‘Fairness Doctrine’-Like Media Reform Coming

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/#

You can start calling Amy Bolton, VP/GM news/talk at Jones Radio Networks, “Amy the Predictor.” In Radio & Records' Outlook 2007 report (Jan. 12), Bolton said she “fully expect the Democratic majority in Congress to examine the consolidation of ownership in the broadcast radio industry and the perceived imbalance between conservative and liberal talk.” She added that, “although the Fairness Doctrine will not be reprised, the philosophical underpinnings of it are still in force and I expect the inquiry to focus on the obligations of station ownership to act in the public interest.”

She hit it on the head. Over the long weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform met in Memphis where Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told the crowd he’ll serve as chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee -- and he expects to conduct hearings on the FCC. Kucinich said items on his agenda include resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine so that a balance of viewpoints is represented on the airwaves and reviewing the FCC's cross-ownership ban on local newspaper/broadcasting partnerships.

[Redneck Socialist]

1. Hunh? What's with the strike through? n/t

[Craftsman]

2. I loath any form of censorship

And keep in mind on thing if this passes and is used against conservative they will use it against liberals somewhere down the road.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Not Exactly Censorship, I Think

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The political climate was much better when we had the fairness doctrine. For whatever reason, the country (and the Democratic Party) swung very, very far to the right once the law was abolished.

Also, it's not censorship per se. Rather, it's making sure that all voices are heard - it's more like anti-censorship, in a way.

[underpants]

4. RW radio is trying to head this off

Someone posted last week (I think)that Hannity was going off on it and yesterday I heard Rush,via a caller, go off on it. "The truth doesn't need balance. That is what this show does. This show doesn't need balance"

Something like that.

[Efilroft Sul]

5. Restoring the Fairness Doctrine ends right-wing radio's meal ticket.

Rush and Hannity are suddenly proponents of the First Amendment, quoting "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." But, monkeys, Congress isn't abridging your freedom of speech; Congress is making sure viewpoints contrary to yours are heard on the stations that already carry your shows. This will be done by requiring left-wing radio shows to be aired on your affiliates.

What the right-wing radio types fear is that they know they are carried on a vast majority of radio stations that air nothing but their propagandistic shit. To make room for balance, those stations are going to have to drop some right-wing shows or pare back the hours some right-wing shows air. And if those stations don't provide a balanced offering, their licenses can be yanked by the FCC for not acting in the public's interest over airwaves WE ALL own.

The Fairness Doctrine came about after World War II, when our government realized that the propagandizing of broadcast media could lead to a Nazi-like state. Reagan's 1987 killing of the Fairness Doctrine essentially enabled on-air fascism celebrating unrestrained capitalism, all wrapped in the flag for the patriotic but intellectually incurious. That's all Rush, Hannity, et al have ever offered, and it's amazing that they've made their careers by being such one-trick ponies.

Hey, Congress, while you're at it, why not also bust up the media conglomerates? That Telecommunications Act of 1996 has led to less competition, fewer choices, and higher prices. Oh, you think right-wing radio is howling now about the possible restoration of the Fairness Doctrine? Wait until Rush and Hannity's masters crack the whip on them to defend media ownership.

[ItNerd4life]

6. Fairness Doctrine - means no more DU

Imagine DU having to let Repukes on to voice their concerns. Censorship is Censorship, it hurts everybody.

[Bukowski Fan]

7. Correct me I'm wrong

I most certainly could be wrong about this, but I thought that the fairness doctrine applied only to broadcast television and radio. Because the taxpayers own these services, and only "lease" them to corporations, it is our right to put whatever restrictions on them we want. Much the same way that Murdoch, because he owns Faux News, can air all the BS he wants. That's why the FCC can fine CBS for the Janet Jackson thing. It doesn't apply to cable or the internet because those aren't publically owned.

Personally, I'm against just about anything that abridges the right to free speech. That being said, I do feel the current culture in talk radio is appalling at best, and treasonous at worst. I wish there was a way to get more balance on the airwaves without legislating it, but I fear the fairness doctrine might have to be reinstituted, simply because the corporations who now control the airwaves have absolutely no interest in anything but airing the most vile drivel from the likes of Hannity and Limpballs (I love that name).

[NYCGirl]

8. No, it only applies to broadcast TV. And not letting freeps post on DU is not

censorship.

[rinsd]

9. Don't forget radio (nt)

[NYCGirl]

10. Sorry, other than AAR, I so seldom think of radio. (And I listen to AAR in podcasts

mostly.)

[fuzzyball]

11. If we can find a way to neuter Limbaugh & Hannity, I am all for it

the RW talk radio has been a thorn since 1994.