Should NBC's FCC license be renewed? Should FOXNEWS's?

[JackRiddler]

I say no.

[Ian David]

1. We need fairness, but The Fairness Doctrine isn't the answer.

We need a NEW Fairness Doctrine, rather than reinstating the OLD Fairness Doctrine.

[newmajority]

3. No, I say we restore the old one.

Do you trust the DLC'ers in Congress to write a new one?

[Ian David]

4. Nope. I don't trust The DLC. I trust The Congressional Black Caucus the most right now. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

16. New in what way?

I thought the OLD Fairness Doctrine would be good enough.

What would you change?

[Ian David]

24. I would eliminate "equal time" for opposing viewpoints...

... and emphasize really strong rules on media ownership, breaking-up the monopolies and vertically integrated media companies.

The OLD Fairness Doctrine would kill Air America along with Fox "News."

I'd also emphasize new measures on fairly sharing the broadcast spectrum among opposing viewpoints, as opposed to sharing opposing viewpoints by a single broadcaster.

A new Fairness Doctrine also needs to demand that "News" and "Editorial" and "Entertainment" must be accurately identified.

[Rick Myers]

2. The networks do not have licenses, only the stations carrying the programming.

[JackRiddler]

5. Well, that's one way of reaching the networks, no?

Silly me, I was thinking like a Venezuelan!

[DJ13]

6. Cable channels (MSNBC/Fux News) dont need FCC licenses

The FCC license only applies to over the air broadcasters.

[JackRiddler]

11. Gotcha, I feel stupid.

What's the regulation on cable channels?

Have we been permanently outmaneuvered on the media front?

[barbtries]

7. Fox news

is not news. they don't deserve a second of the people's airwaves.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Fox News does not have an FCC license

They are a cable channel which does not broadcast over the airwaves.

[JackRiddler]

10. I guess it's becoming clear to me how stupid the question was, if well meant.

So, duuuuh... what regulates cable channels?

[PeaceNikki]

17. Advertisers?

[JackRiddler]

22. I see.

We are even more fucked than I thought.

[tridim]

13. They actually do broadcast over the airwaves if your city has a Faux affiliate

I see repackaged Faux stories on our local Faux station all the time.

[Swamp Rat]

9. All TV shows should be suspended, except CSPAN and PBS, and in their place

50 channels that display NOAA weather and radar info of the 50 states, a couple global views and international weather information, travel advisories, the BBC, CBC, and Deutsche weller, and commercial-free local news broadcasts... until further notice. :)

American TV is broken and it can't get up.

[Sheets of Easter]

12. I really hope you're not serious.

If you hate TV so much, there really is such a thing as an "off" button, or better yet, there's a little solution called "not subscribing to cable."

[Swamp Rat]

14. I really hope you are not really questioning my seriousness.

If you hate negative comments about TV, you can use the ignore feature.

[Sheets of Easter]

15. .

[Swamp Rat]

23. That's what I thought!

:D

[Oeditpus Rex]

18. Censorship is not a liberal value (n.t)

[JackRiddler]

19. It's not censorship.

The media corporations are doing the censoring, which is why they should be disempowered - broken up - made accessible to other people and points of view.

& O'Reilly would still be free to exercise his First Amendment rights on a blog or a street corner, just like you.

[Oeditpus Rex]

20. You want the government to stop them from broadcasting

but it's not censorship.



Oh, I'm sorry — but you've been a wonderful contestant. Thanks for playing.

[JackRiddler]

21. Who said stop?

The government empowers them to use a public resource, the airwaves, which they have abused by presenting a narrow range of opinion and information. (Lots of information, but in a narrow range.)

The license expires at some point, and not renewing is not the same as stopping.

In not renewing one, you award the channel to another, do you not?

[DangerDave921]

25. Several points of disagreement

1. This fiction of public airwaves is just that -- a fiction. How are airwaves owned by the public, other than simply stating that it is so?

2. I believe in free speech. The more the better. I do NOT believe in shutting down opposing viewpoints as so many on here are in favor of.

3. There are so many outlets now for expression with the Internet, cable, mags, etc. that it is difficult to say that Dems need to be given more air time. A good show will attract viewers (as a general proposition).

4. The government should not be in the business of deciding the CONTENT of what is broadcast, i.e., deciding on which political ideology should get voice.

5. The Fairness Doctrine is so vague and mushy that it is impossible to enforce. What does equal time mean? Does it mean Air America needs to air the Sean Hannity show to be fair?

[JackRiddler]

26. Okay.

1. This fiction of public airwaves is just that -- a fiction. How are airwaves owned by the public, other than simply stating that it is so?

Well, who owns the airwaves then? Were they naturally granted to any entity, however defined? May I broadcast from my backyard? It's already been "simply stated." The government stated it was so, and then proceeded to award exclusive broadcast rights on given frequencies to given private companies, and to arrest anyone who thought to use the frequency otherwise.

2. I believe in free speech. The more the better. I do NOT believe in shutting down opposing viewpoints as so many on here are in favor of.

Again, strawman: Who said "shut down"? Why do six to twelve media conglomerates get to control all of the TV and most of the daily print? I believe in access for all - perhaps the broadcaster model needs to be replaced by what one might call a "speaker" model. Instead of NBC getting 24 hours on Channel 4, maybe that should be divided among different speakers.

3. There are so many outlets now for expression with the Internet, cable, mags, etc. that it is difficult to say that Dems need to be given more air time. A good show will attract viewers (as a general proposition).

Please. The most important medium of TV, including cable, is not at all an "outlet for expression" as you describe, it is a top-down dispensary that sometimes creates the illusion of debate between artificial viewpoints on non-existent issues.

A good show that doesn't get the network nod will attract NO ONE. A show that attracts "merely" thousands of viewers will be off the air. And I'm not talking about "Dems." I'm talking about time for viewpoints outside the elite consensus of D vs. R.

4. The government should not be in the business of deciding the CONTENT of what is broadcast, i.e., deciding on which political ideology should get voice.

The government IS in this business. Formally, it is all over this business, it decides who broadcasts. In terms of the real power relationships, however, you cannot so cleanly distinguish between big corporations and the government. They are the government. One small example: a contractor in symbiosis with the Pentagon owns NBC, which in turn is conditioned over time (mainly through personnel decisions) to maintain the ideological justifications for the military-industrial complex in general, and whatever the next war is in particular. (Critique after the fact ain't worth a bucket of spit, as they say. All that counts on this aspect is what they do when the next war is announced.)

So the government is in this business, and the corporations who own the networks might as well be the government. The question is, what do you want to do about it?

5. The Fairness Doctrine is so vague and mushy that it is impossible to enforce. What does equal time mean? Does it mean Air America needs to air the Sean Hannity show to be fair?

Indeed. Fine point. The answers aren't simple, but you can't pretend there isn't a problem with media control. Perhaps the future really will bring a market solution: an integration of Internet and TV into one giant free-broadcast space where the viewer always decides. I don't know if that will be better, because we haven't seen the nature of that medium and what it does to us. (Did you ever read McLuhan, you'd know what I mean.)