Fairness Doctrine

[melm00se]

i keep hearing that the 'fairness doctrine' needs to be re-instituted. I can certainly understand the need for (I am truly sorry for this pun) fair and balanced reporting, I am unsure how this will solve any balance issues.

In today's media landscape news comes from so many sources only which a few, mainly OTA TV and radio stations, that the FCC has licensing jurisdiction over. The FCC would have no way of enforcing this rule on any cable only outlet as the FCC does not license those stations.

Then factor in the myriad of news and opinion websites, just about every newspaper, magazine, TV network and the like. This would create a god awful problem with active (or even a reactive) enforcement.

[ellenfl]

1. perhaps we can limit the amount of money spent on a campaign instead. eom

[AndyA]

2. I think something similar to the Fairness Doctrine should be implemented.

There were a few loopholes to the original, so it should be updated to deal with the conditions in the media today. The Dems need to remember how difficult it has been these last six years getting their message out, and do something while they can to prevent future shut outs.

I also agree that we need to go to publically funded campaigns, removing private money completely. The little guy doesn't stand a chance, because they don't have the $$$$ to compete. And that leaves out a lot of good people that could be wonderful public servants.

Oh, and then there's the lobbyists. Need to dissolve that entire industry.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. No. The mainstream media should be viewed as a unique

category. The impact of their broadcasts is far too pivotal to the national political process to be allowed to remain prey to the whims and machinations of a category of mankind (the owners) who largely represent some of the most anti-social and destructive forces in our societies.

People don't want their newspapers to constitute virtuous uplifting tracts, they want gossip, witty analyses and criticisms, and much the same goes for their television programmes. However, that does not mean that the inevitable political disinformation peddled by the far right, essential to have ANY appeal to the masses, us, should be permitted.

In essence, they are white-collar criminals with the power to create far more harm and chaos than any plain organised crime organisation - with which, however, they have always had a natural affinity and often quite close ties.

[melm00se]

4. but much of the MSM

does not fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC: ABC, NBC and CBS as they all have FCC issued broadcast licenses but the balance: Faux, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC etc are not (nor do they have to be) licensed by the FCC. Ditto the webbased/video on demand sides of teh big 3.

Talk radio OTOH is something that is more controllable but push them off the traditional OTA stations via regulation, they will very likely pull a Howard Stern and head to satellite radio, again, something that falls outside the jurisdiction of the FCC or go to a purely webstreamed product'casting.

I don't even want to think about 'blogs, podcasts and the like...

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. I don't want you think about the blogs, etc, either, as I said.

Imo, however unwittingly, your invoking them is a red herring.

You speak about much of the MSM not falling under the juridiction of the FCC. So what? That is precisely what I am getting at. Make ALL the mainstream media (at least in terms of TV) answerable to the Government, whether via the FCC or some entirely new body set up for the purpose.

[melm00se]

8. the original reasoning

behind the FD was that as the airwaves are in the public domain and usage of the limited airwaves was licensed by the people for private use, the FCC (and the FRC before it) deemed that these stations should operate in the public interest and convenience (PICON). Now that you have cable (which in the USA are private domains) does the PICON justification still apply.

AS to my "red herring", as the FCC does, in fact, have some jurisdiction over the transport medium that blogs are accessed (telephone lines), I think the case can be made that the FCC may have the ability/right to exert some content influence over 'blogs and over web content (but I do think that would be a grave mistake).

As to the "FCC or some entirely new body set up for the purpose" that smacks, IMO, far too much like Ministry of Information and, as we have seen for the last few years, under the whim of appointed and ideologue bureaucrats.

Oh, and I forgot: with all the additional and varied sources of information, I think that much of the electronic MSM is being marginalized...people like choice and people have more sources today by several orders of magnitude as compared to 5 years ago, much less in the 80's or even the late 40's (when the FD was formalized).

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. "... people like choice and people have more sources today by

several orders of magnitude as compared to 5 years ago, much less in the 80's or even the late 40's (when the FD was formalized)."

Not politically by a long chalk. And that's what the rest of us are focusing on.

Anyway, I'm not a liberal in the sense that I think that, because people want something and technically could have it, they're entitled to it. Such freedom in hypercapitalist societies is always the preserve of the rich and powerful. If they can make money out of allowing the masses access to such things as hard-core pornography, they'll do it. But they don't give tuppence for their freedom. The only entitlement to freedom they recognise is the freedom to dine at the Ritz or sleep in the subway.

People are immeasurably worse off financially and materially - well actually it has been measured - with this much vaunted freedom you are touting, than they were when their options in terms of the gewgaws of affluence were much more limited.

[Hosnon]

6. It would probably be deemed unconstitutional today. There are MANY more

radio stations plus satellite radio.

[bobbie]

7. This is a great subject, and one Congress should discuss also

If they're willing to go past the superficial.

[lib2DaBone]

9. Tokyo Rose Limbaugh

I live in a town (like most) where Rush Limbaugh and Limbaugh "Wannabes" control every radio station. Thanks to media consolidation, there is no longer any hope of alternative ideas being expressed. Please note: Radio Channels are PUBLIC PROPERTY. Just like Parks, Roads and Schools, you (the Taxpayers) have bought and paid for these channels. Why let these channels be stolen away from you to serve a few corporate interests? Please, I beg you as fellow American's... wake up and support the return of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. It's our last hope.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

11. They couldn't have run the Swiftboat ad 1000's of times free without running a response ad.

The media played it to death and made it a far bigger one-sided story but with the "Fairness Doctrine" it would been a far different story. They caught the Kerry campaign trying to save money until after the puke convention and were slow to react but it would have cost Kerry millions to get what the pukes got for free, mass exposure that helped sway a presidential election. I don't have all the facts but it seems that it should be a top priority in making future elections more fair and helping to diminshing the abuses of corporate media in critically influencing elections.

[melm00se]

12. not necessarily...

the fairness doctrine required that the time be made available at the same price for a response (except in the case of an editorial which is not a paid time slot), if the "other side" chooses not to respond, then the fairness doctrine could not be used to block an ad.

Plus, bona fide news stories were excluded from the fairness doctrine (ie a candidate A makes a speech and parts are carried as news did not give the other candidates the right to claim for equal time but a sit down interview with an anchor by candidate A would be covered).

My point is that a resinstatement of the fairness doctrine would not be the panacea that some folks seem to expect and could be, in fact, used as a weapon (or an excuse) to drive political content off the public airwaves. There were many stations back in the day that plain old chose not to carry any non-news political content...to them it just wasn't worth the compliance requirements.