Senators pushing for return of equal-time rules

[cal04]

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE4AP15J20081126?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews

The Fairness Doctrine, which forced broadcasters to offer equal time to both sides of controversial issues, was abolished in 1987, paving the way for talk radio to take the opinionated -- and popular -- form it has today.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and such influential Democratic senators as Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer are pushing for its return, or something like it. Could the equal-time provisions pull a Don Imus and make a radio comeback?

It could, industry insiders say. And the government-mandated programing restrictions that come with it could hobble an already struggling industry. Talk-radio hosts are unlikely to accept a new Fairness Doctrine without a fight, though. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are among those already railing against it daily.

By some estimates, conservatives on talk radio dominate liberals by a ratio of 10-to-1, hence the call by some liberals to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. But Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) inserted language into the Federal Communications Commission's current budget barring it from being reinstated this year.

With the year drawing to an end and Barack Obama moving into the White House, talk about the Fairness Doctrine has heated up. Obama likely will name a new FCC chairman and make Democrats a majority on the five-person panel for the first time in eight years.

[boozepusher]

1. The fairness doctrine

would be the end of am radio and a huge boost to satellite radio.

[Oregone]

2. The Fairness Doctrine DOES NOT require equal time whatsoever

It requires a contrasting view presented, which could be a fraction of the programming/show. That is a fact.

[boozepusher]

3. Would this apply to t.v. and newspapers also?

[depakid]

4. It applies to broadcasters (though there's no reason it couldn't apply to cable)

with the appropriate legislation.

Basically, it provided an accountability mechanism against those who currently lie outright anbd engage in vile personal attacks with impunity.

It worked fine for many years and there's no reason why it wouldn't work just fine again.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Cable would have to be included then......

or else nothing would change.

The whole thing has got to be revamped for modern times, and monopolies have to be broken up.....

[John Q. Citizen]

6. The public owns the airwaves. But cable was never subject to the fairness doctrine, anymore than

my cars bumper is.

Cable companies own their own systems and don't rely on public airwaves.

I would prefer a major overhaul of the telecommunications act, and stringent antitrust enforcement.

[FrenchieCat]

10. That is what I meant by "Modernizing" ......

i.e., Cable stations that called themselves news stations have to be dealt with in some way.
I'm certainly for looking at that 1996 Telecommunications Act again.....definitely.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. The problem is not fairness. It's media consolidation!

The "unfairness" of the airwaves is due primarily to an appalling consolidation of media ownership so that these days less than a dozen major companies control almost all that we see, hear, and read.

Break up the media monopolies and a diversity of viewpoints is likely to follow.

The "fairness doctrine" makes sense in principle, but it's really kind of a red herring. The media won't be "fair" until its ownership is more diffuse and diverse.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Certainly.....those are my thoughts as well. Just got lazy in

my comments.

[Oregone]

13. Yes, because 100 rich assholes owning things will be different than just 10 rich assholes

I don't think you could create an ownership so diversified that their financial portfolios, and the conflict of interests they create, would cancel each other out to create "fairness". 99 out of 100 of them will still have a stake in Halliburton and report pro-war to increase their friend's and their own wealth.

And regardless, why foster a society where people can construct sanctuaries from truth, where their listeners can cower in fear. Why allow a media system to progress that fosters ignorance, hate, and plays upon the worst of society, while just hoping that the other half of America hits the media owners that are more "fair"? Breaking up the media ownership in itself is not going to address that fundamental problem. Perhaps together, they can work in synergy.

We should mandate contrasting views, rather than hope the "free market", or even a manipulated market will produce such.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. It would be a start..a small step in the correct direction..

- I did not want to say the RIGHT direction-

[FlyingTiger]

8. Oh my God, this IS NOT REALLY HAPPENING.

Read this:

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/the-paranoia-of-the-right-redux.html">Seriously, the Fairness Doctrine isn't coming back

[calmblueocean]

9. Ugh, just let it die. Obama doesn't want it. Radio is the past, the net is the future.

This was a terribly lopsided article, and wouldn't have been out of place at some right wing website. The author did everything he could to frighten people about the scary return of the "Fairness Doctrine", but barely mentioned that Obama actively opposes it, as do MOST LIBERALS. They know that we don't live in the 1980s anymore, but a media environment with many more choices. It won't be long before you'll have not just satellite radio in your car, but internet radio, where anyone will be able to compete.

The only people trying to make the "Fairness Doctrine" an issue are the Limbaughs and the Medveds, who know it's a great bugaboo to use to rile up their audience and make them believe that Democrats are evil. The joke is on them, though, because the Fairness Doctrine ain't comin' back, and talk radio is already irrelevant, as this election year proved.

[zeos3]

17. But most people don't have satellite or

internet radio now so why do you imply that it's a bad idea?

It kinda sounds like the argument that Bush is almost out of office so it's not worth impeaching him. :shrug:

[gravity]

14. I don't like the idea of the government dictating political coverage.

Just because it punishes right wing radio doesn't make it right

[newtothegame]

18. Agreed, see my post below..

[zeos3]

19. Try looking at it this way...

Would it be fair to say that the owners of the stations broadcasting on the public airwaves are dictating the political coverage now?

Isn't this punishing left wing radio?

The government wouldn't dictate the political coverage, it would simply allow for an opposing point of view to get SOME time on the same station.

I believe the right wing talk shows have been coddled enough by the station owners for them to complain about being "punished" now.

[zeos3]

15. Here's another take on the subject

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

The Fairness Doctrine
How we lost it, and why we need it back



"American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)"

[newtothegame]

16. I disagree with most DU'ers on the Fairness Doctrine...

"By some estimates, conservatives on talk radio dominate liberals by a ratio of 10-to-1, hence the call by some liberals to bring back the Fairness Doctrine."

I think there is truth to this. I don't think we should pass legislation on certain issues simply because we don't have the upper hand on them. Congress's time and money should be spent on reviving the economy, implementing renewables, etc. I highly doubt we would care if we had a 10-1 advantage, and any Dem who believes we would should really stop and consider whether they're being honest with themselves.

If we really want to address this issue, why don't we try to determine why our message isn't selling over the airwaves and why the Repukes have that 10-1 advantage? Just passing laws doesn't address the issue.

[Skittles]

21. thinking, thoughtful people are not into tabloid journalism

idiots are; hence the popularity of FOX NEWS and rightwing whackjob radio shows

[zeos3]

22. I agree with what you said about what Congress' time should be spent on

However...

It's not a matter of having the upper hand. It's a matter of having a true opposing viewpoint heard. If one truly believes in one's issue or point of view, then exposing it to scrutiny or an opposing view should be welcome for the validation of the idea.

Now, as to why our message isn't "selling" over the airwaves, perhaps the owner's of the broadcast stations aren't buying. Don't you think these media companies are only putting on the shelves what they want to sell?

If I owned a restaurant and one server said "we have aged steaks for our special today" and another server said "we have too many steaks that have been lying around all week and we need to get rid of them", I keep and/or promote the first one and fire the second one. I think the owners are looking for the "correct" point of view to offer the public.

[1]

20. be careful what you wish for. snl could not had so much fun with palin...

and any thinking person knows how important that was...