Should we bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

[Jmaxfie1]

Should we bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

From Wiki:

According to Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (which supports reinstating the Fairness Doctrine):

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

[DJ13]

1. Yes, but it needs to be updated to include cable news

[gateley]

2. +1 (I never would have thought of that!) nt

[Jmaxfie1]

3. Me neither. n/t

[gateley]

12. Great minds DON'T think alike! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Jmaxfie1]

19. Thanks. :)

[RKP5637]

5. Excellent Point !!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. No it doesn't. There needs to be a venue where speech is not regulated.

Privatly owned broadcast systems are not the same as "the airwaves" which are supposed to be wholly publicly owned.

I should be able to own and operate my own system of getting my message across without any government intervention whatsoever, as long as it's not broadcast over the open air.

What you're talking about would sooner or later involve government over what's said on the internet. Bet on that.

[DJ13]

25. You're right, but I would broaden the Doctrine

So that if a corporation owns any news division that is regulated by over the air regulations for fairness their cable divisions are also covered by the Fairness Doctrine.

That would either create the fairness we seek, or it would force the divestiture of the news divisions from their corporate parents.

Its the media mergers that have brought us to the current sad state where theres no real news being reported any more, so that kind of either or rule would be a remedy for that.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. The key words in your reply to my post are "over the air".

You support regulating speech you don't agree with. In fact, this thread would not even exist unless there were someone who believes that speech they don't agree with should be regulated in some way.

I would claim that "the fairness we seek" is not fairness at all, rather regulation of that we don't agree with.

What you espouse is really nothing more than a game of whack-a-mole. You don't realize that if we curtail their speech in one place, they'll just find another venue and at the end of the day I'd have to support their efforts to do so.

You already listen to what you want to listen to, and watch what you want to watch. Why in the world would you deny ANYONE else that same right?

[DJ13]

34. I posted 'over the air' because thats what the original Doctrine covered

I support either fairness or divestiture by the conglomerates.

I dont believe that would interfere with the concerns you have about unregulated speech, in fact I think it would force even more unregulated speech if the corporations had to divest their news divisions or face the fairness regulations.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. "news division" being a wholly subjective phrase, how would you define it?

And should everyone else abide by your definition?

The original doctrine went quite far enough. "over the air" meaning broadcast frequencies that were free to each and everyone who had the means to catch them. I don't believe for a moment that should I invest in my own subscription system of disseminating information, government should be allowed to regulate what it contains.

Can't go there just because someone has an opinion other than my own and the financial wherewithal to put it out there for people who would subscribe to it.

[RoccoR5955]

4. We need to bring back more than the Fairness Doctrine.

It's called the Media Ownership Reform Act, proposed a couple of times by my Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY22)
https://forms.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml
"The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.

Bill Summary:
I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting

Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.

MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations

Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.

There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.

MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households.
The legislation would re-establish a national radio ownership cap to keep a single company from owning more than five percent of our nation's total number of AM and FM stations.
The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.
Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from aving conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.
Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.
III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation

MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.

IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process

MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.

V. Requires Reports for Public Interest

MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.


Download the full text at the link.

[Jmaxfie1]

6. Cool, link, i'll have to read up on it. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

14. Didn't Rupert Murdoch become an American citizen so that

he could own media companies in America?

Isn't his son James suppose to take over control of the empire? If so, shouldn't it be required for all American holdings be sold because he is not an American citizen?

[Boxerfan]

7. Oh yes yes yes...

But we gotta get a fair supreme court B4 we stand any chance of that happening.

Now its a corporate oned subsidiary of the Republican party & would never allow actual news to be reported.

I'm old enough to remember the footage fron Vietnam. It changed the way America saw the war & that is why we do not have a fair media any more.

Also-just before the 2nd Iraq war started I heard a comment from a high command type on C-span during an open mich. He said the most difficult thing about modern war was the MEDIA!!!.

Keep in mind they bombed the media hotel just a few months later after the war started. Oh but it was on "accident...

Military Industrial complex hard at work.

[rhett o rick]

8. lol, dream on. Who will "bring it back"?? Who will enforce it??? The Obama DOJ? Dream on. nm

[Greybnk48]

9. How about News! Or Truth!

I wish we could bring it back. Don't know how at this point.

[howaboutme]

10. Every political show on radio or tv should have at least 2 POV

It is not fair to require viewers to be exposed to only one point of view. \

Every political media show should require multiple pov so that no unchallenged statements can exist and that debate on every issue is an automatic byproduct. I'd prefer to see POV from left, right and middle. The public would learn instead of being incited and force fed one side or the other.

[Jmaxfie1]

11. me too. n/t

[tavalon]

13. Where is the "Duh" option

[Lorien]

15. For anyone answering "No": should we bring back Democracy?

Because there can be no democracy when only one party holds the bullhorn. (Most of those that disagree with the Fairness Doctrine either listened to too much Limbaugh or are too young to remember the VAST difference between journalism then and today).

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Bring it back from where?

And I beg your pardon, I am neither a limbaugh listener nor too young to remember when access to information was limited to channels 2-13 and UHF and stopped broadcasting at midnight. My first television, a hand-me-down, had the "test pattern" burned permanently into the tube and from the right angle you could see it even when the television was off.

Not every broadcast entity is involved in "news" by your definition, even if their title has "news" as part of its name.

Please stop trying to curtail speech that you don't agree with. I hate when that happens.

[jberryhill]

20. How about bringing back The Smothers Brothers?

Because they got kicked off TV for doing political humor from only one point of view.

[joshcryer]

28. No, I reserve the right to bash the fuck out of those who are tyrants.

The Fairness Doctrine would force me to give them an equal say.

[jberryhill]

18. The underlying rationale is not valid in the context of cable

The crux of the fairness doctrine was the broadcast license.

Because over-the-air television broadcasting required a public grant of broadcast spectrum, there were a number of public interest requirements for keeping that license. There could not be more than a handful of television channels. The knob started at 2 and went to 13.

It didn't apply to cable, so at this point I'm curious to know what you believe would happen if it were brought back.

[Jmaxfie1]

22. I'm actually not for bring it back. Just wondering who was and what ...

their rationale would be. I like it in principle, but not in application.

[jberryhill]

27. Then a good followup question would be...

...whether it should apply to websites, YouTube videos, etc.

[joshcryer]

30. It'd be an interesting question, but it couldn't stand.

The FCC doesn't regulate the internet and ICANN is international now (even though it's based in the US etc). Ain't happening.

[Jmaxfie1]

33. those neither. n/t

[Balbus]

21. Yes, because that "freedom of speech" thing can be so annoying at times.

Especially when it's speech I don't agree with.

[Jmaxfie1]

23. That's pretty much why I'm against bringing it back.

[Zax2me]

26. But when it is wrapped up as news....as in fox - is that speech?

Free speech?
I think the Fairness Doctrine corrects this kind of fraud, not limit free speech.
In fact, it would enhance it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. So if faux dropped "news" from their title, you'd give up this fight?

Is that what I'm reading? Fox "claims" to be news but really isn't? Isn't the definition of what is news and what isn't wholly a subjective thing?

[Jmaxfie1]

32. That's what I mean by in principle agreeing with the "spirit" of..

law, but not really in its application. It would be nice if people told the truth and would in fact be beneficial to people as a whole, but if say some National Socialist founded a "news org" and preached Holocaust Denial I'd still say they have a right to say it. I would not watch and boycott all businesses that advertised on it, but I wouldn't ban it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Handshake. n/t

[hughee99]

24. We need to make sure that free speech is free

as long as it's its speech that I agree with.

[Tatersbrowning]

38. Adverisers ....

Doesn't the market support anything or show that draws enough viewers? If a message is compelling, it should stand on its own.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. ChrisNews will be the newest/greatest venue for getting information out that there has ever been...

Wanna listen to it? I'll sell you a can, and a piece of string and you can tie into the network of strings.

Hold it up to your ear... Hear that? It's a hundred thousand million people all saying whatever they want to say, albeit using my can and string network.

Would you propose governmental regulation of ChrisNews?

[KharmaTrain]

39. Who Determines "Fairness"?

Some commission loaded with partisans? You, me, Rupert Murdoch? The issue isn't fairness its access. Corporate control of the media with little chance for few others to have a similar voice. It's Reregulation to break up the major monopolies and making it easier and less expensive to challenge license or gain access to the radio or teevee dial.

[JoeyT]

40. Voted no, but with a reason.

The fairness doctrine wouldn't actually do us any good.

I guess we could make "News" a protected term in television. No one is going to listen to Fox Entertainment after they aren't allowed to call themselves news anymore when it's proven they intentionally lie on a regular basis.

Sure "intent" is hard to prove, but refusing to ever issue any kind of correction after you've been informed of your errors hints awful strongly at it. Especially when every single one of your errors falls in exactly the same direction.

[RoccoR5955]

41. But shouldn't even opinion shows have all sides of an opinion?

That's what the Fairness Doctrine was/is about. If there is an opinion, there's not just one side to it. Though you might consider Fox as entertainment (I personally consider it propaganda) if it has an opinion side to it, there should be more than one side posed.

My tagline, in its complete form is: "Understanding is a three-edged sword. There's your side, his side, and the TRUTH." Captain John Sheridan, Earthforce (From the Science Fiction series, Babylon 5)

[JoeyT]

43. The problem with forcing them to allow "both sides" is

they get to pick who represents both sides. So when it comes to representing the left, they'll just grab a faux progressive or neo-liberal that's either too dumb, too afraid, or too in agreement to counter their nonsense.

I'd be happy with just preventing them from lying. It would at least limit the amount of damage they can do.

[Taitertots]

42. Fairness doctrine is inherently unfair and was never used to protect controversial matters

Communism, Socialism, anarchism, atheism.....