I'm not a big fan of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine

There may have been a time when this law made sense, but it's been 20 years, and it's time for us to move on, and look to more productive solutions for the problems that exist in our twisted corporate media. Here are some of my reasons.

The Fairness Doctrine does nothing about the problem of corporate consolidation of media organizations. This is, I believe, the main problem that we face in our media today. As such, the Telecommunications law of 1996 that made much of this possible should be revisited. FCC regulations should further limit how much control one media organization can exercise in a given media market.

The Fairness Doctrine mandates that media organizations present material in a way that is "balanced" and gives weight to both sides of an issue. I'm sorry, but I don't trust government agents to "decide" what is "balanced". Furthermore, I don't want a precedent to be set that would mandate that political websites and blogs include opposition material in the name of "balance" (a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet).

There is nothing wrong with having radio stations that have a distinctive identity as liberal, conservative, libertarian, radical or socialist. The fact of the matter is that listeners like this--including those of us here who are Air America fans--and it contributes to the marketplace of ideas. By the way, if AA goes under it will be because the business model was lousy and the people running it are incompetent. These elections revealed that there is a market for Left of Center radio. It just takes some good business sense and initiative, not whining for the reinstatement of a law that has been off the books for 20 years. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine will not save AA.

Next, must every issue be up for debate? What if I have a talk show about the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, and I interview a survivor of the camps. Must I then interview Michelle Malkin to get "another point of view", and hear from someone who supported the internment? What if I was doing an educational show about the horrors of slavery in the US? Would I then need to interview a Klansman to get the other side of the issue? Would a Holocaust denier have to be on for "balance" on a program about Nazi atrocities? Sorry, But some issues are settled, and not up for debate anymore.

These are just some of my reasons for not getting on the Fairness Doctrine bandwagon. I know these ideas will not be popular here, but this is what I believe.

it there is a reason....

does.

We agree with them about nearly everything; it's just that the points of disagreement are what gets noticed.

The FCC doesn't regulate cable channels (and its shouldn't, because otherwise the fundies will start using such a process to browbeat their demands even more.) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is MUCH more urgent in repealing, as opposed to brining back the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine discussed in many of the posts in this thread is not the tool I saw in action pre-Reagan and his administration decision to via a FCC notice and then his veto of the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine Act. It kept the outright lies that Fox specializes in off the air because those were license renewal problems, and despite sponsor and management hate of liberals, it got the liberal message on the then main communication facility -like the networks. And today if you look at size of audience the networks are again the main communication link - despite 200 channels, internet there, etc.

Indeed the death of reporters asking "How the hell can you say that when these facts show that to be untrue" - or polite versions of that statement - was caused in my opinion by the death of the fairness doctrine and the reporters defense that if he had not asked the aggressive question the station would have been out money because of the need to give FREE airtime to the rebutal.

and we all know that the main slant of any media organization is based on what the sponsors want, so regardless this will continue as long as right wing organizations have a lot of money to spend.

We can still find ways to make our media provocative and attract viewers and listeners and as we take charge of the government the viewers and listeners are going to want more.

I agree with you too about Air America, it may be suffering from some bad business decisions right now.

and perhaps enforcing antitrust laws as well as FCC regulations after 26 years of total neglect will address that problem.

That's a very big "if," though.

Reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine should be a first step, as breaking up powerful corporate monopolies will not be an easy thing to accomplish. Without it, all most people ever see or hear is the corporatist party line.

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until the GOP is out of the executive branch to see any of it. We can count on Stupid to veto everything but funding for his war.

have a opposite point of view on every issue, but and this is an important but, if there is someone who wants to point out the other view, you can't deny them air time. IIRC

thanks again, bill...

apparent during campaigns, when outrageous statements were made against a candidate or a political stance, theo opposition was "offered' the chance to rebut...given equal time. They did not always do it, but they were offered the time.

and the "message" was clearly identified and tagged to a particular entity. (not some amorphous organization)

Regarding radio, its very simple to identify who's who. For every right winger, an equally vociferous liberal voice should be available...with equal time

It's not really about the validity of the issue as much as it is the freedom to hear both sides.

Right wing "opinion" has been "sold" as the only voice for two decades (on radio), so is it any wonder that so many right wing memes have become mainstream? If all you hear is one philosophy, and you never hear it rebutted, why would you doubt it?

The mantra about how liberal radio has no market, was easy to perpetuate, because for decades there were few, if any out there, so of course people would accept that idea..if people wanted to hear it, it would be there...right?? wrong.. people wanted it, but when right wingers bought all the radio stations as their own private propaganda tools, why would they want to provide any opposing opinion?

was needed (back when you had a very limited number sources of information) are long since gone. The media/information landscape today is so wide and varied that the fairness doctrine has become an anachronistic dinosaur. For every right wing outlet there are other, alternative outlets available (or for every free republic, there is a corresponding DU)

The Fairness doctrine was designed to (among other things) spur debate by making alternate viewpoints available. My concern with it returning is that it will be used to silence other viewpoints that the listener doesn't agree with...right wing talk radio comes to mind: while their views and commentary and opinions may be disagreeable (at best), using the power of legislation to silence them is no different than any other form of censorship.

the true test of defending free speech is with speech with which you don't agree.

the anachronistic factor. The Fairness Doctrine was relevant when there were few channels on TV, just a few radio stations in every market, and the Internet did not exist.

With cable television, satellite radio and the Internet, we now have almost limitless points of view to debate. Both sides of almost any argument can be found. The Fairness Doctrine simply isn't necessary anymore.

so hard to eliminate net neutrality?

They can, and will if we are not vigilant, control the dialogue on the net just as they do in the msm. If all the media are owned by a half dozen corporations, that is NOT plurality, nor does it make for "limitless points of view".

As for the limited outlets back in the bad old days, there was a time when every city of 20,000+ had at least 2 major newspapers, not to mention weeklys and underground papers, there were a multitude of radio stations, and there were few places that did not get at least one of each of the three networks. And most of that was, basically, free. A newspaper might cost a quarter, often less. What good are a hundred cable channels if you can't afford $600+ each year to pay for it? What good is the internet if you can't pay some major corporation to hook you up? I would argue that there was MORE diversity in the media 30 years ago than there is today, particularly for the poor.

The Fairness Doctrine is more needed now than ever. After all, Bushco could not have gotten away with what it has, when we had the Fairness Doctrine. We don't have an irresponsible mass media today - we have a controlled mass media. Public revulsion ended the vietnam war, but it was the Fairness Doctrine allowing us to get the facts that generated that public revulsion. WE know what's going on in Iraq. WE know what Bushco has been up to. But without the Fairness Doctrine getting it in front of the general public, it took a LONG time for even some of them to catch on.

We need to bring it back.

20,000 city example:

then: 2 newspapers, 3 TV stations and maybe 15 radio stations (and almost all of them music only)
Now: Cable systems with 100+ channels, Direct TV with 200+ (combined market penetration of near 90%), the internet with access (70% household penetration) to every newspaper and magazine etc etc. BTW, few newspapers or "news/talk" radio stations can even come close to those audience numbers.

the choices and sources are massive, far more than what was available even 10 years ago...

as a self test: 10 years ago, how many newspapers did you read even one article from? 1, maybe 2? today, i'll bet there are 100 articles posted from 30+ different sources.

Net neutrality is a whole different ballgame. the telcos, with dwindling revenues (voice, local and long distance, has been dropping like a stone, "high speed" lines at, until recently, $1000/month, now have to compete against 5x the speed and 1/20th the cost) are looking to develop a new revenue stream to replace what was lost and placing the interet equivalent of a toll is their "solution" (a shitty one at that). it is purely a revenue play for them, no political ideology comes into play - in fact, I beleive their stance would be "who cares what they say, as long as they pay".

The emphasis in on PAY, which is a MAJOR problem. The internet, cable, whatever, if you don't pay you don't play. What good are 100 channels if you can't pay the $60/mo for them? And as for "no political ideology", you can bet if they can control access, the ideology WILL come into play. In all these hundreds of cable channels, how many are overtly liberal? 0. Because these hundreds of channels are all owned by a half-dozen conservative corporations, and liberals are bad for business.

We may have the appearance of diversity, but the reality is much different. And when the corporations (and/or government) get their hands on the internet it will get even worse. How do you think Bushco pulled off the Alqueda/Saddam thing? Because they were able to control all the media that mattered. In the last couple years, that's been countered by the internet, somewhat, so you have to expect them to move to change that.

We need to break up the monopolies, re-institute the Fairness Doctrine where applicable, and keep the government/corporate mitts off the internet.

What good are 100 channels if you can't pay the $60/mo for them?

90% household penetration indicates that there are a lot of people paying for cable and/or satellite so that really isn't germain.

We may have the appearance of diversity, but the reality is much different.

the numbers work against you:

access to literally thousands of different sources of information from all across the political spectrum via the web alone belies your argument.

You do realize that a network like AAR would never have been allowed to even get off the ground with FD in place. the doctrine cuts both ways.

The Fairness Doctrine discussed in many of the posts in this thread is not the tool I saw in action pre-Reagan and his administration decision to via a FCC notice and then his veto of the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine Act. It kept the outright lies that Fox specializes in off the air because those were license renewal problems, and despite sponsor and management hate of liberals, it got the liberal message on the then main communication facility -like the networks. And today if you look at size of audience the networks are again the main communication link - despite 200 channels, internet there, etc.

Indeed the death of reporters asking "How the hell can you say that when these facts show that to be untrue" - or polite versions of that statement - was caused in my opinion by the death of the fairness doctrine and the reporters defense that if he had not asked the aggressive question the station would have been out money because of the need to give FREE airtime to the rebutal.

one conglomeration that's a rather moot point, isn't it?

The Fairness Doctrine was important in that its very presence kept either side from making such outrageous claims that they would spur the opposition into demanding equal time. It kept the debate more civil and honest. It didn't limit anyone's free speech - it just ensured that there would be a potential for a strong response to that speech, which the RW cannot tolerate. They need the echo chamber, not dialogue. Eliminating the Fairness Doctrine gave them that echo chamber.

while there is no radio counterpart, there are places like DU, dailyKos, huffington, Common Dreams, plus a myriad of blogs, podcasts, newspapers etc. that offer ideological counterpoints.

as to keeping debate more civil and honest: poppycock, it stifled debate more than anything: it got to the point that the only time politics came up on radio was in the weeks leading up to an election or early sunday morning "public affairs" programs and factual news stories. Many stations got to the point that it was easier to avoid politics than deal with the requirements of FD.

if you think back to those days both AM and FM were dominated by music stations, with AM rapidly losing ground to the superior sounding FM signals, there were few, if any, all news stations and "talk" formats where all but non-existent except for the original Larry king show who interviewed authors and took calls from the late night looney crowd. Most "public affairs" were relegated to early early Sunday morning before the "mass for the shut-in's" broadcasts (or the "god squad" block) and those were mainly interviews with the head of the water department discussing the scintillating subject of "2 inch vs 2 1/4 inch water supply lines branching off the main".

Just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not really sure I'd wantto see its return either.

I'll address each of your points individually.
1) Telecommunications Act -- I agree this act needs to be revisited. But looking at it and looking at the Fairness Doctrine are not mutually exclusive

2) The Fairness Doctrine only applied to public airwaves. These would not include all media organizations. Newspapers, magazines, and the evening news of the major networks would all be exempt. As for the government deciding what is balanced and what isn't, it would be primarily up to the people running each station, not the FCC.

3) Yes, there's nothing wrong with stations having a distinct identity, but an argument could be made that the Fairness Doctrine forced stations of all sorts to be fair, moderate and inclusive. Thus, its loss is directly responsible for the bloviating talking heads on all sides of the political spectrum that have replaced traditional news casts on talk radio and elsewhere.

4) Even under the Fairness Doctrine, not every subject is up for debate. If the character of a person or small group is attacked, that person/small group must be given a chacne to respond. Similarly, political opponents must be given equal time. However, both sides of every idea need not be presented for the Fairness Doctrine to be upheld.

A final thought -- the primary corollaries of the Fairness Doctrine -- the person/small group character attacks and the equal time to political opponents -- were only thrown out in 2000. So, while the Fairness Doctrine itself has been gone for nearly 20 years, some of its most important aspects have been with us until quite recently.

"balance" in it's lineup throughout the day. I was around when the "Fairness Doctrine" was in place and while it might have needed "tweaking" the programming was much better and there were many more diverse views available when it was in place. It did allow more for "creativity" than we see in programming these days, too.

I'm opposed to Television Stations or Radio Stations marketing all Conservative (such as Fox) while there's no liberal television station to compete. So, either mandate that there has to be one conservative, one liberal and others channels and stations inbetween expressing views or mandate that each channel and station has to have a diversity of opinion presented. We are so far away from diversity now that it almost seems laughable that a situation could be worked out....but it worked before and what we have now is not diversity but domination by Think Tanks and Special Interests mostly of Conservative persuasion because there are more of them.

However the stations were not owned by FIVE Major Corporation/Media Conglomerates when "Fairness" was in place and so the "break up" of media monopoly would have to be addressed unless the Big Five could be forced to provide more diversity in trade off of the threat of being broken up into smaller entities.

And since a large fraction of Americans are not willing to decipher the lies from the truths, and since those in power are willing to lie to get their ways, we have to do something. Either that, or we have what we are living through right now.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial. And it isn't going to alleviate the media ownership problem that we now have. I don't think anything will. That's a nonreversible problem. Unless we can change the laws to make the huge companies let go. I don't see that happening.

If it's not the Fairness Doctrine, it has to be something else. I think we've been throwing that name around in a general sense, knowing that we need SOMETHING. And since it is perhaps the single most important problem we are facing, as a society, we had better start doing something quickly.

Obviously we can't do much until the FCC has been returned to the agency it was intended to be. Whatever that is. I don't think it is useful for policing nipples, and fining those who are indecent or offensive. It has been twisted just like our drug policy has twisted those who are supposed to protect our communities.

The problem is endemic within our culture. We have big changes to make. The Fairness Doctrine, or some similar idea, is only a crutch to keep us from tumbling into the fascist abyss.

"...a crutch to keep us from tumbling into the fascist abyss."

Every once in a while something good comes of it.

:)

Having no shame helps, too. I've learned so much on DU. Socially. Enough self deprecation for the day.

Obviously we can't do much until the FCC has been returned to the agency it was intended to be

the FCC was never envisioned as a content enforcement agency but rather to ensure that this station didn't interfere with that station

We need for the news to be held accountable to a standard of truth. Now that would be nice for a change....

I'd prefer to get the truth. I don't need "liberal" stations, and I sure as hell don't need conservative stations. Give me the facts.

And if they want to run editorial comment that leans one way or the other, they should be forced to announce detailed disclaimers that it is editorial comment, not news.

Democracy is hard. Suck it up.

belong to the public. Have you really not noticed that??? :think:

and the internet is already the tool we are using to get our 'news'. People who still get their news from television validate the points and emphasis of the stories these corporations toss out there. I'm too tired of doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. It doesn't work for me. If I manage to inadvertently catch a 'news' program, I am amazed at how much influence it has on my perception. It's a powerful tool, and not a healthy one...for me.

unregulated broadcast media, and agree with keeping it unregulated? You say it is a powerful tool, and want to keep its unfettered use in the hands of the people who abuse it?

:shrug:

Yes. I recognize the influence and the grip corporations have on every aspect of our society. I also realize that the same people have been controlling our government for at least the last 50 years. Breaking up these familial monopolies, restoring competition and a free-market....to me...would be far more beneficial than relying on the FCC and Congress to referee content.

Just to get some competition going again.

the removal of the maximum ownership rules was probably one of the worst actions the FCC ever did.

Bringing those back would probably be far easier than putting together several anti-trust cases...

The broadcast airwaves belong to the American people, not corporations. They are leased for use by them and they profit mightily from those leases. Watering down FCC regulations has permitted right wing domination of the airwaves and media monopolies. The president appoints FCC chairs and 2 members. Those republican appointees have allowed political values to be placed before democratic values when writing and enforcing FCC rules.

We're told the FCC controls media ownership, but that's not true. They issue the licenses and have the power to revoke them, to write new rules and regulations dealing with media ownership. If they did their job in the interest of our republic, it would put a stake in the heart of corporate monopolies of newspapers, radio, tv, movies, billboards, and all other forms of print and broadcast media.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, it involved more than just regulations to keep one political viewpoint from being dominant on all the airwaves, it also helped to regulate content so that the American people would be exposed to a diversity of views, views that would represent all of society, not just the privileged few. They are the trustees who have been leased the gift (licenses) to use our airwaves for their personal profit, and therefore federal laws should govern that use to the extent that those laws ensure that broadcast content represents all of the American people not just the self-serving opinions of a few. It's important to understand that the doctrine regulated broadcast media, which does not include the print media nor infringe on 1st amendment rights, such as those that permit our free speech via the internet.

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Excellent slogan! We need to say it everywhere and often like the Rethugs do.

Ever notices how Tony Snow, Hannity and Brit Hume are always saying the some thing at once on the same day? They get the memo.

That's what we need to do.

The airwaves are ours...

large radio stations and small ones.

owned by different people --

that same with newspapers and televison.

what i don't need is one conglomeration -- or two , whatever -- owning everything.

thereby making impossible for someone to open a small newspaper or radio station, again whatever.

without diversity -- there is a tacit agreement to conformity -- signed with out my consent.