Fairness Doctrine

This has a vaguely familiar ring to it.




"For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."
In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine."
"Yes," Pelosi answered.
And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back.
"It should and will affect everyone," Eshoo pledged.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that

Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.
In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label.
"That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand."
Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.

McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"
And while Republicans' prediction of "Fairness Doctrine" legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren't just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.
In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.
"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."
The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
The Center for American Progress was criticized by conservative commentators for its 2007 report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."[12] The report states: "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive." The report did not include analysis of the content of other radio providers, such as universities and public radio. The report suggests three steps to increase progressive radio voices in talk radio: restoring local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations; ensuring greater local accountability over radio licensing; and require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

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

Companies are given a license to operate public airwaves -- free! -- in order to make a profit, yes, but also, according to the terms of their FCC license, "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance." Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk.

For years, the Fairness Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance in programming.

That experiment has failed. There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.

-- Bill Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602511_pf.html

When there were only 3 tv station, 6 am stations and 4 fm stations the fairness doctrine had a place.
Today there are, literally hundreds of tv stations, dozens of am and fm radio stations and thousands of blogs and podcasts. There is no longer a need for a fairness doctrine. The people, in the form of the marketplace, have decided that the talk that is currently availible is what they want; if it wasn't they wouldn't listen. Why do you think Art Bell was on at 2 am and not 6?

The "Fairness Doctrine" is anything but. There is nothing fair about this. While some would call me a liberal, I consider myself a moderate. The fact that the "liberal" talk shows aren't making it is proof positive, they have nothing to sell that hits mainstream America. While I listen to talk radio every day, I find the conservative talk show hosts more entertaining, even though I don't agree. Radio like any other media is in it for profit, and also to serve the public good. There of course many who believe the msm is liberal, and talk radio is the balance. While I tend to not believe that the msm is liberal, I do understand talk radio is mostly conservitive. If the liberal left wants a talk show, then come up with one that is informative, and entertaining. Roe Conn on wls is one whom I believe is not conservative, but very entertaining. If there were more shows on the radio like his, then I believe there would be a larger audience. Dump the "Fairness Doctrine" once and for all. It is poorly written, and subject to subjective rules.

Bill B wrote:

When there were only 3 tv station, 6 am stations and 4 fm stations the fairness doctrine had a place.
Today there are, literally hundreds of tv stations, dozens of am and fm radio stations and thousands of blogs and podcasts. There is no longer a need for a fairness doctrine.

Yeah, well 5 years ago, I would have agreed with you. If it was just a question about "talk radio," I wouldn't give the question a second thought. But there is a real danger caused by media consolidation. A ssingle company can own multiple stations in the same local market, and can dictate what programs are aired. That's a real problem.

Take Sinclair Broadcasting, for example...



And it's not just a theoretical problem. I don't know if you recall, but Sinclair decided to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary in 2004, two weeks before the general election, and required all of its affiliates to carrry it.

Quote :

In October 2004, it was reported that Sinclair would order all 62 of its affiliate stations to preempt prime time programming to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a documentary critical of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism, just two weeks before the November 2 election.

This is the same outfit that forbid its affiliates to carry a Nightline telecast that it felt was "propaganda."

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

Quote :

...it decided that seven of its ABC-affiliated stations would not broadcast an April 30 airing of Nightline, which was a tribute to the soldiers killed in the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Both of these incidents should trouble anyone, regardless of your political views.

Now, I'm not saying that the "Fairness Doctrine" is the answer to such abuses of the public trust. But as long as we're taking about the public airwaves then I think that we need some reasonable restrictions on media consolidation, at the very least. We own the airwaves. Broadcasters are merely licensees, and if they betray the public trust, then their license should be pulled.

In your example Scorp., this could be deemed as an abuse of the public airwaves. Sure this example is scary, but that type of abuse could easily be handled in a different way. The fairness doctrine could pre-empt even the fairest of the owners, and who makes the rules on it? The rules always have a different line as to what is acceptable and what is liberal or conservative. Too subjective if you ask me, and really too much big brother for me too.

Face wrote:

In your example Scorp., this could be deemed as an abuse of the public airwaves. Sure this example is scary, but that type of abuse could easily be handled in a different way. The fairness doctrine could pre-empt even the fairest of the owners, and who makes the rules on it? The rules always have a different line as to what is acceptable and what is liberal or conservative. Too subjective if you ask me, and really too much big brother for me too.

But it wasn't "handled in a different way," face. Don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of the "fairness doctrine," but stuff like Sinclair pulled can't be permitted on the public airwaves. And IMHO, there is nothing more subjective and "big brotheresque" than using the public airwaves to spread propaganda that supports a corporate agenda based upon the ideology of owners.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Quote :

In October 2004, it was reported that Sinclair would order all 62 of its affiliate stations to preempt prime time programming to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a documentary critical of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism, just two weeks before the November 2 election.

I would venture to guess that this network also gave Kerry many, many hours of coverage showing him not engaging in anti-war activism.
Why is that not considered to be balanced?

You can "venture to guess" all you like. But it's frankly assinine to claim that if Kerry was shown not engaging in anti-war activism, then the coverage was balanced.

There are laws prohibiting a public station from broadcasting partisan propaganda that close to an election. This program was not just about Kerry's anti-war activities. This was about legitimizing the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth." If the Swifties wanted to air a frickin' program, then they should have paid for it, just like everybody else. Instead, we had an owner who was in league with the group, and provided free air time.

That's right, frickin' free airtime, on the public airwaves, for a program that attacked a Presidential candidate. With no opportunity for equal time.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, then IMHO, your opinion about the "fairness doctrine" seems pretty damned suspect.

Yeah. Well, the botched CBS story was debunked and retracted. The network, and especially Rather, ended up looking like idiots. Rightfully so.

I knew that you'd come back with this bogus analogy, but it's not even close to being the same thing. If the networks refused to cover the unraveling of the Rather story, then you might have a point. But that's not the case.

It's disingenuous to claim that you are "for fairness" when you try to defend something as egregious as Sinclair's actions just before the election of 2004. It makes it look like your definition of "fairness" is whatever suits your political views.

Do you see the dangers inherent in unchecked meida consolidation or not?

Yes, or no?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I knew that you'd come back with this bogus analogy, but it's not even close to being the same thing. If the networks refused to cover the unraveling of the Rather story, then you might have a point. But that's not the case.

Your dismissal of the analogy is nonsense.
If the media had refused to cover the Sinclair story or had accepted the Swift Boat Veterans’ charges unquestioningly, then you might have a point. But that’s not the case.

You can try to spin it anyway you like, but your analogy is a straw man. The fact is that Sinclair broadcasting ran a political commercial, absolutely free... and then refused to provide equal time to the subject of the attacks. If they had provided equal time, then it would be a different story.

happy jack wrote:

As things stand now, the public has the option of deciding whether or not the news they are getting is fair and balanced, based on their own perception of what they consider to be fair and balanced. With the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine, or something similar, someone in Washington will have the responsibility of subjectively deciding what is fair and balanced and what is not fair and balanced. Where is the guarantee that the individual making those decisions is himself fair and balanced and without an agenda?

I already said that I was against the reimplementation of the "fairness doctrine."

You, on the other hand, can't even bring yourself to recognize the injustice inherent in Sinclair's actions. You don't even seem to care about the potential dangers of an increasingly concentrated media.

I won't speculate on your motives, but I gotta tell ya, IMHO... anyone who doesn't have a problem with the stunt that Sinclair pulled has very little credibility when discussing the non-existent "fairness doctrine."

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I knew that you'd come back with this bogus analogy, but it's not even close to being the same thing. If the networks refused to cover the unraveling of the Rather story, then you might have a point. But that's not the case.

Your dismissal of the analogy is nonsense.
If the media had refused to cover the Sinclair story or had accepted the Swift Boat Veterans’ charges unquestioningly, then you might have a point. But that’s not the case.

You can try to spin it anyway you like, but your analogy is a straw man. The fact is that Sinclair broadcasting ran a political commercial, absolutely free... and then refused to provide equal time to the subject of the attacks. If they had provided equal time, then it would be a different story.

happy jack wrote:

As things stand now, the public has the option of deciding whether or not the news they are getting is fair and balanced, based on their own perception of what they consider to be fair and balanced. With the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine, or something similar, someone in Washington will have the responsibility of subjectively deciding what is fair and balanced and what is not fair and balanced. Where is the guarantee that the individual making those decisions is himself fair and balanced and without an agenda?

I already said that I was against the reimplementation of the "fairness doctrine."

You, on the other hand, can't even bring yourself to recognize the injustice inherent in Sinclair's actions. You don't even seem to care about the potential dangers of an increasingly concentrated media.

I won't speculate on your motives, but I gotta tell ya, IMHO... anyone who doesn't have a problem with the stunt that Sinclair pulled has very little credibility when discussing the non-existent "fairness doctrine."

I'm still trying to figure out why you think that the federal government deciding what is aired is somehow better than a private company deciding what is aired.

I don't believe that I said anything remotely resembling that, jack. Didn't I say that I was against the reimplementation of the fairness doctrine? Let's see...

Scorpion wrote:

I already said that I was against the reimplementation of the "fairness doctrine."

Yep. I thought so.

What I'm definitely against is a private company doing stuff like abusing the public airwaves by providing free political advertising to only one party in an election. Again, we, the people own the public airwaves. A private concern only leases, through licensing, the right to use those airwaves. With that license comes an obligation not to abuse the privilege. Sinclair clearly stepped over the line, and if we continue to allow unfettered media consolidation, we can expect more abuses.

In my opinion, this is a far greater threat to free speech than a "fairness doctrine" which doesn't even exist.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I don't believe that I said anything remotely resembling that, jack. Didn't I say that I was against the reimplementation of the fairness doctrine? Let's see...

Scorpion wrote:

I already said that I was against the reimplementation of the "fairness doctrine."

Yep. I thought so.

What I'm definitely against is a private company doing stuff like abusing the public airwaves by providing free political advertising to only one party in an election. Again, we, the people own the public airwaves. A private concern only leases, through licensing, the right to use those airwaves. With that license comes an obligation not to abuse the privilege. Sinclair clearly stepped over the line, and if we continue to allow unfettered media consolidation, we can expect more abuses.

In my opinion, this is a far greater threat to free speech than a "fairness doctrine" which doesn't even exist.

Who comes in to enforce what these private companies are allowed to place on the airwaves?
I believe that would have to be the government (unless, of course, you plan to contract it out to Blackwater), in which case you come full circle back to the Fairness Doctrine, or at least some incarnation of it.

All I'm saying is that we need to have some reasonable controls on media consolidation. I don't see why we need to allow media conglomerates to own unlimited, multiple stations and mediums within each local media market. In other words, the FCC should regulate ownership limits.

I'd much rather see that happen than see any attempts to regulate content. Reasonable limits on ownership would preserve the free marketplace of ideas.

Here is an interesting report from Common Cause, if you're interested...

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA TODAY:
A REFORM PLAN FOR A NEW ADMINISTRATION

Here is a short blurb from the report, but I highly recommend taking time to read the whole thing.

Quote :

The only industry explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is the media. The reason is fundamental: In a healthy democracy, those who disseminate information must not be fettered in their role of holdinggovernment accountable. The founders of our country understood this and made sure that “freedom of the press” was clearly stated in the highest law of the land.

The media cannot play its role effectively unless it is independent from government influence. A variety of sources of information, independent of each other, is essential as well. On many issues, media outlets will to varying degrees reflect the interests of their individual owners. Real objectivity may always be elusive, but a variety of information sources available and accessible to the public ensures most necessary information is in the dialogue. Oppositely, there is real danger when there are fewer sources responsible for informing us...

How shocking it is to find out who it is that is all for deregulation.

Quote :

Former FCC chairman: Deregulation is a right-wing power grab
Reed Hundt says Monday's historic vote was "the culmination of the attack by the right on the media."

By Eric Boehlert

May 31, 2003 | In a historic session on the future of the U.S. news media, Republicans on the Federal Communications Commission voted Monday to ease long-standing rules so that more and more of the nation's newspapers and broadcast stations can be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt saw something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.

For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hunt told Salon, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. "Conservatives," he said, "hope ... that the major media will be their friends."

In today's political and media environment, there's plenty of evidence that those hopes will come true. ABC News recently appointed conservative commentator John Stossel to co-host its prime-time magazine "20/20." "These are conservative times ..." an ABC source told TV Guide. "The network wants somebody to match the times."

The FCC's two Democrats strongly opposed the deregulation measure that's been pushed by current FCC chairman Michael Powell, a close ally of the Bush White House, and public response to the proposal has been heavily opposed. But Hundt's blunt critique is all the more striking because he is an establishment lawyer thoroughly versed in the diplomatic niceties of high government office. He attended prep school with Al Gore and law school with Bill Clinton and served as FCC chairman under Clinton from 1993 to 1997. He is now a senior advisor at McKinsey and Co., the international consulting firm.

The FCC has long had rules regulating media ownership, based on the assumption that the number of broadcast frequencies is limited. The regulations were designed to ensure that radio and television stations remained diverse, independent voices and could withstand predatory conglomerates. But on Monday the FCC dumped those rules.

A company like the News Corp., owned by conservative world-media mogul Rupert Murdoch, will be able to hold newspapers, television stations and radio stations in the same market. Conglomerates such as the News Corp. (Fox TV, Fox News, Fox Sports, 20th Century Fox Studio, the New York Post, HarperCollins Publishers) and Viacom (CBS, MTV, Paramount Studios and the Infinity radio network) would be allowed to snatch up more and more local TV affiliate stations nationwide. And, critics say, small and medium-size broadcast companies and newspaper publishers will likely be swallowed up by bigger competitors.

In the telephone interview Wednesday, Hundt warned that the massive media deregulation will exacerbate the dangerously close relationship that's emerged between sprawling U.S. media companies and the government. "If Dwight Eisenhower were alive today," he said, "he'd be warning us about the dangers of the military-industry-media complex."

During Hundt's term as FCC chairman, the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As originally drafted by Republicans in Congress, the legislation would have virtually stripped away all media-ownership limits. In the end, Clinton signed into law a compromise version that allowed only the radio industry to be deregulated.

At the time, Hundt was among the few to warn of the consequences. The new laws would allow "a few companies to buy all the radio licenses in the country," he said then. "I don't believe that's good for this industry or for this country."

His words proved prophetic. Since the law's passage, Clear Channel Communications, which in 1995 owned approximately 40 radio stations, has expanded to approximately 1,200 outlets, nearly 1,000 more than its closest competitor. Together with Viacom-owned Infinity Broadcasting, it dominates an industry once made up of hundreds of competitors. Few people -- other than employees of Clear Channel and Viacom -- would suggest that radio as a source of news, information or entertainment has improved in any way because of consolidation. In fact, most would say it's become noticeably worse.

And that, Hundt told Salon, plays directly into conservatives' agenda.

What do you think is behind the push for deregulation?

I think that fundamentally what we have here is a political debate. And let's just say that the [Bush] administration does not think that the big winners in the media consolidation game will be either the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Who will be the big winners?

Well, the conservative movement owns the FCC, the courts, Congress, the White House.