Conservatives Battle Possible Fairness Doctrine Return

[Starbucks Anarchist]

http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000003/#ni0247593

13 June 2008 12:11 PM, PDT

Conservative activists are demanding a House vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prevent any future president from reviving the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC rule that required broadcasters to balance opinions expressed on their airwaves. As reported by CNSNews.com, a unit of the conservative Media Research Center, the author of the bill, Republican Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has gathered 194 signatures out of a required 218 from colleagues to force the bill out of committee, where it has been bottled up, and go to the floor of the House for a vote. "It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech," Pence told Cns. L. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, told Cns News, "With ... conservatives finally having their voices heard, liberals desire to shut them up and shut them down by the Fairness Doctrine."

[bryant69]

1. Rush has been talking about this pretty constantly, but i don't think it has much hope

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is coming back.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NewJeffCT]

2. If the media was so liberal...

Shouldn't conservatives be welcoming a return to fairness?

:sarcasm:

[edhopper]

3. Actually the Evangelical Right

wants a return of the Doctrine. Mainly to demand fair time for Creationism and other religious nonsense.

[Echo In Light]

6. It cuts both ways: many dominionists were/are against it

For fear of having to legally provide equal time to dispel their pseudo-science re "intelligent design."

[onenote]

8. yep. I think the religious right is pretty much unified in opposition to the FD

[electropop]

4. They will live to regret this as the pendulum swings left and the RW broadcasters

are all replaced by LW broadcasters.

[theboss]

5. Anytime the government begins enforcing "fairness," I grab my wallet

Why would we want to start going down this path?

[Indenturedebtor]

7. Because when you let corporations have a free reign with the media

They push for a RW agenda. That's why the fairness doctrine was created in the first place. It was created to prevent America from going down the path of Nazi Germany.

The RW pushed to get rid of it so they could turn America into a Facist Oligarchy.

[Echo In Light]

9. Succinctly put

[theboss]

11. Then change the laws regarding media ownership

All you will do under the Fairness Doctrine is add a sixth voice (the government's) to the five that already giving us all of our information.

The problem is that someone like Dan Snyder can suddenly buy every radio station in DC and that's ok.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Fairness Doctrine Has No Affect On This...Sheesh

This rule was related to broadcast stations giving access on station public affair programs and advertising...and mostly advertising. It made sure one candidate didn't get all the coverage...being able to buy out all the advertising time and monopolize station talk shows (most which were considered public affairs). It never covered "entertainment" shows or for news coverage. I worked for several stations during those days that just avoided the doctrine by not selling any political advertising or any real political coverage. Others dealt with it as a necessary evil...stations made a lot of money from all the candidates and most featured few talk shows so the overall "balance" was heard on Sunday mornings or over night hours.

The game that's changed has been deregulation and the proliferation of talk, and especially hate talk, as an "enterainment"...or full time format. People like Limbaugh emerged when he and his GOOP backers found loopholes where talk could be moved into the "entertainment" column and thus when he was called on his outrageous remarks, he could always say his show was not news or even commentary, but "public affairs". Many stations in the early days even ran disclaimers, but that was found not to be necessary...this was a content issue not a political one...supposedly right wing hate radio drew greater ratings and revenues than liberal talk did and thus why it's more prevelent.

This is also a symptom of large corporations that have all but destroyed local radio...and with it a local dialogue on many issues. Local hosts were replaced by cheap satellite talk shows and with little to no regulation there was little accountability as well. Hate radio had become "entertainment" and thus outside any real regulatory power. Just as long as you don't expose a tit.

The game here is to prevent any sort of reregulation of radio...breaking apart the huge Clear Channel, Capstar and CBS monopolies of frequencies...and the shell games these companies are playing in keeping property values artifically high to avoid going down the financial tubes.