The FCC Fairness Doctrine could be in effect by June or July

[Ichingcarpenter]

The Republican appointee is out in June and Obama's guy on the FCC
is for bringing back the fairness doctrine. The decision to reinstate it
isn't ratified through the president or congress so it would start immediately. Cauvto had a guy on
explaining the system and both were freaking out about it.

I can't imagine what that would be like except it would be great.

[NYCGirl]

1. Won't affect the cable channels or satellite radio. Fairness Doctrine is not the problem;

media consolidation is.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. But Rush would be impacted they would have to do someone like

Mike Malloy after Rush. That would make for interesting AM radio.

[NYCGirl]

6. Too bad for Air America and Nova M. They'll have to play Hannity and Limbaugh.

[Xithras]

14. No. Even under the FD they wouldn't have to do that.

The Fairness Doctrine only required that stations offer time to hosts with "contrasting views". It also NEVER required that they pay them for it. They could put Rush Windbag on all day long, and then just open up the midnight to 6AM timeslot for "public access" shows, which might include liberal shows "contrasting" with his views. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't require that the stations actually produce those contrasting shows, it just required that they make airtime available should someone want to broadcast one.

As I recall, there used to be a running debate about this very thing. Our local news station would occasionally run a report that someone objected to, and the defamed person would demand an opportunity to rebut the report on the airwaves. The station would oblidge them, but the person had to turn in a premastered tape for broadcast if they wanted to do it without charge. If they wanted to actually use the stations STUDIO, the person actually had to pay the station for the use of their equipment...and the charges weren't small.

[Norrin Radd]

15. Yep. Bust up those monopolies.

[thoughtcrime1984]

2. Beware

You will be accused of being anti-free speech. I believe the network that pushed the Obama is a terrorist lover meme should be in deep shit. Slander is not legal last time I checked.

[Gman]

3. The Fairness Doctrine only applies to the public airwaves that you get for free

that is anything you get over the public airwaves on an antennae, including AM radio and local TV stations, and do not pay for access.. It does NOT include anything over Sirius, XM, etc. Nor does it include cable or satellite TV.

THey are twisting this thing and making it sound like it applies to everything. It does not.

[ddeclue]

5. It would go to the SCOTUS and they would rule the fairness doctrine unconstitutional

which I believe it is.

The real solution is NOT the fairness doctrine. It is preventing people from owning too many media outlets.


Doug D.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. SCOTUS is RW-controlled, but why do YOU believe the FD is unconstitutional?

[ddeclue]

12. Sounds like "abridgement of the freedom of speech or of the press" to me.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The President or his appointee to the FCC in enacting a "fairness doctrine" would be using the powers granted to them by Congress There is no other way it would be possible since the "fairness doctrine" is not mentioned in Article II, Section 2 (powers of the executive). Hence it would amount to Congress abridging Rush Limbaugh's (or for that matter Rachel Maddow's) freedom of speech.

I think therefore that this would be unConstitutional.

I think however that an argument could be made that the FCC DOES have the legitimate power to regulate control of radio and TV licenses under the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I Section) which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and thus it would make more sense for Congress to use this power to limit the number of such licenses they grant to any one entity. This would have a similar effect of increasing diversity of viewpoints on the radio and TV WITHOUT violating the First Amendment.

Mind you I'm NOT an attorney but I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

:)

Doug D.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. Restriction of cable stations or pay satellite radio might run into 1st Amendment problems,

but the airwaves are public property, subject to reasonable regulations that ensure the public interest is served. IMO there is a strong public interest in ensuring truly "fair and balanced" INFORMED discussion of public issues, so that voters have the resources to make informed decisions.

How much airtime do talk radio and local TV devote to local news? To dsicussions involving professional experts with recognized credentials to talk about legitimate political issues?

If the FCC drafted a new mission statement on the public interest in use of the public airwaves, perhaps it could include objective measures of hours of coverage of legitimate political issues in the economy, the environment, healthcare, etc. Then stations that fall short and instead focus on violent partisan rhetoric from anyone with a telephone, and on titillating or scurrilous "infotainment", could have their licenses challenged and taken away by other broadcasters with more high-minded business plans.

I don't see any fundamental conflict with the 1st Amendment in such prudent management of public resources.

[ddeclue]

25. I still think the SCOTUS will see it my way...

they aren't interested in "public interest" that's the job of Congress. They are interested in the Constitution.

I think the only Constitutional way to get what you want is through diversification - i.e. reducing people's market share of the media in a market.

[Xithras]

10. Actually, they sort of already have.

Back when it was in force, the courts ruled that it would be unconstitutional only if it impinged on free speech. With the way the networks are set up today, it would be impossible for it NOT to.

What people tend to forget is that the media has changed substantially. Back when the Fairness Doctrine was law, there was no such thing as talk radio. Radio stations pretty much all carried music, sports, and news. The Fairness Doctrine required them to make some airtime available for discussing political or local issues, and that both sides of an issue had to be presented during that airtime. Remember public access hour? Or even public access stations on TV? That's what the Fairness Doctrine was all about.

Political talk radio was invented after the Fairness Doctrine was axed, and it has changed the way radios worked. Political discussion is no longer confined to public interest segments but now makes up entire station formats. Applying the Fairness Doctrine to that type of station without infringing on the hate-spewing dittoheads ability to ramble on about the glories of conservatism is pretty much impossible.

Of course, I'd REALLY like to see Public Access come back. People used to come up with some really interesting shows in their basements!

[eshfemme]

7. I wish that the Fairness Doctrine would just stop. What needs to be done is an Anti-Trust Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine is arguably anti-free speech. It's too similar to the false parity that the media did-- instead of just reporting the facts, they would report that one side said the sky was blue and that the other side said the sky was red in a false appearance of being objective. That's what the fairness doctrine would do-- it might suppress right wing talk but it could also suppress left wing talk. What needs to be concentrated on is actually anti-trust laws that prevent media channels from being owned by a select few with very specific interests. I'm talking about GE owning NBC and because of that, some NBC stories that might have been critical of GE got scuttled because guess who was paying their fucking bills? We need to do the same thing as the government did back in the day by breaking up big Mama Bell into little baby Bells to allow for actual competition. Bigger is not always better just like we are viewing the mergers on Wall Street with some trepidation-- we need to break up some of these media conglomerates so that more diversification of views is possible. That'd be more effective than trying to enforce some Fairness doctrine and would likely be much better at fulfilling the spirit of a fairness doctrine.

[knixphan]

11. YES!!!!!

Break up the oligopoly!!

Couldn't agree more - roll back the '96 act, etc...

[Abacus]

13. Absolutely

What you said.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. The Republicans have fought it and destroyed it since Reagan

I agree that media consoladation is the problem but you won't get
Trust busting action that will change the environment


I lived under The Fairness doctrine more than half my life


There was also a personal attack rule, which required stations to notify people or groups who were attacked on their broadcasts and give them the opportunity to respond on the air. And, candidates were given the opportunity to respond to attacks or endorsements of opponents. This is the one that I remember it didn't dominate the station but
just allowed like 5 minuets out of the hour broadcast for a rebuttal

Ronald Reagan's FCC stopped enforcing and then got rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Congress restored it but Reagan vetoed that. Under President George HW Bush Congress again restored it but it was vetoed. Then, under President Clinton the House passed it but the Republicans in the Senate blocked it with a filibuster. In the last six years Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency and were quite happy with broadcasters presenting only a narrow corporate viewpoint, and allowing personal attacks to go unanswered.

The Fairness Doctrine is not the solution but is a short term solution until media consultation can be addressed.


We have one liberal am radio station and three conservative stations in the valley the only thing you get
is Rush, Hannity or O'Really.

[democrattotheend]

9. what do you mean "Obama's guy on the FCC"?

Obama was just elected 3 days ago. How could he possibly have a pick for the FCC already? He doesn't even have a cabinet.

[onenote]

16. not at all likely to become effective this year

First, the FCC may have a 2/2 split between Repubs and Democrats for a while, or it may be a 2 Democrats/1 repub. (The term of one of the repubs, Tate, will expire when Congress adjourns and Martin, the chairman, will probably step down in January or February). Before the FD could be reinstated, the FCC would have to conduct a rulemaking proceeding and would need to develop an exhaustive record to back up the rule, which will be immediately subject to challenge on constitutional grounds. It is very unlikely that the FD could be reinstated until next fall at earliest. And after its adopted, the odds are extremely strong that a court would stay the rule pending review of its constitutionality. That proceeding would likely stretch into 2010.

In other words, don't hold your breath.

[ipfilter]

18. People just need to stop taking

Limpballs and Fux seriously.

[frickaline]

19. The only good that will come of the FD is a lot of freaked out freepers.

They are terrified of losing all their conservative media footholds. Their fears are unfounded but that makes their threads no less amusing.
:evilgrin:

[rurallib]

20. Can you tell me - who will be leaving the FCC in June and

who is it that Obama has in mind to replace him or her? Will Obama's appointment be the new chair or will the chair be one of the current Democratic members? I would sure love to see Michael Copp take over or Adelstein would be excellent also.
I really want to see that little turd Kevin Martin sent packing.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. I caught the tail end of the segment so I don't know the

name of the person that Obama might have in mind.

Sen Durbin, Pelosi and Kerry would like to see it reinstated until a real solution can be
found

[onenote]

24. FCC changes explained

Repub Commissioner Deborah Tate's term will end when Congress adjourns later this year (they may still come back for a lame duck session).

Repub Chairman Martin will lose his Chairmanship when Obama takes office, but could stay on at the COmmission. Tradition suggests he won't and that he will leave as well.

Of the two Democrats currently serving, Jonathan Adelstein's term ended in June 08 and he can continue to serve until his successor is named and confirmed, he is reappointed and re-confirmed, or December 2009 whichever comes first. Michael Copps term doesn't end until June 2012 at earliest

Republican Robert McDowell's term ends June 30 2009. He can continue to serve until his successor is confirmed, or he is renominated and confirmed, or until December 2010, which ever comes first.

[Doremus]

21. Not a popular opinion here, but I agree.

Airwaves belong to the public. It is NOT in the public's best interests to spew hateful, vile untruths 24/7. The airwaves do NOT belong to propagandists, they only rent them from us and we can and should provide the guidelines by which they may continue to rent them.

Some people view the FD as anti-free speech. I view it as PRO-free speech, in that each vile untruth would have to be countered with a truth. What would end up happening is that Rush and his ilk would be marginalized and lefty jocks would suddenly find themselves in demand, as it is a well-known fact that rightwing jocks vastly outnumber leftist ones.

I also agree that we need to reinstate ownership % restrictions.

Based on comments Obama has made in the past, I truly believe he will be addressing this subject. It can't come too soon for me.