The fairness doctrine makes absolutely no sense in today's world.

[BzaDem]

As a Democrat, I often favor more government -- not less. (In the economic realm, significantly more government.) One area for which this is decidedly not the case is the area of determining whether speech is "fair" or "not fair."

Allowing the government to decide what is "fair" and "unfair," and conditioning the right to use the airwaves on the outcome of that determination, would be a horrifying breach of the first amendment and would be equally bad policy. This is nothing more than blatant content-based censorsip. Censoring someone because they aren't offering up an additional viewpoint that they don't agree with is censorship. I would be amazed if anyone thought Republicans wouldn't use this authority to discourage or eliminate liberal views from the media, if they thought they had the power.

The ONLY reason this was ever allowed by the Supreme Court was because back then, the airwaves were a scarce resource, and they didn't want one side dominating all the airwaves. But it is certainly no longer the case that the airwaves are scarce, and if the fairness doctrine were ever implemented today it would be unanimously thrown out by the entire Supreme Court.

If people want to go after media consolidation, then they should pass laws directly targeted at media consolidation. Those would be content-neutral laws that do not allow government officials to pick and choose what can be said, what can't be said, and what must be said. It would simply prevent any single speaker from having control over too much of the speech market.

But any law that would prevent a willing MSNBC viewer to voluntarily change the channel to MSNBC as it exists today (or for any other network) would be an atrocious break with our Constitution and free speech principles in general. Unlike the era when the doctrine were first created, anyone who wants news of any type (and with any ideological theme) can get it if they want it, on the airwaves or through a variety of mediums. It is not up to the government (or anyone else) to steer people into types of news that the FCC's membership approves of, when anyone can voluntarily steer themselves into the news they prefer to see.

[mmonk]

1. Of course not. Money is free speech today.

[indurancevile]

46. exactly. which is why we have 40 million media channels with the same corporate content & the same

phony "non-news".

[Drix]

2. Broad generaliztions.

When has the government ever decided what was fair or unfair? What the Fairness Doctrine allowed was rebuttal from from concerned citizens. The government NEVER censored speech. If you have any examples what so ever of the FCC declaring a political point banned please post it.

[BzaDem]

4. Censoring someone because they wouldn't allow a rebuttal is censorship. n/t

[Drix]

7. Name the example. When has it happened?

You need to cite examples rather than making stuff up.

[BzaDem]

9. Where in the world does my argument rely on EXAMPLES of misuse?

My argument is against the government having the AUTHORITY in the first place to censor. It does not rely on any past examples of censorship (whether they exist or not). The law clearly gives the power to the government to penalize those who do not follow the "rebuttal" rule, and that is wrong WHETHER OR NOT it was ever enforced.

[Drix]

11. You seem to be missing something here.

A license by it's very nature is NOT a right. Broadcast stations are licensed. Yes, the government has the power and the responsibility to manage a license. Broadcasting on the public airwaves is not a right no more than driving, practicing law or medicine.

[BzaDem]

14. That does NOT mean the government can place a content-based restriction on getting the license.

Content-based restrictions are subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny and they are usually thrown out -- for good reason.

Under your logic and legal argument, because this is a license, the government can condition the license on only airing Rush Limbaugh 24/7.

In reality, that is incorrect. The government cannot attach a content-based speech restriction to a media license or a drivers license or any other type of license (unless it passes strict scrutiny, like fire in a crowded theater/etc).

[Drix]

16. Fainess Doctrine did not restrict content.

Once again if you have examples please cite them. You can't just make stuff up.

[BzaDem]

18. Censoring those who do not allow for a rebuttal is a restriction of content.

Once again, this is true WHETHER OR NOT it has ever been enforced. (If the government banned public kissing on Sunday, that would be a bad law EVEN IF there was not a single example of it being enforced.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Censoring for a rebutal

that is not how it worked... but it is exactly how the media works today... prime example fox nooz.

[BzaDem]

23. The law allows the FCC to condition use of the airwaves on the requirement for a rebuttal.

That is censoring if the person does not want to allow a rebuttal.

[indurancevile]

48. you're clueless.

[Drix]

61. This is looney.

It's like saying the government is censoring because they won't allow hardcore porn 24/7 or restrict your broadcasting to a specific spectrum. All licenses have conditions. It's the nature of licenses.

[BzaDem]

73. And many such conditions (especially on the media) would be ruled unconstitutional if they were ever

attempted. Not all -- but many. Particularly content-based restrictions (as opposed to content neutral restrictions).

[Ken Burch]

91. Opposing the Fairness Doctrine means endorsing the status quo

It means endorsing big money control of politics. Once again, you take the position that corporate power supports. As you always do.

[BzaDem]

97. No, it doesn't. n/t

[Drix]

25. You do not seem to understand how a license works.

With a license comes rules. If you don't like the rules don't apply for the license. Broadcasting on the public airwaves is not right no more than opening a Hooters in Yellowstone National Park. Your woulds, coulda, shoulda, arguments don't carry any weight. The FCC has never censored political speech under the Fairness Doctrine. You have yet to cite one example.

[BzaDem]

27. You are completely wrong. The US Constitution PROHIBITS certain rules from being imposed.

The government cannot condition your right to use the airwaves on a rule that would (say) force you to waive your right to a fair trial in the future. It similarly cannot condition the license on adhering to a content-based speech rule that does not survive strict scrutiny. Again, I am talking about whether the government has the RIGHT to censor political speech -- not whether they have ever enforced that right. What I'm saying would be equally true whether there are 0 or 1000 examples of enforcement.

Once again, under your logic, since a license is not a right, the government can condition access to the airwaves on anyone that doesn't re-air Rush Limbaugh's show 24/7. Do you really believe that?

[Drix]

29. Your examples are nonsensical.

Can the government make the speed limit 1 mile per hour? I guess it could but it's never happened and never will happen. Is the government censoring free speech because you can't erect flashing billboards in Yosemite? You could make that argument but it would be silly. I'm talking about events that actually happen. You're talking about events that that only happen in your imagination.

[BzaDem]

30. The entire point of the First Amendment is to provide judicially-enforced prohibitions on what the

government can or can't do. Now here you are claiming that we don't really need such judicially enforced rights in this case, because the government would never do it anyway. Yet the main goal of such rights is to prevent things that "never happen" from becoming things that eventually do happen.

But regardless of your opinion on whether the government SHOULD have the authority, you are objectively 100% wrong in your assertion that they DO have the authority. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that one cannot enact a content-based condition on a license that wouldn't otherwise survive strict judicial scrutiny. This is black letter law.

[Drix]

31. Then cite the case.

You seem to have trouble making assertions then not backing them up with any facts.

[BzaDem]

40. Sure.

See Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC:

"In particular, the FCC's oversight responsibilities do not grant it the power to ordain any particular type of programming that must be offered by broadcast stations; for although "the Commission may inquire of licensees what they have done to determine the needs of the community they propose to serve, the Commission may not impose upon them its private notions of what the public ought to hear."

and
 
"Indeed, our cases have recognized that Government regulation over the content of broadcast programming must be narrow, and that broadcast licensees must retain abundant discretion over programming choices.

Not sure it can get much clearer than that. In fact, the Supreme Court has even held that Congress cannot condition a subsidy on a content-based speech condition that doesn't satisfy strict scrutiny. That's right -- all the affected people had to do was not ask for a subsidy they were not entitled to, yet the court STILL struck down the condition. Other cases involve throwing out restrictions on what federal employees can say, content restrictions on funding for public college newspapers (not just the ability to establish, but merely for public funding), etc.

[Drix]

59. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with Turner v FCC.

Nice try though.

[BzaDem]

62. It disproved your assertion that the government is free to attach whatever conditions it wants to

broadcast licenses. An assertion you made multiple times.

[sabrina 1]

74. People without money are being censored. How do you stop that?

Money is the most powerful censor of all. The Government has a duty to ensure that the poor are not silenced. But that is exactly what the deregulation of the media has done. Censored those who have no money to 'speak' with. In fact, the very argument that 'money is speech' promoted by the anti-regulation rightwing, proves that without it, you have no 1st Amendment rights. 'Money is Speech' = 'No Money, no Speech'.

Take the money out of it then, nationalize the airwaves. Give everyone the exact same access to the airwaves, rich and poor.

[BzaDem]

75. The First Amendment only prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech.

It is a negative right, in that it prevents government action. It does not mandate government action. It does not mandate free speech -- it prohibits government from taking affirmative action to abridge free speech.

Now, as in the campaign finance context, I do not believe that this means the government can't subsidize others with less money (or help out with public broadcasting), or that they can't enact reasonable content-neutral regulations, or that they can't enact reasonable campaign finance rules to stop candidate corruption. Those (and others) are plenty of things the government can do. But censoring media organizations who don't want to give rebuttal time is probably not one of them.

Think about your proposal for a second. You say nationalize the airwaves. What happens next time a Republican gets elected? The First amendment was enacted precisely to prevent government control of the speech markets.

[sabrina 1]

77. But the government did interfere when it passed laws

allowing the conglomeration of the media, laws that were guaranteed to provide access only to the wealthy. That was a government action against free speech for millions of people. If they can take that kind of action, they can reverse it. We do have regulations against monopolies eg don't we? Why not in the media which is so vital to democracy?

I see what you are saying about not wanting the government to control the media, but right now, the MSM is basically owned by two or three major corporations which is practically a monopoly. I don't think it would be inhibiting speech to make it possible for more people to compete with those mega corporations.

[BzaDem]

88. I think you are talking about the reversal of an action.

I think that even if there were no regulations, the media would be able to consolidate.

But regardless, I agree entirely with you that we need more anti-trust and anti-media-consolidation laws. Those would content-neutral ways to address the very real problems you are bringing up, and content-neutral acts that incidentally affect speech require much less judicial scrutiny to sustain under the first amendment. There are also subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

[sabrina 1]

110. Don't we already have anti-trust laws, and if so, are they specific

to only certain businesses, or could they be applied to media ownership also? Or, are new laws needed? I really do not know anything about this, so forgive my ignorance.

[indurancevile]

47. what?

[BzaDem]

51. Exactly what I said. n/t

[FormerDittoHead]

3. As a Democrat, I favor GOOD government for the PEOPLE - sometimes that means LESS.

The right wing says we want more gov't. Not necessarily true.

As a Democrat I favor:

Less military. Less global intervention. Less war on drugs. Fewer prisons for drug offenders.

That would reduce the size of gov't by about HALF right there.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. It worked well. Things that work well are good.

Any station that uses public airwaves should have to abide by it, TV or radio.

[BzaDem]

8. Sometimes, what works well is less important than HOW you get there.

Perhaps some people would be OK with content-based censorship so long as they were the censors. Then, they get to shape the media market to whatever they see fit. Some would decide that this "worked well." (One could even imagine extending this logic to other rights, like the right to a fair trial or even the 8th amendment.)

The problems with any general "only see if it works well" approach are legion. In this particular case, one problem for such a person is that they are not always going to be the censors. Eventually, their polar opposite is going to be the one appointing the membership of the FCC, and they aren't going to like it very much when the FCC decides they can't voluntarily watch what they want to watch as it exists today.

This is why the "how" is so important, and why a simple "does it work" strategy can sometimes fail. What works well today may not work so well tomorrow when you (or someone with similar views) is no longer in charge of the speech market.

Similarly, torture isn't just wrong because it doesn't work. In an alternate universe where new evidence came to light that suggested torture worked quite well, it would still be JUST as wrong. This is not to equate censorship with torture -- it is merely to point out that sometimes the "how" can matter more than the "what" (meaning a blanket "does it work well" approach is not always the one to take).

[MannyGoldstein]

21. So let's not have trials for accused people

Different judges an juries have different opinions of innocence and guilt.

Seriously, any attempt at fairness is better than no attempt, I think. Public airwaves should be regulated.

[BzaDem]

24. We go through great lengths to try to ensure that all judges and juries have the same opinion of

guilt, and have appellate courts and ultimately a Supreme court to try to ensure consistency. We err on the side of letting people go free -- not on the side of restricting rights.

On the other hand, in the speech sphere, we are talking about allowing elected officials (or those that work at their behest) to make decisions on regulating the speech market. We are talking about letting elected officials decide subjective questions of opinion, not allowing judges to decide objective questions of fact. Just because I support fairness (and wish our media was more fair) does not mean I support Bush or Cheney making those decisions.

[spanone]

6. fairness makes sense andy day, any world.

[BzaDem]

10. Does it make sense when Bush is the judge of fairness? n/t

[indurancevile]

49. that wasn't how the fairness doctrine worked. you're clueless.

[BzaDem]

54. Ah, here we have another person who thinks posting insults without being able to defend anything

they are saying is somehow effective.

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Banghead...

for starters we do not need to pass no stinking law... we have one in the books that has not been enforced since 1979.... SHERMAN ANTI TRUST...

The rest, whatever... we all know we luve some right wing controlled media that has no limits to it.

[BzaDem]

17. I don't like it when a guilty person walks out of court a free man.

That does not mean I support ignoring ones right to a free trial. This is not to say that the two are equivalent at all -- it is merely to suggest that sometimes it is better to live some negative consequences than it is to fix those consequences with a particular approach. My argument applying that to this issue is above.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. And you have NO IDEA how it worked

or how the Sherman Anti Trust Act works either. I can understand on both...

[BzaDem]

22. But my argument is about whether or not the government should have this ability at all, not whether

it produced a good outcome.

It may very well have produced a very good outcome, especially compared to today. But my point is that regardless of the outcome the fairness doctrine at a particular moment in time (or at any or all moments in time), the government shouldn't have the authority in the first place for such a content-based speech requirement (and wouldn't if it went before the court today). One reason (but far from the only one) is that something that might have worked well under the Presidents of decades ago might not work similarly well under today's Presidents (when a Republican wins).

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Well then, I guess we can all scream fire in a crowded theater

:rolleyes:

[BzaDem]

33. That would be a speech restriction that survives strict scrutiny.

For a speech restriction to survive strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Needless to say, this is (and should be) an incredibly difficult standard to meet. The time/place/manner restriction of fire in a crowded theater meets that test.

In the case of the fairness doctrine, there was a time (when the airwaves were a scarce resource), when that scarcity formed the basis of a compelling interest. But today (without such scarcity), telling you or me that we can't watch the shows we voluntarily want to watch as they are today does not have a compelling government interest behind it. It does not even have a legitimate government interest behind it. Arguably, preventing the government from making such decisions was the entire point behind the first amendment in the first place.

[Selatius]

78. I would simply argue that publicly owned airwaves are still a very scarce resource.

It's not an easy thing to establish even one small network and then apply for a broadcast license to use public airwaves. It is much easier if one were very wealthy, however, and this appears to be where the problem is. The plain result is that most of the news outlets have a decidedly right-wing bent; it has become an echo chamber of corporate viewpoints. A good example is the lack of reporting on the counter-arguments against getting involved in the Iraq War. That was a major failing of all the outlets.

[scribble]

13. There's a lot here that you don't understand ...

You don't understand what the "fairness" doctrine was.

You don't understand what governments do.

You don't understand the broadcasting industry.

You don't understand how electromagnetic energy works.

Most of all: You don't understand what your rights are, who is taking them away, how powerless you are to stop it, and why.

sc

[BzaDem]

15. You know, making a bunch of false assertions without any evidence to back them up is usually not

very effective. Just throwing that out there.

[EstimatedProphet]

107. It's not a false assertion

You don't know what the Fairness Doctrine did. I'm old enough to remember it in practice. What the Fairness doctrine did was mandate availability of access to opposing viewpoints, not force those opposing viewpoints to be presented. If a broadcaster took a certain side of a public issue, the station had to make space available for potential rebuttals if someone wanted to make a rebuttal. If no one wanted to do so, they weren't forced to present one anyway. It's not like a station would express an opinion on how good milk is for raising children, and then had to find someone who said that children should only eat cowshit.

Providing access to potential contrasting opinions is part of having a responsible dialogue. Without it, there is no dialogue, and a broadcaster can (ad does, clearly) effectively silence all opposition to political ideas that are in disagreement.

[hugo_from_TN]

34. Complete BS reply.

just sayin.

[blkmusclmachine]

26. I'm FOR the FD, in the traditional way it was used, but not the phony kind on Faux Nooz.

n/t

[DCKit]

32. I totally disagree.

However, the fact that the Supremes gave Faux the stamp of "infotainment" was just going wayyyyyy to far.

If you're going to call yourself a "NEWs" station, channel or program, you should (at the very least) be prevented from lying constantly to the people who are stupid enough to watch.

I realize that truth is subjective, but outright lies? Easily disprovable fantasies? That shit has got to stop.

The fairness doctrine provided those checks and balances, and it worked.

[BzaDem]

41. The government cannot have a blatant ban on lying even if it wanted to.

Slander and libel are indeed exceptions to the freedom of speech, but a general ban on lying by news organizations or any other organizations (that wouldn't otherwise be libel or slander) would not be permitted.

The solution to "bad" speech is more speech, not censorship.

[DCKit]

44. Sure, except that eliminating the FD assures that opposing views get no airtime.

This is about the lamest argument I've ever seen on the DU. Your logic is tragically flawed and you have (at best) a tenuous grasp of your own argument.

However, you're much better at arguing a point than most of those running for pResident. Seven of the nine are complete idiots - as are those waiting in the wings.

[BzaDem]

45. No, it does not. Opposing views get plenty of airtime -- just not on the same channel.

You want opposing views to get more airtime by censoring those who refuse to give it. I do not.

On the other hand, we have plenty of opposing views on the air right now. MSNBC airs liberal shows from 3pm to 2am each and every weekday (with the possible exception of Hardball, which is often liberal but not always). If that isn't liberal enough for you, you can watch Current TV.

In today's world, anyone can get views of any ideology either from TV or plenty of other mediums in about 5 seconds. It is the responsibility of our citizens to ensure they are informed -- the FCC should not be able to prevent people from informing themselves as they see fit by watching the content they see fit (whether or not that content has rebuttal time).

[Doctor_J]

35. Given that Hate Radio and Cabal "News" are the major reason democracy

is on death's doorstep, I would say you're full of shit. Our media make Nazi Germany and Communist USSR look like amateurs. You think the government doesn't already "steer people to types of news" by allowing broadcast only of right-wing corporatist propaganda?

[AndyTiedye]

36. Because All Repiglickins All the Time on Every Tee Vee Station in America Works So Much Better

[Drix]

37. Who are the victims of the Fairness Doctrine.

Names names. A nice long list of millionaires and billionaires I can feel sorry for. Disney/ABC, Clear Channel, Radio One. All those people with more power and influence than the world has ever known. I need a good cry.

[BzaDem]

43. Anyone who wants to be able to watch a news network that doesn't provide time for rebuttal. n/t

[indurancevile]

50. you are misrepresenting the FD.

[provis99]

38. all the fairness doctrine does is allow people to present points of view.

Unless you see freedom of speech as a zero-sum game (in which case, we are all screwed anyways) then there shouldn't be any problem.

[BzaDem]

42. It prohibits the airing of points of view if the broadcasters don't want to give time for other

points of view.

That is censorship.

[provis99]

56. so free speech is a zero-sum game to you.

that's a really dark way of looking at reality.

[BzaDem]

57. If I assumed it was a zero-sum game, wouldn't that provide more justification for the fairness

doctrine (as opposed to less)?

Back when resources were scarce, and one media owner's speech took time someone else could have used, perhaps it made more sense to regulate to ensure more viewpoints.

But now that broadcast resources are not scarce, and there are a variety of networks with widely-varying ideological viewpoints, why do we need to censor those who do not want opposing viewpoints on their network? Those opposing viewpoints will just go to other networks.

[provis99]

58. sigh...you've got it exactly backwards.

There's no point to continuing this thread; you are adamant about not getting it.

[Drix]

60. Wrong again.

First of all the Fairness Doctrine is not censorship. It's never been ruled as censorship. It's a buzz word people against the doctrine use. Secondly please name the major networks that opposed the Iraq War. I'll save you so time. Zero! There was not one major network with an opposing view as you claim. None!

You can't say the Fairness Doctrine is not necessary because of alternative outlets such as the internet.This is the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard! Please tell me of one major network willing to trade it's broadcast license for my DU user id? That's not going to happen. They are not equal not even close. I remember distinctly arguing with wing nuts in the run up to the Iraq War knocking down all the lies of the Bush Administration. I would always get the same response. "Well if that's true how come I didn't here it on the evening news? How come all this information isn't on CBS, NBC, and ABC?" Well reason is because they are corporate controlled and the Fairness Doctrine was not enforced.

[BzaDem]

65. Um, if a broadcaster refused to air rebuttals, what do you think the FCC's

authority was to deal with them?

[SoDesuKa]

83. Public Interest Requirement

The FCC has imposed some conditions on its licenses - that the licensee use some of the frequency some of the time in the public interest. Under the circumstances, that's a completely reasonable requirement. After all, a licensee is being granted privileged access to the radio frequency spectrum - a public good which even the government doesn't own.

Since the Reagan administration, the FCC hasn't enforced even the minimal requirement of broadcasting in the public interest only some of the time. Conservatives have been allowed to hog the AM band, which they don't own, and can't buy, because nobody owns the AM band.

Licensees who fail to broadcast in the public interest some of the time don't deserve renewal. In fact the idea that renewals can be merited is itself suspect. There's certainly no fairness in allowing conservative broadcasters to be licensed in perpetuity. They don't own the radio waves; nobody does.

[BzaDem]

84. If they just limited all renewals to a particular timeframe, that would be a content-neutral measure

and there are other content neutral measures they could take. There are even some content-based measures that might survive strict scrutiny, that do not rise to the level of forcing someone to allow time for a polar opposite opinion to be aired on their own network (and would not start a slippery slope that Republicans could later use to regulate liberal viewpoints out of the airwaves).

But when you say conservatives have monopolized the AM band, do you mean that liberal networks have been banging at the door for a license but keep getting refused? Or that there simply is no liberal network, possibly because there is little demand for one in a particular area?

[SoDesuKa]

104. How They Do It

Republicans aren't shy about passing out strychnine-laced Kool-Aid; it amazes me that people keep coming back for more. Marx called it false consciousness, but that doesn't explain why poor and working people embrace ideas that don't work for them at all. For example, it amazes me the number of people who actually believe that tax breaks for the wealthy create jobs.

Why don't people know their own economic interests? Maybe it's because the wealthy can afford to hire clever public relations specialists to present their arguments in an appealing, user-friendly way. I don't listen to AM radio enough to know why it's popular among people who aren't helped by it. I suspect that Rush and Hannity dumb down the news enough that it makes ordinary volken feel superior. And countering that appealing propaganda takes effort.

Maybe it's that right wing media - including tabloid newspapers - are subsidized by the wealthy. Murdoch bought newspapers like the New York Post when they were losing money, then turned them around so they were right wing and profitable. We're seeing now that Murdoch wasn't impeded by ethical considerations; and neither is Roger Ailes.

How does the right wing do it? They make people who don't know what's going on feel as though they do. It's flattering.

[LanternWaste]

109. You appear to conflate 'censorship' and 'conditional'

You appear to conflate 'censorship' and 'conditional'. Two wholly different animals with some overlap... much like zebras and gorillas-- two different animals, both mammals.

You predicate your entire position on that and that alone; and it is (at best), merely a subjective and personal interpretation. :shrug:

[sudopod]

39. "As a Democrat, I often favor more government -- not less. "

hur hur hurrrrrr

[lonestarnot]

52. Asinine commentary.

[Lorien]

87. To say the least.nt

[Nye Bevan]

53. Most DUers' hatred of Limbaugh and Beck exceeds their love of the First Amendment (nt)

[Rex]

55. Holding journalist responsible for what they say makes sense

retooling would be in order for cable and the airwaves.

[scentopine]

63. What other Reagan Era policies do you endorse for democrats?

Allowing the rich to distort political communications into "news" never made any sense. It ushered in an era where the most sensational lie against liberals gets the most viewers. As someone who has seen the before and after effects of fairness doctrine, truth and intellegent dialog has been the main casualty since the fairness doctrine was destroyed. Your post is nearly identical to 1980s neo-con arguments for destroying the fairness rules for broadcast television.

1. But it is certainly no longer the case that the airwaves are scarce" - they still are. Have you tried to buy a television network that can be viewed, for free, in all major metropolitan areas? Public access pay-for cable channels don't count.

2. "unanimously thrown out by the entire Supreme Court" yes - today's right wing supreme court helped along by the same people who think the fairness doctrine isn't fair. I will argue that the destruction of the fairness doctrine allowed the right wing to take control of media and through lies and deception, enabled Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, to appoint the most right wing, corporate biased, anti-worker supreme court in history. So, mission accomplished.

3. "If people want to go after media consolidation, then they should pass laws directly targeted at media consolidation. " - more talk. Show me the democrats legislation that does this. Show me Obama's meetings at the white house to kick start this legislative effort. You can't. Democrats profit by corporate donors who want to control the media. BTW - how's Obama's work going with the legislation to overturn Citizen's United?

4. "Those would be content-neutral laws" - what, like Democrat's firm stance on protecting net neutrality? Once again, show me the bill.

5. "It is not up to the government (or anyone else) to steer people into types of news that the FCC's membership approves of..." - False choice. As someone who lived during the fairness doctrine, the government never steered anyone. I recall respectful commentary, editorials, and rational discussion of opposing viewpoints. If blacks were forced to fight for civil rights in without the fairness doctrine, I argue little progress would have been made.

6. "when anyone can voluntarily steer themselves into the news they prefer to see" - "news" is still considered a profession serving the public trust. The concept of a "press credential" used to carry some amount of respect. The "news" has become a circus carnival sideshow.

7. "But any law that would prevent a willing MSNBC viewer to voluntarily change the channel to MSNBC" now you are just making shit up.

Furthermore, this right wing idea that MSNBC is some how the liberal equivalent to FOX and all the other corporate networks is laughable on its face. I don't think most liberals want their own liberal network to spew hate and lies, while shilling for Wall Street CEOs. I imagine there are even a few democrats who don't want this. You can make more progress by telling the truth instead of devoting all your time to propaganda.

I'd happily trade MSNBC for fairness doctrine because the truth and rational discussion wins every time. Democrats fought against destroying the fairness doctrine because democrats historically have opposed letting the rich and powerful take unregulated control of public communications channels.

Just more BS from the "new" democrats (who are very much like the 1980s Reagan republicans). What other Reagan era policies and philosophies do you specifically endorse?

[BzaDem]

66. FYI, I'm not just saying that the fairness doctrine is bad policy.

I'm saying that the government shoud not even be allowed to go there. The entire point of the first amendment is that it prohibits most governmental regulation of speech. It isn't just a hint -- it is the law. Some content-neutral regulation is permitted if it passes judicial scrutiny, but the kind of regulation here (on the media no less) is one of the main reasons we have a first amendment.

The only reason I mentioned anti-media-consolidation laws was that this is a good alternative. I would support such laws. But I never meant to imply that the fairness doctrine would be justified if Democrats never got around to passing the alternative. The Constitution holds regardless of the laws passed at any particular time.

You can deride this as a "Reagan-era" policy all you want. There were many liberals of the non-ends-justify-the-means variety who opposed the fairness doctrine as well (as the airwaves became much less scarce), and many continue to oppose it today. Your implied argument that somehow the airwaves are scarce if a single person can't afford to buy a network (that broadcasts in all metropolitan areas) creates a loophole to the first amendment you could drive a truck through, and would essentially render the first amendment a nullity. The reason the Supreme Court ever allowed this was not because the average person couldn't have their own TV network -- it was because the airwaves in the past were sufficiently scarce that there was a real worry that one or two networks could take up all the time in a given area. With networks like MSNBC, or Al Gore's Current TV (if you prefer), that is no longer an issue and very few people would claim otherwise. I don't believe a single liberal on the Supreme Court would vote in favor of the fairness doctrine in today's circumstances.

You may not like news without what you call rational discussion or whatever else you prefer. But it is not UP TO YOU, or anyone else, to impose your preferences for the media on everyone else. The entire point of the first amendment was to prevent people from imposing their preferred view of what speech should be (especially media speech) on other people.

[Harmony Blue]

67. Fairness Doctrine was what made the U.S. stand out

when it came to news journalistic standards, and the rest of the world emulated it. Ironically now that the FD is gone, the rest of the world is shocked by what is considered news in the U.S. Sure, tabloids exist in other countries, but the news in those other countries is still news. In the U.S. CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc are more closer to tabloids than news. When TMZ and Comedy Central are able to deliver far more accurate news than the 24 hour "news" networks something is amiss.

[BzaDem]

68. If you prefer Comedy Central to other networks, you are free to turn those other networks off

and turn Comedy Central on. That is how free speech works. I have my journalistic preferences as well, but I realize that it is not up to me to impose them on others.

[SoDesuKa]

81. Comedy Central Is Not Affected by the Fairness Doctrine

Comedy Central is a cable channel. It does not use the public airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine has no impact on cable channels, only on those that use the public airwaves.

The public airwaves are public because they belong to everyone. Nobody can own them. Not the government, not private enterprise - nobody. All that can be done to distribute clear channels is to use some allocation scheme like a set of traffic lights.

The limitation of the number of places on the AM and FM bands is a fact of nature. Government has nothing to do with creating that limitation. All it can do is prevent the chaos that would result if anyone and everyone were allowed to broadcast at the same time.

[BzaDem]

85. My point was a general one -- it did not just apply to Comedy Central. n/t

[SoDesuKa]

99. Comedy Central

Your remarks about the Fairness Doctrine can't be generalized past what the Fairness Doctrine actually covers - licenses to broadcast on the public airwaves. That can't include any of the cable networks like the Comedy Channel, HBO, Fox News, MSNBC or the Christian Family Network.

The "public" airwaves are limited by the radio frequency spectrum - a physical reality that government and private enterprise didn't create and can't own. Since the airwaves belong collectively to all of us, a takeover by one group for their exclusive use and benefit is unfair. The word "unfair" is used in the sense that it's commonly understood.

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to ensure that public goods - which don't belong to anyone - are allocated fairly. We need to take the AM radio spectrum back from the hogs who've glommed onto it, who don't own it, and who use it for their exclusive benefit.

[BzaDem]

101. As for whether my remarks can be generalized, I am not aware of a problem where liberal networks are

banging on the door for licenses but they are refused. (Though I could be wrong about that. To the extent it exists, there are plenty of content neutral or limited content based ways to deal with that.) I don't think the scarcity argument gets as far as it once did.

But as for comedy central, many do not only support the particular fairness doctrine that was enforced 20 years ago, but would it expanded far beyond the over-the-air broadcasting stations (or at the very least make arguments that equally apply to them). So while you are defending this based on a more empirical question of whether the airwaves remain scarce (and whether one ideology is requesting and being denied licenses), most others are defending it on far more general terms (for example, defining "scarce" as not obtainable by the average person).

[scentopine]

69. You need to do better to move demcorats to support Reagan's polices here.

1. "I'm saying that the government should not even be allowed to go there. The entire point of the first amendment is that it prohibits most governmental regulation of speech. It isn't just a hint -- it is the law. Some content-neutral regulation is permitted if it passes judicial scrutiny, but the kind of regulation here is one of the main reasons we have a first amendment."

It is right wing propaganda that the fairness doctrine restricted free speech. It didn't. Show me a case were the supreme court ruled the fairness doctrine was unconstitutional. In fact they upheld it in Red Lion vs FCC. In fact, in that ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the doctrine upheld free speech. As a result of the destruction of fairness doctrine and personal attack broadcasting, the public trust was violated and outright lies and manipulation by powerful interests groups came to dominate the airwaves. By any measure this is fact. From Number of right wing talk radio shows, to the lack of opposing view points on any given broadcast.

The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 395 U. S. 386-401.

(a) The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. Pp. 395 U. S. 386-390.

(b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others. Pp. 395 U. S. 390-392.

(c) The danger that licensees will eliminate coverage of controversial issues as a result of the personal attack and political editorial rules is, at best, speculative, and, in any event, the FCC has authority to guard against this danger. Pp. 395 U. S. 392-395.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/367/case.html

2. (as the airwaves became much less scarce). More right wing propaganda talking point. Your claim has no basis in fact. I happen to be in the communications technology business. During the 1980s I was very familiar with the financial resources required to obtain "air waves". Air waves are currently and will remain for all time, a scare resource. Try to offer your own cable network or broadcast television network in New York city, for example. Costs run $1,000,000+ for small station in modest markets plus license fees, etc. $10,000,000+ in major markets. The process takes 5 years or more. Show me how an "average person" (your quote) can buy a nationwide collection of television stations to promote their free speech? Only corporations have this type of power and money.

3. "With networks like MSNBC, or Al Gore's Current TV (if you prefer), that is no longer an issue and very few people would claim otherwise." this is quite a funny statement by you. Obviously a substantial number of people would claim otherwise or you wouldn't be here trying to defend a right wing point of view. Your view is that since a handful of rich people can afford a broadcast network, that proves the air waves are not scarce.

4. "But it is not UP TO YOU, or anyone else, to impose your preferences for the media on everyone else." I can see by your use of all caps that you are very angry.Of course it's not up to me. The fairness doctrine did not impose preferences. In fact, as is usual with right wing lies, the fairness doctrine actually promoted diversity in view points. This is diversity that is gone. Al Gore could still have his channel. So could Fox News. Why do you think I am personally trying to control what you should watch?

Public broadcast communications is about public trust. Right wingers don't believe this. They feel that the free market should reward the "best" message, lie or no lie. However, There is no protection under the first amendment to yell "fire" in a crowded theater that isn't on fire. Same holds true for lying on a "news" show.

Another example of the Fairness Doctrine in action occurred in 1983, when ABC ran a chilling anti-nuclear war movie called "The Day After." The movie angered some prominent conservatives, like Henry Kissinger, who argued that the willingness to use nuclear weapons served to deter war. Kissinger was able to respond to the movie on national television, when the TV show Nightline followed a showing of the movie with a group discussion that included Kissinger and other conservative commentators. ABC was so even-handed -- presenting both liberal and conservative viewpoints on nuclear war -- because the Fairness Doctrine required them to be.

The Fairness Doctrine also gave rise to years of funny editorial spoofs on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update.
The real beauty of the Fairness Doctrine, though, was that it created a diverse environment on every channel in which viewers could not help but encounter a variety of opinions. No matter what channel viewers watched, they were exposed to a spectrum of opinions that encouraged them to acknowledge the existence and consider the validity of alternate points of view on important current issues.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-6

If we applied your neo-lib/neo-con media philosophy to reporting during civil rights and vietnam and korean wars, we'd still be fighting in vietnam and media discussion of civil rights would be equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell".

In summary, you have demonstrated a thorough knowledge of right wing talking points to promote an advantage to corporations who control the media. I wish we had the fairness doctrine because I don't like being force fed only the corporate point of view on public air waves. The corporate point of view is one that places private profits above all other interests, including public interests. Since we have no fairness doctrine, we don't get opposing points of view to corporate messaging.

But, what you haven't done is provide a shred of evidence to back up your claim that fairness doctrine restricted free speech or forced you to watch something you didn't want to watch.

So - what other Reagan Era policies do you support?

[BzaDem]

72. Would you consider Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to be a right wing Reaganite?

"The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV and radio."

(FYI, among other opinions, Douglas wrote the original opinion establishing the right to privacy that later became the foundation for Roe vs. Wade, which he also voted for. Some Reaganite.)

In fact, some liberals go much further than even I would go. Glenn Greenwald (who opposes Obama's re-election from the left) even believes that Citizens United was correctly decided, and that any limit to corporate financing of election ads is Unconstitutional. Even I wouldn't go that far; Citizens United was wrongly decided in my view.

But if you want to continue your "you are a right winger because you don't like the fairness doctrine," you are going to have to explain why William O. Douglas (and other strong pro-first-Amendment liberals) are somehow all right-wingers.

[scentopine]

76. That is not a supreme court decision, and furthermore...

Your talking points are not factual.

Here are the facts:

1. Public air waves are scare resources that the average person cannot obtain. That is as true today as it was in 1950.

2. There was never any demonstration of restriction of free speech successfully argued in supreme court. Just the opposite.

3. Rational and factual public discussion and diversity of opinion has decreased over all broadcast mediums since fairness doctrine was destroyed.

4. Corporations are sponsoring an avalanche of right wing radio and television broadcast and cable networks and programming that are a direct result of fairness doctrine being destroyed by right wing politicians and corporate CEOs.

5. Nothing in fairness doctrine would prevent Fox or Al Gore from having a network. The fairness doctrine did not promise equal access to candidates. It simply provided a civil legal means for someone to present an opposing viewpoint to a controversial political topic. It gave us the old 60 minutes that had teeth and political shows like MASH. Demonstration of this balance and diversity was a requirement for re-licensing.

6. "you are a right winger because you don't like the fairness doctrine," I didn't say that, of course. What I did say is your arguments against the fairness doctrine are consistent with right wing BS and propaganda. They are exactly the arguments I heard in 1980s from neo-cons who wanted too destroy it.

You'll have to do a better job of extolling the virtues of today's corporate controlled broadcast mediums. I was around in the "old" days and have some perspective to see that although things were far from perfect back then, they were still 100x better than now.

[BzaDem]

79. He doesn't count because he didn't participate in the Supreme Court decision?

I think his opinion is relevant, even if he didn't participate in the decision.

1. If you define "scarce" as being unable to be obtained by the average person, the Supreme Court would never have given the government the first amendment leeway that it did. There is a very good reason for this -- if you apply that much of an exception to the first amendment, the amendment is essentially a nullity with regards to one of the primary reasons it was enacted. The Supreme Court didn't allow the Government to institute the fairness doctrine back then because of the word "scarce" -- they did so because of the specific circumstances of the scarcity then. It was an anti-monopoly-interest, not a non-communal interest. These circumstances do not exist today and they aren't even remotely similar, which is why I wouldn't even be surprised if the same justices would have changed their minds if they heard the case now rather than then.

2. Likewise, there hasn't been any demonstration of enforcing various old state laws that prohibit kissing in public on Sunday. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional if they were enforced.

3. That is an argument about the ends (which I agree with) -- not an argument about the means.

4. My solution to this is to not watch them. Not to tell others what they can and can't watch by going after the broadcasters. As I said, in a free speech market, people can make their own decisions about their own journalistic preferences. No one has the right to make that decision for anyone else -- that is the very essence of the first amendment. If I want to watch unadulterated liberal content without any right-wing rebuttals, and someone wants to offer me such content on TV, it is not up to you to tell me that I cannot do so or that they cannot broadcast it as they wish.

5. By "civil legal means," you mean forcing a broadcaster to air content they would otherwise not want to air, at the threat of losing their ability to broadcast anything if they refuse to comply.. That is the very definition of censorship. The problem is not that the government was encouraging rebuttal time. If they wanted to subsidize networks that offered rebuttal time, that would have been completely different. The problem was that they were requiring it, effectively telling broadcasters that they could not broadcast what they otherwise would have (the show without the rebuttal).

6. My arguments are consistent with the arguments of many civil libertarians. Sometimes, those with differing ideologies come to the same conclusion (usually with a different rationalle). I oppose the fairness doctrine from a constitutional first amendment standpoint. Reaganites generally opposed it because they believed the lack of a fairness doctrine would give them at least a temporary tactical advantage at the time. (They don't give a rat's ass about the Contitution or free speech, and would happily limit free speech of liberals given the opportunity.)

I don't deny things were better back then at all. I am not arguing with your goal at all. My only dispute is with the means. There are lots of reasons why things have take a large turn for the worse, and most are completely unrelated to the fairness doctrine. I just don't believe that the fairness doctrine is an acceptable means to fix that, or that it would even come close to returning the media environment back to the way it was.

[scentopine]

108. Should Rove v Wade be thrown out because some justices somewhere disagree?

1. "I think his opinion is relevant, even if he didn't participate in the decision."

- No it isn't. It might be if the court had not ruled in favor of the fairness doctrine.

2. "Likewise, there hasn't been any demonstration of enforcing various old state laws that prohibit kissing in public on Sunday. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional if they were enforced."

- Nor have there been any aggressive investigation on the part of the Obama administration to prosecute Wall Street fraud and put criminals in jail, that doesn't mean we should remove Wall Street regulations. In many respects your reasoning follows a similar reasoning used to throw away laws and treaty agreements regarding torture. Just because a law is on the books before Reagan, doesn't mean they are quaint and outdated.

3. In a free speech market...
This is the mantra of right wingers everywhere. If you manage to mix free and market and speech into the same sentence you get bonus points. Well done. Not everything and everyone is a commodity. There is no such thing as free speech on a public broadcast channel if if 90% of all media is owned by 5 or 6 media companies. At this point, you can't just "change the channel" unless you are satisfied that 90% corporate and/or right wing crap, 9% infomercials, and 1% other is serving the public's benefit.

4. By "civil legal means," you mean forcing a broadcaster to air content they would otherwise not want to air, at the threat of losing their ability to broadcast anything if they refuse to comply.. That is the very definition of censorship.

No it isn't. Just the opposite. Not allowing me to offer an opposing view point on political legislation being advanced by a corporate media monopoly is censorship.
A. Under fairness act, FOX news is allowed to say legislation that eliminates derivative trading will cause the end of free speech and free markets. If it is documented that they are refusing to allow opposing view point. This consists of an opportunity for someone to discuss why this is not true. If they repeatedly refuse, then this can be considered a violation of public trust and could lead to fines and revocation of their license.

B. Without fairness act, Wall Street banks can pay Fox news to tell 40 million viewers that liberals don't like "free markets like derivative banking" because they are communists. And they can do it 24 hrs a day. Just like they can say anyone supporting Fairness Doctrine is a communist and censor anyone who has an opposing viewpoint.

6. My arguments are consistent with the arguments of many civil libertarians.

ACLU, NRA and other diverse civil and political groups all supported the fairness doctrine. Neo-libs and neo-cons and CEOs did not support the fairness act because they wanted to influence the news and how it was reported. A broadcaster who reports news by bribing police to hack into a murdered kids cell phone, is an indication of just how far media companies will go to protect the "free speech market"

7. My only dispute is with the means.

You are taking a purist position. The fairness doctrine worked. Just because this fact doesn't align well with neo-lib/neo-con ideas about "free markets" doesn't mean it shouldn't be re-instated. It should. And we would see an end to the culture of personal attacks and corporate fluff that is broadcast on public airwaves.

This revisionist history on Fairness Doctrine is much like revisionist history about FDR. It is a continuing pattern of rewriting history to align with a right wing/corporate agenda.

8. These circumstances do not exist today and they aren't even remotely similar, which is why I wouldn't even be surprised if the same justices would have changed their minds if they heard the case now rather than then.

BTW - public broadcast airwaves are and will remain a scarce public resource. I've provided facts about the difficulty of obtaining broadcast license, physical infrastructure and access to provide my point of view. You've offered speculation about the supreme court. The management and regulation and responsible use of these air waves is exactly the role that government should take. However, thanks to destruction of fairness doctrine, we are on a steady march on Wall Street's beat. Republicans wasted no time exploiting the de-regulation to use massive corporate funding to appoint the most extreme people possible in government and on the supreme court.

Our nation depends on information from public airwaves. Broadcasters are spreading lies and manipulation (some subtle, some not so subtle) that goes unopposed since there is no regulation of the private ownership of public resources.

We've had enough time to see whether broadcast journalism and opinion is better or worse without fairness doctrine. It is much worse.

[U4ikLefty]

64. When was Elvis' birthday?

[ClassWarrior]

70. Surprisingly, according to this report by the Center for American Progress and Free Press...

...diverse, community ownership of media would have a far greater positive effect on the national discourse than the Fairness Doctrine ever could:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

NGU.

[scentopine]

71. Which democrat is sponsoring the bill that is even better than fairness doctrine? Democrats can't

even put together a bill undoing Citizens United. The fairness doctrine wasn't broken. It just pissed off the corporate right wingers that they couldn't have exclusive control of the thoughts and minds of viewers and listeners.

So, they had no problem getting Reagan to kill it over objections of democrats. Political propaganda is up just as corporate profits are up. First casualty in war against working class is truth and justice.

I don't like the "home grown" solutions for community media unless it has legal teeth behind it. Otherwise it is nothing more than a high-tech "free speech" zone, out of the public view where no one has access because of limited power, no money for salaries and no money for equipment.

[SoDesuKa]

80. Fairness Doctrine Doesn't Apply to Fox or MSNBC

The Fairness Doctrine applies to broadcasters who use the public airwaves, not cable channels. Since Fox and MSNBC are both cable channels, neither is impacted by it.

The Fairness Doctrine is necessary because the radio spectrum is limited - a fact of physics, not government. There are only so many clear channels that are available. If anyone and everyone were allowed to broadcast on a given frequency there would be chaos. You'd never be able to tune any station because there wouldn't be stations as such, just people putting out signals into the air.

Some allocation scheme is necessary to avoid the chaos that would result if everyone were to broadcast at the same time on the same frequency. There has to be a traffic cop to decide who gets the green light and who gets the red light. Should the free market decide who gets to broadcast on say, 1280 AM? No, because nobody owns the radio frequency spectrum.

The government doesn't own the radio frequency spectrum either, but to prevent chaos, it licenses locations on the AM and FM bands. How does the government make decisions? That's where the Fairness Doctrine comes in. If it gives away the entire AM band to conservatives, it's denying access to the AM band to everyone who is not conservative. That's not fair.

It's just as unfair to limit access to the radio frequency spectrum based on political belief as it would be if it were based on religion. If it developed that the radio spectrum were monopolized by Christians to the exclusion of everyone else, that would not be a fair allocation of something that the government doesn't own.

Some decision-making about who gets to broadcast is inevitable but it is not censorship. It's simply the result of physical limitations of the radio frequency spectrum. Because not everyone can broadcast at once, some are given access to a given location for a given amount of time. Others have to shut up.

Where I live, conservatives have taken over the AM band, but it's not theirs - they don't own it. They just occupy it to the exclusion of everyone else. That's simply unfair.

[BzaDem]

82. There are content neutral ways to make that decision. In fact, they have been used, since the

fairness doctrine hasn't been enforced for two decades and yet the broadcast networks are not all like Fox.

While you are correct that it does not apply as written to cable networks, the logic and negative consequences of the fairness doctrine are just as applicable to broadcast networks. The only difference is the spectrum scarcity argument. I disagee that the public airwaves are anything close to as scarce as they used to be, or that it justifies content-based restrictions of the type in the fairness doctrine (or that content-neutral anti-media-consolidation laws couldn't remedy the problems you cite).

But I appreciate that you are only defending the doctrine on the limited rationalle that applies only to broadcast networks. Most people who have argued here would make the exact same argument in other contexts (such as cable being scarce because MSNBC and Current TV aren't liberal enough, or that cable is scarce unless the average person could fund and operate a cable station), and they could care less about the distinction. They simply favor a set of journalistic standards and want to impose their preferences on others.

[SoDesuKa]

94. Public Airwaves

The "public airwaves" don't change. They are limited by the laws of physics because there are only so many ways that the radio frequency spectrum can be chopped up into pieces. References to cable networks are completely irrelevant in the context of the Fairness Doctrine because the number of cable networks is unlimited.

It's entirely reasonable for the government to require broadcast licensees to allocate some of the time in the public interest; after all, licensees depend on the government to shut down everyone else who is not licensed to broadcast on that frequency. Licensees inevitably enter into a good-faith contract with the government. They give up something in exchange for the government's agreement to police the airwaves.

Because there's no private way to create a clear channel on a given frequency, government is inevitably part of the deal. When conservatives who hog the AM bad complain about fascism, they're only telling one side of the story. If the airwaves were truly libertarian, you wouldn't be able to tune in any station at all. Conservatives should not be allowed to hog the AM band in perpetuity. They don't own it, and they can't be granted it. There's no theory of government that can call broadcasters' unique privileges fair unless government takes steps to guarantee actual fairness.

[BzaDem]

95. As I mentioned above, I am not saying government is required by the Constitution to allocate

resources by auction (or that there is no place for government). Just that it should be done in a content-neutral way, and to the extent content-based rules are used, they should be narrow, used rarely, and be given the strictest judicial scrutiny. I do not believe requiring a rebuttal meets those tests.

[Lorien]

86. Nice ditto head talking points

So, how many Limbaugh books do you own? You must be pleased as punch that the repeal of the fairness doctrine allows him to present his opinions as news to your fellow listeners.plus, no liberal shows to balance out the airwaves!

[BzaDem]

90. Gasp -- I am in favor of free speech, even I abhor some of that speech. What a concept.

It is amazing how some people hold up the Constitution and demand prosecutions for violating it for some provisions, yet completely ignore other provisions that cause results they aren't thrilled with.

[Ken Burch]

89. Without the Fairness Doctrine, there's no stopping the Right from buying permanent dominance

We can't do that if they can get their message out in the mass media but the same media ISN'T required to cover the progressive message at the same time.

[BzaDem]

92. To the extent conservatives have a monopoly, that monopoly can be broken up with anti-trust laws.

I have nothing against (and strongly support) laws that address media consolidation in a content-neutral way.

If you want to give government the power to force networks to air content of a particular ideology, you are not going to like the results next time a Republican is elected President.

[Ken Burch]

93. But those laws will never be passed, because the right controls the media debate

and, therefore, is almost always guaranteed electoral victory through that control.

[BzaDem]

96. By the same token, the fairness doctrine wouldn't be reinstated either. Ultimately, political

feasibility is a distinct problem that will need to be resolved before any other step takes place (if it is possible).

[SoDesuKa]

102. The Feasability Constraint

If broadcast licenses weren't routinely re-approved, the conservative millionaires who own radio stations might commit themselves to some real diversity. If the Fairness Doctrine were enforced, we wouldn't see two hours of Limbaugh followed by two hours of Hannity followed by two hours of Neil Boortz. The public interest would be upheld.

Renewal applications shouldn't be rubber-stamped. When the Good Ole Boyz look after each other - it's nonstop right wing propaganda! It's just not fair, because the good ole boyz don't own the radio spectrum.

[SoDesuKa]

98. Antitrust Laws

Antitrust laws aren't relevant to the allocation of spaces on the radio frequency spectrum. This doesn't have to do with the sale of products; it has to do with making sure that government's policing function isn't hijacked by one part of the community to the exclusion of others.

The value of a license doesn't come from the ability to broadcast on a given frequency; it comes from the government keeping other broadcasters off that frequency. If you're licensed at 620 on the AM band, nobody else can broadcast on that frequency; it's illegal, and government will shut down anyone who interferes.

The licensee does not own any part of the radio frequency spectrum; in fact even the government doesn't own it. It's more like a traffic situation in which you are granted permission to cross the street to the exclusion of others. If the government didn't license spaces on the radio frequency spectrum, there would as much chaos as busy streets when the traffic lights aren't working.

[BzaDem]

100. And it should provide licenses in a content neutral way.

The antitrust laws (or rather a hypothetical media consolidation law) would allow the government to refuse licenses for (and break up) media companies that are too large.

[SoDesuKa]

103. Content Neutrality

I don't have an answer to your content neutrality concern. You're right - government should not be granting or withholding broadcasting licenses based on political content - it leads to abuses. However, granting broadcast licenses to the highest bidder has the effect of turning the public airwaves over to the most reactionary elements of society. That's not a content neutral outcome either.

Squeamishness about the appearance of censorship has resulted in a different sort of censorship. The only ideas you hear on AM radio - the band that's most accessible to the poor - are propoganda for classes who despise the poor. I don't have a remedy for that, but I don't believe it's right.

Maybe this is one of the challenges of government in our age. The messages that the poor are most likely to hear are those that are counter to their interests. I don't know if this also applies to Black and Latino stations. I agree that politics makes bad criteria for broadast license renewals, and I understand why allowing for rebuttal is inadequate to guarantee "fairness."

Today's New York Times had an editorial noting the large number of law graduates out of work, and expresses the hope that they find jobs in the public interest. Perhaps broadcast licensing squabbles might soak up legal talent the way divorces did in the 1950's. I'd be in favor of nearly anything that returns the AM band to ordinary folks.

No, I don't think Sean Hannity has a right to as much bandwidth as he gets nationwide. I don't know how to take it away from him without worse consequences.

[Fumesucker]

105. Why is AM more "accessible" to the poor than FM?

Very few radios sold today lack either band..

[melm00se]

106. from a macro-media point of view

the OP has it dead on.

back in the Fairness Doctrine days, the media consumer was extremely limited (comparatively) in the available sources of electronic media.

There was AM radio, a smattering of FM (but the majority of them were music only formats) and, in most markets, 3 TV stations (ABC, NBC and CBS) and that was it.

So, at the time, it made a certain amount of sense to have regulations that addressed the content of those stations (but please note: this ONLY applied to opinion pieces on controversial subjects not straight news reporting).

The FCC claimed this right as the available frequency range, and thus outlets, was limited.

Fast forward to today: the media landscape is radically different today than it was even 25 years ago. today, the average media consumer has access to not only what is detailed above but also, via their cable/satellite provider literally hundreds of TV channels and many that carry far more news content than was ever envisioned back them. from a raw feed point of view there is C-SPAN 1, 2 and 3. from a polished news POV you have, among them, CNN (and all its flavors), MSNBC, FOX, CNBC, Bloomburg etc etc etc.

If that is not enough, via the internet, there are literally dozens more sources of news available to the consumer.

The challenge for the FCC in enforcing the FD vs the reviled Fox News is that Fox, like many of the cable/satellite outlets, is a cable only outlet and not licensed by the FCC so is beyond their regulation as it relates to the FD.

The only way that the FD would apply is to extend the FCC's licensing process/requirement to what is, for all intents and purposes, a private transmission network and this carries several inherent risks. Among them are:

1) Violation of private property rights. using a driver's license as an analogy: You are required a DL to operate a motor vehicle on public roads but that is not a requirement if you are operating a motor vehicle on your own private land. In this case, the public highways = the broadcast spectrum regulated and provisioned by the FCC and private land = the private cable distribution network for cable TV. You could make the case that providers like Directv and DISH network fall under Title III of the Communications Act but that probably would not get very far as the providers defense would be: from a macro view, the content that we provide averages out to being balanced spectrum wise. While there are folks here who disagree with that, their disagreement stems from their own ideological bias.

2) Extending the FD beyond the scope of over the air (OTA) broadcast content to include the internet. If that were to happen, places like DU could then fall under the auspices of the FD and be required to make space available to opposing viewpoints (this is called the law of unintended consequences).

3) Metrics - what will be the mid point of fair and what objective and quantitative metrics will be used to measure "fair"? I can almost guarantee you that if you polled 200 DUers, you would get 200 different mid points and if you polled 200 freepers thy would come up with 200 different mid points (while in both cases each population may be close together in grouping but when you compared the 2 groups they would be wildly disparate from each other). Which brings up the 1st amendment question: if a level of "fairness" is defined and enforced by a government agent or agency how is that not an abridgement of free speech hidden under the guise of "licensure"?

Now, does anyone remember what radio and TV looked like back during the days of the FD? I do, I worked during it's waning days. In the majority of markets all news stations/talkers were the rarity (1, may be 2, in a market), but rather stations were almost entirely music formats with (at most) news at the top and the bottom of the hour or (at worst) no news coverage at all. What news coverage there was was almost entirely non-opinion piece news stories (and thus exempt from FD regulation) with any controversial subjects/topics avoided. Political content was restricted to election season (politicians, their ads and news stories covering them and their quotes were also FD exempt) and the required public affairs programming was limited to Sunday morning and chock full of non-controversial subjects (I did a show where the "hot topic" was whether or not the city should/could/would repaint firetrucks their purulent green color instead of red...got 2, count 'em, 2 calls on the subject).

Then the FD was lifted and lo and behold: AM became a revitalized band. Topics that were once taboo (and could cost you your job if you visited them due to FD restrictions) were now given the light of day. Politics became open topics of conversation. Opinions were broadcast. the Voice of the People began to speak out again. A vitality existed again in a dusty and moldy industry. People listened to the radio and discussed what they heard - about what they agreed and disagreed and dialogue is the path to understanding.

Of course this will fall upon deaf ears as many here fall into the trap of regulations as weapons...use the law when you can't (or won't) compete. To them, I say (and remind) that regulations can be wielded in 2 directions. Sometimes as a weapon with which you attack and sometimes a weapon with which you are attacked. Most relish the former (let's go get Limbaugh et al) but when the former comes their cries of "unfair" are heard throughout the land.