Yes, Actually, We Do Need To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[proud2BlibKansan]

A couple of weeks ago all of the monolith of right wing radio was
literally hysterical about the possibility that the Fairness Doctrine
might be brought back. And then all of a sudden on Feb 26, 2009, with
no other warning, a nauseatingly named and so-called "Broadcaster
Freedom Act" was passed as an amendment to the DC voting rights bill
in the Senate. It happened so fast that none of the congressional
bill tracking sites have an update on this yet.

We're of the opinion that the handful of hostile corporations who
have such a death grip on our political speech right now don't need
any more "freedom" to suppress even paid commercials they don't agree
with, and to coordinate secret advertiser boycotts of the few
progressive outlets in the so-called "free" market. The only point of
Broadcaster Dictatorship provision is to make the current extreme
wingnut bias of our media permanent, and to hold the DC voting rights
provision for ransom to do it.

Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum943.php

Probably never before has such a hideously misleading provision been
snuck into a totally unrelated bill on such flimsy pretext. And had
the ideological greedheads behind it not also pushed for adding the
additional groaning baggage of an enshrinement of wild west gun
ownership rights into the same bill, it might have already been
passed into law. Please contact your members of Congress with the
action page above and tell them to make sure the Broadcaster Freedom
to Monopolize Our Airwaves Act does not make it into law.

The reason why the right wing is so petrified about the return of
real fairness to our media is that it is only by perpetuating
monopoly over the major news sources that they can effectively
exclude alternative viewpoints from public debate. For example, the
widely supported (by the public) proposals for transforming our
national health care into a vastly more efficient single payer system
are not even allowed to be discussed on most outlets. It is their
last ditch attempt to stop the march of people's democracy.

Curiously, many of our progressive radio talkers seem to bend over
backwards to put an inordinate number of abusive right wing jerks on
the air, perhaps to demonstrate that eventually they can lose
arguments to loudmouths who just keep repeating the same discredited
talking points over and over, kind of a self imposed quasi Fairness
Doctrine. Or perhaps they themselves are compelled to do so by their
own corporate overlords.

But just as nobody in the right wing would ever put on anyone who was
an effective advocate to the left of them, save for an occasional
token punching bag, you can be sure NONE of the so-called liberals on
the air right now would ever put on anyone who challenged them for
taking too many right wing positions themselves. Even now, when truly
progressive candidates run for office they are literally blacked out
of coverage even on so-called progressive channels.

Only by in fact bringing back the Fairness Doctrine can we cure the
current de facto and oppressive censorship of truly progressive
views.

[humblebum]

1. The only ones who should be opposing the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

are those who fear free and open debate on the same medium over the people's airwaves, because that it what it would do.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[AndyTiedye]

3. Kicked and Recommended!

[babylonsister]

4. Educate me. So many people think this is not the way to go. Why? nt

[humblebum]

6. The ones who have been working against renewal of the FD

are the right wing radio broadcasters because they say it is a violation of their free speech. You don't hear anything about the positive side of the doctrine because the RW does not allow any opposition to it over the airwaves which they control. The Fairness Doctrine workrd for over 40 years. It would most certainly have to be retailored to fit today's broadcast media, but it would allow opposing viewpoints to be heard over the airwaves. In short, it would force Rush limbaugh and other like him to be held accountible for their statements and vice versa. It is NOT an equal time amendment.

[babylonsister]

11. So why do the Dems think it's a dead end?

Any clue? And why are the rethugs so insistent? I use the word 'interesting' when I can think of no other.

[humblebum]

18. First of all the Republicans are painting this thing as violation of

their free speech rights, claiming that the FD would force them from the airwaves.They are also saying that it is an equal time requirement. Neither is true. And to top it all off, notice that this is the only opinion being allowed to be broadcast over the airwaves (there actually exists another point of view that is not being heard).
Concerning the Dems who think it's a dead end - they are afraid that they will be labeled as opposing free speech and they are accepting the line that there is already enough alternate media. True, there is a lot of alternate media, but airwave broadcasting is distinctively different: It is free of charge and it is available in the home, at work, and in the car. It is by far the most prevalent medium of all. Only one political voice is allowed, generally, the freedom to speak. The neo-conservatives know that this has been their cash cow and they will defend it, and they can, because they control the airwaves. The airwaves belong to the public, and a well informed public is crucial to democracy. If the Democrats are afraid to be accused of opposing free speech rights, then they need to realize who is not allowed to be heard and also that with a new revised fairness doctrine they would be able to respond to such criticism. The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is not an equal-time amendment and it's purpose is to guarantee free and open debate on important issues. If I tell you that the sky is faliing day after day, soon you will believe it because no one is telling anything different on that radio you listen to every day at lunch time.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. This Dem thinks it is a sort of dead end because .....

.... bringing it back will become a sort of complacency. The issue these days, however, is not so much what the fairness doctrine addressed (explained well by others in this very thread), but rather, about media ownership.

Downthread, someone mentioned San Diego as an example. The liberal yak station is now a ratings bust sports talk station. They don't care about ratings. They care about message. DC just lost its AAR affiliate, Same thing. Some bullshit, innocuous sports talk station.

These are low wattage, low value AM stations. They're cheap and easy to string together in a defacto network. Even fundy megachurches own some of them and have their own networks with Reverened BigHair holding sway all week.

There are ways to do this that will work. I'm no expert, but it all has to do with ownership.

Free Speech does not equate to Free Volume.

[depakid]

10. Most of it's propaganda that's been spread for years about the Fairness Doctrine

Every single time one of these threads comes up, you're guaranteed tosee the same bogus talking points- ridiculous claims and outright false statements of fact.

This article describes a bit about it (as swell as why we need it back).

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[Omnibus]

13. Very informative response and link!

I wish we could recommend individual responses. Yours belongs on the Greatest page.

[liberal N proud]

14. Demise of the Fairness Doctrine signaled the end of media as

the watchdog over democracy. It was not the cause of this demise but just the point in time when the philosophy in the corporations who own the media that is was not their job to insure the democratic process.

Another gift the not so great Reagan administration left us.

[Festivito]

15. Excellence. /nt

[wroberts189]

20. Because when we had it in place it worked very well.

Every evening local newscast would have an editorial at the end and there would be people that would represent both sides faithfully. People would get both sides to the story and could make up their own minds.

It was excellent.

Once it was gone Clear channel bought up as many stations as it could and shock radio was born.

I just do not understand those on DU that oppose it.. I think they were to young at the time it was in effect to see it was a good thing. I also do not think they grasp that the public owns these airwaves and the stations are supposed to act in the public good but they are not when its all conservative all the time..


Now people who listen to radio get only one side of the story ... there is not one progressive station where I live in CT. But I can get all the Hannity ,oreilly or rush one could ever want.

[cliffordu]

5. I'd rather just smash the corporations that own the media....

or make them each split off the news divisions.....

[upi402]

7. Yeah, everything needs to be done

Doing nothing will sink this country forever. There's probably no single answer at this point. Obama is already smelly from the shitslingin' propagandists. Why they insist on ruining everything even more is beyond insanity.

[leftstreet]

8. Good points about 'progressive' media talking heads

Curiously, many of our progressive radio talkers seem to bend over
backwards to put an inordinate number of abusive right wing jerks on
the air, perhaps to demonstrate that eventually they can lose
arguments to loudmouths who just keep repeating the same discredited
talking points over and over, kind of a self imposed quasi Fairness
Doctrine. Or perhaps they themselves are compelled to do so by their
own corporate overlords.

But just as nobody in the right wing would ever put on anyone who was
an effective advocate to the left of them, save for an occasional
token punching bag, you can be sure NONE of the so-called liberals on
the air right now would ever put on anyone who challenged them for
taking too many right wing positions themselves. Even now, when truly
progressive candidates run for office they are literally blacked out
of coverage even on so-called progressive channels.

The alleged "right" and "left" pov in the M$M seems like a vacuum of carefully scripted and controlled talking points to me.

[Cetacea]

9. Off to the greatest then.

I am beginning to think that people who oppose it have no understanding of the power of the media and it's affect on people's belief systems.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Thank you

[newtothegame]

16. I hate the idea of any leaders using their using their time in office and tax dollars...

to pass new laws and policies just because they don't happen to have the political upperhand in one arena or the other. Bu*h did this with everything, including the Supreme Courts, he was an idiot for it, and we called him such; what would our excuse be?

ed for sp

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. The airways are public property

The content aired over them needs to be balanced.

[spanone]

17. i for one am in favor of anything that's called 'fairness'...

point - counterpoint

[AnotherMother4Peace]

21. Air America was kickin' butt here in San Diego, & was inexplicably yanked off the air,

replaced with sports talk radio that tanked in the ratings - But the ratings factor didn't seem to factor in to the decisions. Currently in this very big (almost, if not already, blue city) there's nothing but right wing crap on the many radio stations.

The only talk radio to listen to in San Diego is Rush (on several stations), Hannity, Savage, etc.

I'm so ready to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, & let's tweak it & call it something else a little be more descriptive. e.g.: monopoly free airways

[humblebum]

23. perfect example nt

[defendandprotect]

25. Absolutely . .. which is why I so question what has happened to AAR overall . . . and to Randi!!!

[humblebum]

26. A couple years back Limbaugh reacted to hearing that Randi

would be broadcasted on the same network. He threaten to quit, she was pulled.

[defendandprotect]

27. Yes -- and in lieu of that evidently Clear Channel wouldn't syndicate Randi . . .

hoping to hear soon that she's going to be back on the air somewhere!!

[defendandprotect]

24. Right . . .it would be a first step in returning a public voice to broadcasting . . .

and putting a small dent in the corporate voice.

[derby378]

28. It would certainly pave the way for more open debate of the issues

NRA vs. Brady Campaign, NARAL vs. Feminists For Life, NCSE vs. Discovery Institute. Bring it on.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Kicked and recommended, on edit too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, proud2BlibKansan.