"Fairness Doctrine " Can we get this back?

[dave502d]

The Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the United States's Federal Communications Commission. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC <1> (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers (and the court, five years later, would unanimously overturn a Florida statute on newspapers), the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the scarcity of radio stations. Critics of the Red Lion decision have pointed out that most markets then and now are served by a greater number of radio stations than newspapers.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to intimidate and silence political opposition. Although the Doctrine was rarely enforced, many radio broadcasters believed it had a "chilling effect" on their broadcasting, forcing them to avoid any commentary that could be deemed critical or unfair by powerful interests.

The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in its Syracuse Peace Council decision which was upheld. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.

The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice until 2000. The personal attack rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applied when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[Iris]

1. I think it's worth a try.

This has been such a huge problem, especially since 9-11.

[silverojo]

7. It's been a problem since Reagan killed it n/t

[Iris]

36. well, yes, but

I think it becomes progressively worse as we move into an entertainment-based society.

[Metta]

2. Excellent post. An important issue.

Many thanks. :thumbsup:

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Let us hope so

[Blue State Blues]

4. Not sure

Although congress has oversight, it might require a Dem president because the FCC is under the executive branch. In addition to the doctrine, reinstating a 10 member board would help.

On my list this is the #2 most important thing to do to preserve democracy (in case you're interested #3 is campaign finance reform and #1 is election reform).

[lildreamer316]

5. Could not agree MORE.

Is there a groundswell for this issue? We need to bring it to the attention of the new policymakers in the house. I would welcome a good analysis from someone inside the beltway.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. Thats why its called public airwaves.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. The demise of the "Poltical Editorial Rule" in 2000.......

as now resulted in 24 hour per day constant unabashed GOP advertising --- in my city that has at least 3 stations with 24/7/365 100% GOP advertising, that is 4320 minutes of GOP radio advertising per day, or 1,576,800 unopposed GOP advertising minutes per year.

Apparently, this is unregulated by the campaign financing laws, even though it massively exceeds all official GOP advertising put together.

I was unaware that this "Political Editorial Rule" and the "Personal Attack Rule" was in effect until 2000, but this now explains why the partisanship has become so much more overt in the last 6 years.

It would appear that these 2 rules are as important as the Fairness Doctrine itself.

[NEDem]

9. I think that should be on Pelosi's 100 day agenda

It is that important

[catzies]

10. AGREED! It IS that important!!!

n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

11. We should write to Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers,

Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel -- in fact, contact every Dem in House and Senate -- and ask them to make this one of their many prioriities.

The effects of losing the Fairness Doctrine have been disastrous for our country.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. We should write to Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers,

Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel -- in fact, contact every Dem in House and Senate -- and ask them to make this one of their many prioriities.

The effects of losing the Fairness Doctrine have been disastrous for our country.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. We should write to Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers,

Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel -- in fact, contact every Dem in House and Senate -- and ask them to make this one of their many prioriities.

The effects of losing the Fairness Doctrine have been disastrous for our country.

[LWolf]

14. I can ask. Again.

I've asked my reps to address this every year for too long.

Is now, finally, the time to act?

[DocSavage]

15. So AM radio and 1 TV Network

scares everyone so much that you want the govt to silence them? Lets see, I am sitting here 1 day after an election where the party has taken control of both houses, all this while Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Savage and Fox TV were broadcasting. What is the problem? If the party has a good message, it does not matter what republicans think or listen to. I personally know numerous people that did not vote in the R colum yesterday, yet they listen daily to the shows, and watch Fox.

Someone answer me this question. If you own a business, and the govt came in and told you how to run it, what kind of inventory to carry, would you like it? What forced AA into bankruptcy? Was it maybe that there were not enough listeners for radio stations to make money on advertising?

There is no reason that a democratic radio host cannot be as big as limbaugh. Push the fairness doctrine and you will see adds all over tv, and newspapers that Democrats are trying to censor what you hear and see, see what happens when they are in power! There are much bigger issues than the fairness doctrine, and issues that are winnible and issues that the republicans will lend support to.

[struggle4progress]

20. The fairness doctrine never silenced anyone. It simply required ..

.. in certain circumstances that response time be available. If broadcast media are used to publicize certain sorts of claims, they should be prepared to allow some counter-point. It's not especially onerous, and it never prevented media from espousing its favorite views; it did ensure that the public in certain circumstances heard more than one side of the story.

[davekriss]

27. I respectfully disagree with your POV on this

There is so much misinformation and missing information in your post, it's hard to know where to begin. Let me start with just this for now:

We have this concept in our enlightened civilization called the public commons. We the People own the commons and we are each equally free to make use of them. The airwaves are one such commons. So when We the People allow businesses to appropriate portions of the commons for private benefit (profit), we attach a quid pro quo -- 'yes, Mr. Businessman, you can treat x bandwidth as if it is your exclusive private property, but only for these agreed purposes and only if you agree to abide by these rules and regulations.' In the early days, broadcast radio and TV could use 23.5 hours a day to attract and retain audiences to sell to advertisers via programming that met the norms of the community, but 0.5 hours of the day had to be dedicated to sharing honest news about events of interest to the community. This news had to conform to the Fairness Doctrine, to the Editorial Rule, and the businessman had to agree not to grow the business beyond the constraints of the Rule of Sevens (all gone now). If the businessman didn't like those terms, he or she was free to take their capital and invest elsewhere; for those that agreed, personal fortunes were made. Not a bad deal, this appropriation of the public commons for private benefit!

Other ideas I'd like to work out with you concern the dynamic of class interest exhibited in the packaging and reach exampled by, say, National Review vs. Z Magazine in the nineties; the rightward pull of FOX News resulting in devolution of TV journalism into infotainment; the near-monopolization of the major media resulting in a narrowing of the permissible agenda to just those things that serve, or at least don't harm, Board Room interests; the rise of public relations and social control from the seminal beginnings in Lippman and Bernays to the highly developed (and technically enabled) science it is today.

Where should I start? It is not as simple as "scared" and "want govt to silence them" -- I want equality of opportunity to speak and be heard, which does not exist today, even with the multiplicity and disintermediation made possible by the (net-neutral) internet. Instead I advocate use of our democratic institutions to counter narrowly private interests because otherwise...

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. The "Public Commons" is the issue here.....

Davekriss's point is well taken, DocSavage.

The "Fairness Doctrine" has never been used to silence free speech. It was only used in respect to certain limited bandwidth that was given to private entities, for their exclusive use, under certain conditions. This bandwidth was not created by these private entities, and is not limitless. In exchange for giving this bandwidth away, to these private entities, certain conditions were attached. One of these conditions was that this bandwidth be used to promote the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. The "Fairness Doctrine", and the related "Political Editorial" and "Personal Attack" rules, we designed to insure that free speech was preserved.

This was not a "takings" from private owners ---- i.e., this was not private property that was taken away. What we have here is the opposite:

This AM (and FM) bandwidth was part of the "Public Commons" that was granted to private entities provided they follow certain rules to preserve the interests of the "public commons". The voiding of the "Fairness Doctrine" amounted, not only to a reduction in free speech, but was, in fact, an instance of uncompensated private appropriation from the public, in the the private entities managed to void some of their obligations under their original grant (of bandwidth) without compensating the public.

This issue is yet another example of private interests feeding at the public trough, then dressing up their rhetoric to appear to be defending private property rights from an intrusive public interest.

[DocSavage]

35. Fairness doctrine has become

obsolete. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Initially, when the FCC created this policy, AM radio and basic TV was the only available over the air media. That is not the case today. Want to address an issue, start a blog, do a video and put it on U-tube. Hell, DU even has video now. There are many venues available to someone to expouse thier opposing views. If I were limbaugh, and the fairness doctrine were instituted, I would go private on a satellite owned by another country, with pod casts and streaming audio and beat the system. If there were still only AM radio and 3 tv stations in each town, the regulation might still be valid.

Want to push it, be prepared for conservative to demand it on AA, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Bill Mahar, you get the idea. How about public education. Want the fairness doctrine instituted there? There are opposing points of view over almost everything. Evolution/creationism, global warming/nature at work. I am not scared by some radio hosts and a couple of cable news channels. Neither should you.

[Faryn Balyncd]

37. DocSavage, your arguments totally avoid addressing the issue.....

.....raised by Davekriss, which is that radio and television stations have been granted an exclusive license, granting them a monopoly over a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in a geographic area. This monopoly rights to be the only broadcaster on this band of the spectrum was not owned by them, but was part of the "public commons". When the license was granted, the private owners not only agreed to certain terms, but they actively sough to obtain the license fully aware that part of the bargain was that they abide by certain rules in the public interest. Without such an exclusive grant, each of use would be legally free to broadcast on that bandwidth ourselves, interfering with their broadcast. Calling the regulation obsolete totally avoids the issue of the rights involved.

The fact that this electromagnetic spectrum exists in the space around us allows wide access to the technology. Consequently, it bestoys upon the private entity granted such a monopoly great competitive advantage. Consequently, although each of us may blog all we want, we cannot be received freely by anyone with no more than a car radio driving down the freeway.

If Limbaugh wants to broadcast by satellite from another country, and avoid any constraints of the FCC, perhaps he should. I would suspect one reason I have always heard him on AM radio might be that that affords him a mass audience on free radio that could not exist without the monopoly of that band of the radio spectrum given by the public. And someone wants such a competitive advantage is subject to the terms of the license.

By publishing a blog, or other internet publication, you are not doing so because others have given up anything. Your blog does not reduce the bandwidth available for others to publish, as is the case for licese holders of radio and television stations.

I do agree with you that some might demand that free speech be limited on the internet, just as some might demand that talking to your neighbor must be regulated, but the fact is, the reasons cited above the FCC has a right to require rules such as the "Fairness Doctrine" to television and radio stations do not apply to physical free speech or to the internet. No such rules have been agreed to, in seeking a license for the monopoly rights as exist in a television and radio license.

[DocSavage]

39. OK, personally, I have yet

to see a valid argument for implementing the fairness doctrine again. What do you hope it accomplishes.

[davekriss]

38. Right on, charles t

Especially your last point, "another example of private interests feeding at the public trough, then dressing up their rhetoric to appear to be defending private property rights from an intrusive public interest". :toast:

On edit: Including post #37, above!

[w4rma]

16. This is among my topmost priorities. (nt)

[HomerRamone]

17. The FCC doesn't regulate cable.

CBS would have to give time to wingnuts while Fox could continue just as they are...

[davekriss]

19. That's not correct

The FCC does regulate the cable industry. From their webpage, http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

[tritsofme]

24. Its different though

The FCC does not regulate cable and satellite the same it regulates over the air broadcasting.

They don't grant broadcast licenses in the same sense they do for those other formats and they can't sensor them.

I think the FCC exists for cable and satellite mostly to regulate the manner in which they broadcast their signals.

[ContraBass Black]

18. I don't think I trust any government to enforce such a law.

[tritsofme]

21. So I guess you want Bush's FCC deciding what is fair?

Where does the fairness leave liberal talk radio?

[struggle4progress]

22. I'd rather go after the media concentration rules first: the point is that,

although business interests have an effect on content, if there is real diversity of ownership, then there is more diversity of interest as well, and hence there is more likelihood that if the interests of one outlet prevent reportage another outlet will still cover the story.

[mwooldri]

29. I'm split on media concentration though. I'm more for fairness media.

Here's why. If the media (i.e. the number of radio stations and tv stations owned by one company in a given marketplace) is divested then it doesn't mean that there will be more voices on the air. It could mean less choice - here in Greensboro there's a bit of a turf war going on between Clear Channel and Entercom - CC flipped a country station to go urban AC against Entercom's #1 rated urban station AC station; likewise Entercom flipped an oldies station to go country against Clear Channel's #1 country blowtorch. Now imagine less companies in the marketplace... they'd want to get a decent share of market, and since country seems to be the #1 format for the area and the top ranked station for ages in Greensboro is a country station... why not flip the station country? Now it would work good if the number one station in the market is news/talk so then the competition wants to be the best station in town and happens to choose news/talk as its format. That's when it will win.

Let the marketplace sort it out.. but if there has to be government regulations then perhaps we need to regulate the number of hours against one particular point of view on the airwaves. Let Rush Limbaugh stay on the air, but in the marketplace make sure that there is a station that carries Al Franken or Mike Malloy or whoever that offers an opposing view.

In the music radio business I would believe that it does tend to offer more variety because the competition would still be there - just more and smaller competitors. The Clear Channel/Entercom spat will work out in the end, they'll figure out where their numbers are and figure out a format that will attract the most advertising dollars - because in commercial radio it's the money that talks - even for Air America stations (of which there is none in Greensboro).

Otherwise we'd be in a radio wasteland here where your radio choices on FM and AM are right wing news/talk, southern gospel, country, rock, and urban AC. There's not a lot much else on radio stations across the south of the USA in a lot of places... just these main formats and nothing much else.

[struggle4progress]

31. What you're suggesting goes way beyond the fairness doctrine and ..

.. doesn't have a chance in hell being written in regulation: nobody's going to say, yeah, you can keep Rush on the air provided another station carries Al .

I want the fairness doctrine back, but I want a structural set-up that encouragers fairness, too.

What we have now is TV, radio, and newspapers in one and the same market owned by the same company. That means: the same stories on TV, radio, and in the papers. It's old fashioned progressive anti-monopoly stuff to oppose this, and it's a good idea to limit the size of the media companies anyway, because the big conglomerates won't encourage much in the way of local reporting.

An outfit like Clear Channel shouldn't even exist: they're too big, and they have no dedication to serving local markets. In case of emergency, calling the tradio station owned by Clear Channel may be useless because the station is an unpopulated box broadcasting from a national feed. How could preventing media concentrations like Clear Channel possibly limit the number of voices available? If we don't limit media monopoly, then eventually everyone nationwide can choose between only the same handful of feeds.

[mmonk]

23. I don't know. Ask our "bosses".

Also, ask them if they are going to let the MCA stand.

[Floogeldy]

25. Heh heh.

I'm glad I am not the only one that thought of this.

E-mail those in power about this twice a day. ;)

[Beausoir]

26. This is THE most important issue to me.

We MUST reinstate a free press again in this country.

[FatDave]

28. I've given this a lot of thought lately...

...and you know what? I don't think we need the fairness doctrine.

Yes, we were slow on the uptake, but now we're getting really close to leveling the playing field. I think one of the many reasons we rocked the republicans this election is the success of Olbermann, Stewart/Colbert, Air America, Stephanie Miller, and so on. For the first time in recent history, we got our message out. Yes, republicans are still ahead in this game, but look at the progress we've made in just two years. We don't need the debate regulated, we just need to keep doing what we're doing.

Do you really want to do away with Rusty Limbaugh so badly that you'd give up ? I don't think I would. For the first time ever, agenda-driven media is a two-way street. Sure, their lanes are still a little wider, but they've had a 20-year head start. We're leveling the field far faster than they built it, because we've got both the truth and the good of the people on our side. Those odds are not good for the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world. Fuck 'em at their own game, I say.

[onenote]

30. almost certainly would be struck down on constitutional grounds

[Th1onein]

32. This is one of the FIRST things we should get back!

Lobbyist reform and the Fairness Doctrine. If we don't do these things, we're going to find ourselves in the same shape we were in yesterday, with even a bigger fight on our hands. These are measures that protect the very structure of our democracy. We MUST have them back.

[Festivito]

33. Yes, and expanded.

Barring the people to speak is what should be considered as unconstitutional.

Want to inform the public? Good. Buy and ad and enough room for your opponent to hang themselves, or at least the same amount of time you give yourself. And, thank you for helping to inform the public.