House Moves to Prohibit Return of Broadcast 'Fairness Doctrine,' Just in Case

[Mass]

:wtf:

Sure, the vast majority of those voted for this amendment were Republican, but 113 Democrats supported it as well.

I guess it is time to stop complaining the media are not fair, when so many Democratic Congresspeople do not care.

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/06/29/cq_2998.html

House Moves to Prohibit Return of Broadcast 'Fairness Doctrine,' Just in Case

By CQ Staff, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: June 29, 2007

The House voted Thursday to bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the broadcast “fairness doctrine” even though there are no legislative or regulatory proposals to bring back the rule.

Mike Pence, R-Ind., a former conservative radio talk show host, offered an amendment to the bill funding federal financial entities (HR 2829) that would block the FCC from spending money to restore the mandate. The rule, repealed 20 years ago, required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a balanced manner.

During floor debate on the spending bill, José E. Serrano, D-N.Y., chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, quickly agreed to accept the amendment. But that didn’t stop Republicans from taking to the floor to warn of a free-speech threat on the airwaves.

In recent days, conservative talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have cited public comments by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Dianne Feinstein of California and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois as evidence that Democrats are trying to bring back the fairness doctrine.

“Make no mistake. This is targeted at talk radio,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who cosponsored the amendment.
...

[leftofthedial]

1. most "democrats" like things exactly as they are

after all, most "democrats" in Congress are rich.

[RC]

3. They may be members of the Democratic party, but

how many really are Democrats?
How many do not understand their Constitutional purpose?
How many have been bought & paid for just as the Republicans have been?

[leftofthedial]

4. Only a handful behave like "real" Democrats

in any historically contextualized sense of the term

[MonkeyFunk]

28. among those voting "Nay"

on this were Barney Frank, Sam Farr, Jerold Nadler and other hard-core dems. There must be more here than meets the eye.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Makes me want to puke... The Repukes are already setting up things so they can never lose again..

the spineless Dems are standing there doing nothing...or worse, aiding and abetting!!!! :mad:

[Joanne98]

5. We're way beyond needing fairness. We need a NO LYING doctrine.

But that's no excuse for more spinelessness from Dems. It's so depressing!

[wisteria]

6. Good point. Talk radio jocks should be held accountable for misleading the public and lying. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. Not that THIS FCC would ever apply it appropriately BUT,...

,...I believe the American people deserve to have the FD reinstated.

[Pastiche423]

8. Does anyone know where the language of this bill can be found?

I ask because my rep, Pete DeFazio and Dennis Kucinich voted against the bill. Neither of these men are corporate shills.

It just doesn't make sense that they would vote nay w/o a very good reason.

[Cerridwen]

10. The text of the amendment to the bill and a link to the vote

H.AMDT.484 (A031)
Amends: H.R.2829
Sponsor: Rep Pence, Mike (offered 6/28/2007)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees or any other regulations having the same substances.

STATUS:

6/28/2007 2:00pm:
Amendment (A031) offered by Mr. Pence. (consideration: CR H7375-7380, H7404-7405; text: CR H7375)
6/28/2007 6:20pm:
On agreeing to the Pence amendment (A031) Agreed to by recorded vote: 309 - 115, 1 Present (Roll no. 599). link - if it works

And http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll599.xml">a link to the vote tally. The Democrats who voted 'no' voted against blocking the funds to be used by the FCC to implement the Fairness Doctrine. In other words, if I read this correctly, they voted to financially support the Fairness Doctrine.

[Pastiche423]

15. I meant the full text of the bill

Now you have me more confused.

If those that voted no were FOR the funding of the FD, then why is everyone so upset w/the Dems?

[Cerridwen]

16. The link which I provided goes to a page on which a link to the full

text of the bill resides.

The vote tally on the amendment included 115 Democrats who voted 'no' and 113 Democrats who voted 'yes' as well as 1 Democrat who voted 'present' and 6 who did not vote.

The amendment was voted on separately from the total bill - as were all the other amendments offered up.

[Pastiche423]

22. Would you please put the link for the full text

in this thread.

I've gone to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll599.xml and can't find it.

TIA

[Cerridwen]

23. Done.

Link to printer friendly version of bill as passed:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110oR7xKi



Link to the 37 amendments as offered, has to be accessed through the link on the page http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02829:">here

edit to add: I hope the links work. Links to thomas.gov search pages can be hinkey sometimes.

[Pastiche423]

25. Thanks much!

This is what I needed to read:

SEC. 908. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees (50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985)), or any other regulations having the same substance.

[Cerridwen]

26. Yep, that'd be it.

Sorry for the links issue. thomas.gov serves up pages that expire and I'm not well versed enough with them to know which will stay and which will poof.

[depakid]

18. "why is everyone so upset w/the Dems?"

Because only 115 voted to support accountability in the corporate media.

These so called "Democrats" act like battered spouses- it's almost as if the LIKE the abuse and the lies heaped on them- and on all of us EVERY SINGLE DAY.

They're NOTHING MORE than allies in the ongoing assault on reason. Self destructive ones at that.

[Pastiche423]

20. Thank you for your answer

I suppose I had it backwards as to which vote (aye or nay) was the right thing to do.

When I read that DeFazio, Kucinich, Stark, Conyers, McDermott, McGovern, Murtha, Rangel, Waters and Watt (among others) voted no, I thought it must be a good thing.

It was the OTHER Dems that fucked up. Correct?

[depakid]

27. Worse than fucked up

The corporate media is the number 1 reason why the Dems lose elections- and why progressive issues don't get aired. It's why far right initiatives pass and progressive ones face such overwhelming odds.

There is absolutely NO rational reason why so many Dems should have sided with the far right, especially to this extent.

See, e.g.:

Right-Wingers Are on the Defensive About Talk Radio Dominance

A new report by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press has the right up-in-arms. Its message: right-wingers' dominance of talkradio is a classic market failure.

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. A NO vote would allow us to return the FD

A YES vote says the FCC cannot reinstate it.

[The Wielding Truth]

9. If ReCons weren't afraid of the truth they would support the FD.

[bperci108]

12. No shit.

Whatever happened to all of their "marketplace of ideas" BS?


The American people know the truth when they hear it (usually...) so the truth must be kept hidden to maintain Repuke dominance.

:grr:

[The Wielding Truth]

13. I think it has to do with guts. Congress can't play nice ,anymore.

They can still be smart, but they have to be viscous. RW thinks they are any how and the time to play sweet is past.

[depakid]

11. I guess the Dems want to live in a far right society

Of course, the Bill probably won't pass and the FCC could reinstate the Doctrine and it would require a veto proof majority to over turn it.

[wtmusic]

14. This is nonsense.

Make a law to prevent another law? For that we need something special...a meta-law! And what basis will meta-laws have? Why the meta-Constitution, of course! :crazy:

[diane in sf]

17. I'm more interested in breaking up ownership of the media monopolies.

I don't really want to listen to some right winger on Air America rebutting Mike or Randi

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Agreed, that's the approach we need to be taking

[leftupnorth]

30. 10-4 good buddy!

[ProSense]

19. What are they afraid of: Truth? Both sides of the story? A curb on propaganda?

"if this is the birth of a new constitutional era . . . what an ugly baby"

A DUer made the perfect point in the thread:

Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are the disseminators of the RW talking points. They are the ones who have given the RW their unified message over the last 20 years - they are the propaganda wing of the fascist coup that took power in 2000. They could not function while the fairness doctrine was in place, which is why it was eliminated in the first place. The eliminaton of the fairness doctrine was integral to the corporatist takeover of our government.

I don't see how anyone with any liberal leanings can object to it. It is NOT a free speech issue - you can say anything you want. But understand, the other side gets equal air time on the PUBLIC airwaves.

Reversed, the same applies - liberals can say anything they want, and conservatives get equal air time.

That's the difference between propaganda and debate.

link

The American Media 101 (The media as GOP shill)

Bill Moyers: Republicans own the government lock, stock, and barrel

Because they own the media, it's easy for them to drown out other voices. Remember the frenzy over Imus? Everyone proclaimed that it was the beginning of the end of Rush, Hannity, Beck and Coulter (advocating the death of John Edwards). A few months later, Obey is defending Rush. Irony to the infinite power.

The major networks constantly shill for the RW. The fact that we can get our news from other sources (have they passed net neutrality?) does not constitute fair. In the run up to the war and the 2004 election, the media reporting was completely lopsided. Remember Bush and payola.

Whatever the solution there has to be a way to ensure fairness in the media.

[bricolage]

29. It would pretty much end talk radio.

Just like before 1988. Stations would get tired of field every complaint. They wouldn't want to fool with having to present opposite viewpoints for every little statement. They'd end up canceling all the talk programs and replacing them with bland fare. We'd be back to Bruce Williams types again.

[depakid]

32. You must not remember what it was like prior to hate radio

Then again- maybe you do....

[Morgana LaFey]

31. Who ARE these people and what are they doing with D's

behind their names?

Jesus H. Christ. I've about had it with the lot of them. Really.

[Tsiyu]

33. What do 113 Democrats have against Fairness?

I remember when we had a Fairness Doctrine.

It was really nice. People were more informed. I could turn on a radio and hear sane talk from time to time.

Now you turn on AM radio and it is like a desert out there.

Why do these Democrats hate the American people? Why do they hate "fairness?"

[KharmaTrain]

34. The Focus Should Be On Revising Telcom '96

The ownership issue is what dictates fairness. When one company controls a majority of the major signals in your area, they dictate the "fairness". Return the airwaves to local ownership and restore ownership limits and you create a more diverse and stronger radio.

I just heard a caller on C-SPAN...one of the rare few who sees Telcom '96, not the Fairness Doctrine as the problem. At least there's more than one of me.