering equal time. I know, I wrote and read it. That only pertained to that 5 minute segment that ared three times a week. Rarely did we ever have anyone respond to his diatribes with anything more than snickers.

The issue here is about Talk programs...this wasn't ever covered by Fairness, but by Ascertainment and other licensing and commercial situations. When we did any talk show of a controversial nature, we did so with a careful eye on ruffling the local business community...as the city manager was also president of the local bank and his main opponent ran a major hardware store chain. Both advertised on the station and the manager was more concerned with losing that billing than any concept of fairness.

Under today's rules there's no place for the Fairness Doctrine as the program elements covered under that act are no longer subject to FCC regulation (Telcom '96...again).

Thank you for your thoughtful response...

[wtmusic]

35. All programming which offered political editorials fell under FD

that included talk shows and everything else. For that reason you seldom heard political commentary on talk shows because it was a pain in the ass (and expensive) to be responsible. It still is. ;-)

IMO the Fairness Doctrine worked beautifully. There were no cries of chilling commentary, but you had to be responsible for what you said in those two arenas. Every once in a while you would hear Rush-like comments come out, then the next week they would be rightly hammered.

Enforcement would be no problem at all, with levying of appropriate fines in the case of infractions. Because of the amount of programming we'd need a bigger FCC panel and infrastructure. But even the existing FCC does just fine with obscenity. Whether you agree with where they draw the line or not, when was the last time you saw an exposed female breast on network TV?

[KharmaTrain]

44. The Situation Is A Lot Different Now...

I still disagree that the FD ever pertained to Talk shows...ones that were classified as "Entertainment" as opposed to "Public Service" or "News" or "Political" (its own classification we used for editorials). Talk programming in its present form fell outside those lines...and purposely.

In the mid 80's I knew a consultant who was instrumental in the rise of Rushbo...and the game plan from the get-go was to label the show as "Entertainment"...thus the longtime line Rush has used that he's an "Entertainer". Also, since the show was national, it also fell outside the guidelines of Fairness as the content wasn't local and thus the local station owner wasn't liable. The breast equivelent was the FCC didn't fine each station that aired the boobies, just the network. Since Rush's show wasn't owned by a network or a broadcast entity, it also fell outside any Fairness scrutiny. They were just program providers.

Again, there's a fine line where your entertainment becomes my free speech. If you're limiting your attacks to people in the public domain, you have pretty much free reign to say anything you want without any consequences. The object is to minimalize the "bomb throwers" that dominate the radio, but not through limiting content...no matter how vile it is. We have a marketplace that will fix that imbalance...but only if there are other listening alternatives. You don't regulate that through mandating fairness, you create it by encouraging more voices and diversity.

Look at how the blogs have created am alternative to the conventional press and how its made a positive impact. I see the same possible with radio...but with opening up access for voices, not creating more laws to force some politically parsed definition of "fairness".

Understand that I'm not being critical of your replies...and appreciate your insight.

Cheers...

[wtmusic]

45. You're right, the situation is different now

and I admit it would be tough to put the genie back in the bottle. Talk radio would be fighting for its very survival.

There are severe limits about what you can say about people with regards to defamation and slander but these require civil action and thus rarely get enforced, from a practical standpoint.

FD was pretty well gutted by the 1980s by a series of challenges and of course by Reagan's veto. But I see a pretty clear demarcation line between entertainment and political editorial/personal attacks, and broadcast media vs. the internet. Broadcast is almost entirely passive and thus affects the people most prone to being swayed by lies and propaganda, and thus IMO it should be regulated. Where does cable fit in the mix? I don't know.

It's OK to criticize my replies, actually I appreciate it. :thumbsup:

[KharmaTrain]

46. This Issue Really Needs To Be Fleshed Out

I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be a re-regulation of the public airwaves and for reasons you state. The entire licensing procedure needs to be returned to 3 or 4 year terms, market ownership caps must be re-instituted...2 AM & 2 FM should do anyone...giving preference to local applicants for the license grants and transfers...mandating a certain percentage of programming be of local origination. I could go on with a bunch of suggestions. But this is structure vs. content.

Honestly, the marketplace will be the final arbeiter on hate radio and cable TV...if they're given alternatives, the power and influence of the hate radio blowhards can diminish. I prefer to cage the beasts rather than stomp on 'em. This way we can keep an ear on what's happening in their hive. My goal here is to expand a dialogue, share knowledge and see if there's a way to enact positive change. That's why I feel revising Telcom '96 is the keys to the kingdom...it starts to roll back the damage.

[redqueen]

59. "revising Telcom '96 is the keys to the kingdom"

reading that just makes me want to cry

cause who did it?

*sigh*

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Thanks for clarifying this idiocy.

I suppose you have to be old enough to actually remember when this was in force to understand to total perfidy of the mischaracterization of the what the fairness doctrine was. I am amazed at the number of DUers in this thread who have bought the RW party line on the fairness doctrine, hook line and sinker, without one wit of understanding that they are once again being fooled. Ironically, it is the Bullshit Media System with its coordinated stenography of rightwing talking points that has once again triumphed here.

It is the public's airwaves and it is our right to regulate them, and the fairness doctrine was good policy that mandated balance and access when it came to using the public airwaves for partisan purposes.

[Vidar]

15. We have a hell of a lot of collaborators & appeasers in the party.

[jpgray]

18. Wasn't this a naked political trap by Republicans targeting Dems in conservative districts for 08?

If it passes, Bush's FCC won't bother with enforcing it anyway, and your vote to crush popular shock jock X will be used against you in the campaign. Doesn't seem that scary to me--conservative area DUers: would such an attack have any clout to it?

[eagler]

19. We need a REVISED Fairness Doctrine - not one that shuts down

anyone BUT one that guarantees COMPETITION over the same airwaves that have been hijacked by the RW! Where I live ALL talk radio is RW for at least 12 hours per day non-stop!

[mediawatch]

22. how did the RW hijack the airwaves?

Do they have such a huge audience that the market called for 12 hours per day non-stop radio?
Use the other 12 hours a day for LW talk radio. That sounds fair

[eagler]

25. To put it more strongly. RW radio IS the MOST potent force

they have. It is a very EXCLUSIVE media 24/7, free for your listening pleasure, and it is in the home, the car, and the workplace. If the Dems don't care about competing then so be it. But they are going to continue to be skewered by the neocons and then left wondering what the hell happened.
"I pledge allegience to the flag of the CORPORATIONS of America...".

[mediawatch]

26. sounds like there is a huge audience for it

I think Dems should start their own talk shows. I read here once that there are more Dems than rupub so they should have a bigger audience. Don't you think?

[eagler]

30. They have plenty of their own talk radio shows BUT they

have been relegated to very limited areas of coverage and they mostly are allowed to broadcast ONLY during the middle of the night. All I can say is that if Democrats don't want to compete in every possible venue then keep doin what you're doin' because you have no big interest in winning anything. You might win an election now and then but you are running the race with one leg tied to the back of your head. good luck and Good GOD!

[originalpckelly]

24. Who wants to listen to shitty AM radio?

:shrug:

[eagler]

27. I hate to tell you but there are millions upon millions that do.

With your kind of an attitude it's perfectly understandable how the RW can do what it does so well. We are becoming the BORG! And the soldiers and the children just keep on dying and the homeless just keep getting shuffled from place to place so they don't embarrass anybody any the democrats keep getting confused and lost.

[Wednesdays]

36. If it's a nice day and the car windows are rolled down

Almost every time I stop at a light the guy stopped next to me RW radio blaring from his radio. It's for real, as much now as it ever has been.

[blueworld]

37. Wait a minute, I'm confused again. Is this a wrong interpretation?

When I was a reporter, there was a "fairness doctrine" issue involving candidate coverage on local cable. My understanding of that doctrine was not that any station HAD to cover opposing points of view, but rather they could not FORBID an opposing point of view.

If the station was primarily conservative GOP, that was fine, but if a liberal Dem could afford the air time or requested free public service air time it HAD TO BE GIVEN.

Isn't that what the Dems voted down or am I completely mistaken in my interpretation? Thanks. :dunce:

[eagler]

38. the FD had absolutely nothing to do with cable media

only media over the airwaves. Open competition is not allowed today.

[blueworld]

50. Confused public access laws w/FD - thanks n/t

[defendandprotect]

52. They're worred; positive sign --

On the other hand, I think that America has learned a great deal from this polarization --
Most of them are tuning out MSM -- the internet, of course, is helping them get some real info.

I'm less worried about right-wing talk show hosts than I am about attacks on the internet.

[bbgrunt]

53. wtf---309-115??? what are these idiots thinking? So a fairness doctrine is also off the table.

smart move.

[Hidden Stillness]

54. The Problem is 1996 Telecom Bill; Concentration, Type of Ownership

People really should read the recent report, available as a PDF, and print it if you can, by the Center for American Progress, and Free Press (book publishers), called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio"; very enlightening. They conducted a study trying to account for the overwhelming, sometimes 100%, domination of Republican conservatives on talk radio, even in Democratic regions where that does not reflect (or serve) the more liberal (or even just mainstream) social culture or voting patterns of the area. They concluded that it did not relate to the Fairness Doctrine at all, or to "what listeners want" or any of these corporate advertising lies, but to the makeup of ownership of media.

The most important sinlge finding seems to be, that when stations are locally owned, and/or are the one and only station owned and operated by an owner, they were much more likely to feature either progressive/populist talk programming (if any political content at all) or to feature "both" types, as usually stereotypically characterized. If the station was part of a National/etc. chain, not local, owned by a huge corporation, investment conglomerate, etc., it had no local programming, (also very little to no children's programming; other studies), no news of special interest to the region, and no liberals. The more concentrated the geographical area--or, "market," as all the world is now--is, the more monoploized the ownership is, the less of any variety there is, and the more conservative it all is. A station or media "market" that felt and exercised no responsibility at all to the needs and interests of the local audience used to have its license taken away for it, but now, after the changes of the 1996 Republican/Clinton Telecom Bill, the public is so cut out of the process, with no more solicited comment, hearings publicized well ahead of time, complaints that were actually listened to, etc.--and now only a perfunctory post card re-application process with licenses now good for eight years(!)--the entire "public monitoring" process has been gutted and killed.

Other studies, of TV, movies, book publishing, radio, etc., show that the more concentrated the ownership becomes--the fewer owners there are and the more market percentage the small group controls--the more the actual basis of commercial conduct changes. Now, there is no concern whatsoever for "serving the public," "doing great work," etc.; there is only short-term profit, by any means. Violence, vulgarity, anti-social behavior and cruelty by the "hero,"--most horrifying of all, sexualized violence--all these things increase; cheap production techniques, such as quick-cuts and quick-edits, loudness, and filtered color, rather than writing or research (which costs money) become a new brain-deadening technique to keep audiences still. Long-term news stories, with content and background, are gone, and commercial product releases actually become "news" stories--advertising is a "news" story! The number of types of news stories decreases, as do the number of kinds of entertainmant available to listeners--everything is telescoped down to one or two endlessly, mindlessly, repeated, cheap, demographically-targetted sales-hooks, delivering audiences to sponsors.

When there are so few owners of all media,and they are so far away from the individual audience member, (they never reply to letters, etc., the way they used to, as they no longer have to by law), there is no response on their part to audience anger, dissatisfaction, complaints of slant, or anything else--it reaches a point where you can't touch them, you have no rights or power, and they know it, too. "Boycotting" things does not work, because most of them actually have puny ratings anyway, (all cable is measured by hundreds of thousands, not millions), and they do not profit by audience size, but by sponsor dollars. As long as the anti-Government/pro-lawless-capitalism propaganda gets out there, they will pay for more of it. When their aim has shifted so completely from "broadcaster-to-audience" to "profits for investors," then you realize, they do not give a rat's ass what our opinions are about anything; we are now a nuisance!

There was a really great Senate hearing about a week ago, chaired by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, on Media Violence and its Effect on Children. Every single media pimp said all the same outrageous and deceitful things you would expect and have heard a thousand times before--"censorship," "what the public wants," "you don't want the Government regulating free expression," "you will stifle the creative expression of artists," blah, blah, blah--but these things were answered, not only by an incredibly on-target, brilliant and angry Rockefeller, who put together a brilliant opening statement, a few examples of the kind of mean, cruel violence you can no longer escape, and a panel that explained what is happening to the increasing hostility and also fear of children growing up in this atmosphere, but also repeated the corporate "lines" of excuse and defense for all of this media crap, during the opening, so on-target, that it exposed what they were before they could even speak it as propaganda. The problem is the monopoly--becoming more and more global, of investors who do not even care about what "industry" it is as long as it brings in stock profits--to every single part of the public sphere that society once controlled for its benefit. Now the media speaks only for individual corporations, not any part of society at all anymore.

[KharmaTrain]

57. You're One Of The Few Here Who Sees The Real Problem

Corporate media consolidation brought on by Telcom '96 destroyed diversity in ownership and programming. It's time to re-insitute ownership caps, give local applicants preference in granting and transfering of licenses, shorten license renewal times and make license challenges less expensive and time consuming.

The corporate media would love the focus to stay on the "Fairness Doctrine" since it's misunderstood...see how many here see it as a cure-all...instead of the ownership issue that would result in them losing billions and their stranglehold of the public airwaves.

Cheers...

[Dinger]

55. Is There A Roll Call Of How These Traitors Voted?

Just curious.

[vireo]

56. Link from upthread

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll599.xml

BTW, Dinger, I see that Obey voted Aye. :wtf: