Nearly all House GOPers back Pence’s discharge petition on Fairness Doctrine

Nearly all House GOPers back Pence’s discharge petition on Fairness Doctrine
By Jackie Kucinich
November 14, 2007

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has persuaded nearly every House Republican to sign a discharge petition that would force a floor vote on legislation banning the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

One hundred ninety-four out of 200 House Republicans are backing the effort to block the anticipated revival of the Fairness Doctrine, which they believe is a tool Democrats will use to cut down on the number of conservative radio talk shows. The Fairness Doctrine was discarded by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the Reagan administration in 1985. Not one Democrat has signed the petition, which requires 218 signatures to trigger a vote.

The six Republicans who have opted not to sign Pence’s petition are Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Robin Hayes (N.C.), Timothy Johnson (Ill.), Mike Rogers (Ala.), John McHugh (N.Y.) and Ralph Regula (Ohio).

Even though Pence’s appropriations amendment aimed at restricting federal funding for the Fairness Doctrine passed 309-115 in June, it is unclear if that provision will be included in the final bill. Regardless, conservatives are seeking a permanent policy on the Fairness Doctrine.

Each of the six lawmakers who have not signed the discharge petition voted for the Pence amendment in June. Asked why they are not backing the petition, spokesmen for the legislators pointed out they have policies of not signing them. Regula’s office did not comment for this article.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nearly-all-house-gopers-back-pences-discharge-petition-on-fairness-doctrine-2007-11-14.html

Media-fed propaganda by their corporate cronies is the only thing which has kept the GOP afloat these last several years. The Fairness Doctrine would kill them.

.

Fox news is a cable channel. The Fairness Doctrine has no control over cable.

:shrug:

So I guess all it would really accomplish it the elimination of network news altogether, and turn the "big three" into new versions of Entertainment Tonight.

So then...why the hell have DUers been crying out for its reinstatement if it won't actually bring about any change?

.

is radio. They think it will somehow shut down Rush.

If a radio station has three hours of Rush on the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves, it would require some sort of liberal balance.

the Fairness Doctrine never dictated a left/right balance.

It ensured that on a controversial issue of public importance, the opposing side was given the right to respond when a broadcast licensee expressed support for one side.


edit: Do you think Air America should have to devote half their time to airing conservative views?

Even though the Fairness Docturne was fairly narrowly defined, it did represent a larger expectation that radio (and television) stations would have some measure of balance.

Thus, old-line talk stations did have more of a mix of conservative, liberal and moderate hosts within their schedules.

It wasn't ideal, but it did reflect the fact that a radio station has more in common with public utilities than a retail store.

If it were meaningless, the right-wing and corporate media would not be trying so hard to push nails in its' coffin.

should Air America or Pacifica have to devote half their broadcasts to airing conservative views?

If a three-hour program like AA was aired, they would then have to devote three hours to a Rush. It was never about forcing a liberal or conservative show to air the other's viewpoints. Where are you getting this stuff? You're throwing a lot of misinformation around in this thread.

.

I know it never worked that way.

but many here seem to think it did, and support a measure that would do that.

I thought you were making the opposite case. There definitely seems to be some confusion...perhaps among the younger DUers who never experienced actually having a relatively "fair" media.

.

The Fairness Docturne never required every single station to have totally balanced programming.

There were always niche stations that had clear ideological agendas.

However, the Fairness Docturne was part of a climate in which broadcasters in general were expected to address the needs of the whole public, beyond purely commercial considerations.

The need for its' equivalent today is especially clear, because diversity of ownership -- which was another factor that created an overall balance -- has basically been wiped out due to deregulation.

In a more diverse market, oriented more towards local ownership, an Air America station could actually do better than now, when it is the stepchild of distant conservative media corporations.

through some regulation of media ownership, rather than government control of content?

edit: You wrote "It wouldn't shut down Rush, but it would force more balance
If a radio station has three hours of Rush on the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves, it would require some sort of liberal balance."


Now what kind of balance should Air America be forced to provide?

The worst thing that has happened to the media over the last 20 years was deregulation of ownership. Where once a company was limited to (something like) 7 AM and 7 FM stations (and none in the same market, we now have monopolistic monsters that own hundreds or even thousands of stations nationwide, including multiple outlets in the same market.

That's the real problem.

But some variation of the Fairness Docturne would also help. Rather than ghettoize liberal programming, it would be better for democracy if there were more stations that presented a full spectrum of opinions. That's a sacrifice I'd be willing to see.

But also, if the market were really being served by a multitude of owners, then the Fairness Docturne would notnecessarily be applied to stations like Air America (or Rush) if the market were actually working by providing niche programming also.

So, the short answer is that the Fairness Docturne is neither a perfect or effective answer alone. However, the principle that the airwaves should be accessible to a wider range of the public -- as part of a public service mandate that should be the price broadcasters have to pay for the license to use a public resource.

And Murdoch's total *empire*.

of Murdoch's empire.

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

Hasn't he been funding the crap out of representatives to make his empire bullet-proof? Applicability isn't bulletproof. :shrug:

Anybody here think the Reeps are in favor of that?

it was designed to make broadcast licensees present controversial issues of public importance in a fair, balanced way.

The government has no business trying to balance the media.

But I don't think it matters WRT to the Reeps' agenda. They are doing well with the 'free market' delivering unbalanced information, and they do not want that to change.

what power government has to force the kind of change many here want.

As I asked above, should Air America be forced to devote half their programming to conservative points of view?

The Tribune Company literally control the message here. It owns the state's largest daily, The Hartford Courant, which boasts a brazenly Republican slant, it owns two of the local television stations, and it even owns the goddam "alternative" news and arts weeklies all up and down the I-91 corridor from NY to Vermont. And that is where the dump the "liberal" news, like when they did a huge expose on Dick Cheney and the Nuke industry. It was a blockbuster expose on massive corruption and Cheney's plan to have all Nuke plants fast-tracked, with NO regulatory oversight or inspections until AFTER they were completed. It was such a huge story, it didn't even make it into the supposedly "real" news in the Hartford Courant. That's how they get to say their "fair," when they're actually just hiding the dirt in a free rag people pick up at the liquor store primarily to read the smutty ads in the back

.

That is the key-that whatever rules apply are equally enforced. If WBNS has to give equal time (for example), and all other media that are regulated under the rules have to act likewise, I'll have no beef with it.

Remember where Air America came from-it was conceived out of frustration with the lack of access to opposition viewpoints in American media. I submit that if such balance were to be restored overall, Air America would not even be necessary in its current form.

From my perspective, an unregulated free market is rarely a good thing: there needs to be some sort of oversight in order to protect the consumers of whatever market is in question. A completely free market would be full of lead-filled toys, salmonella-laced chicken, collusion, embezzlement and so on. Unless you're Ron Paul, that's probably not your utopia; it certainly isn't mine.

The media has become consolidated WRT ownership, which has resulted in the stifling of public discourse over the airwaves (and cable, print, etc.). Those who say that Murdoch isn't really conservative, may be correct-certainly his British outlets sing from a different sheet of music. However, whether the origin of Fox's flagrant rightward slant spring from ideology or a profit motive, the end result is the same for the consumers, who really do not have equal access to alternative points of view. Murdoch is just one example, of course.

My Brit GF came to America for the first time last year, and within a day referred to our news as 'propaganda'. No prompting on my part, she just blurted it out. If you'll excuse the metaphor, we are the frogs who have been in the water as the temperature increased; she put the tip of a flipper(ya know, SHE probably wouldn't like this analogy) into the boiling water and immediately noticed the heat.

Whether one brings back the Fairness Doctrine or devises a new solution, a change is needed if we are to have the well-informed citizenry that is required to have a healthy and lasting democracy.

the Fairness Doctrine will affect very little. The 4 network news broadcasts, and radio.

It won't affect cable television, the internet, newspapers, magazines, etc. etc.

The biggest issue is radio, but the problem is more with media consolidation than with content regulation.

I don't think Air America should have to present opposing views. Ever.

it can be the Fairness Doctrine or something else. Your points about the limitations of the FD are well taken.

The Fairness Doctrine goes back to the '50s, remember. Lots of changes in technology, society, and the marketplace since then.

There need to be rules, and those rules need to be applied evenly and fairly. Right now, there are almost no rules, and look at where we are.

to speech you don't like is more speech - not restricting the speech that offends.

The curent paradigm restricts speech that offends. That is to say, speech that offends Reeps.

The government is not restricting liberal speech.

You're still free to say damn near anything you want (within a few reasonable bounds.)

It's not the government's job to ensure all angles are equally represented. The problem lies in the fact that there are not just two sides - there are thousands. The government can't possibly ensure all of them get an equal airing.

Blocks away from the intended audiences, frequently fenced in, that's where protestors had to go to protest. Yes, they could say anything they wanted, but who could hear them?

THAT was rightly seen as an infringement of free speech.

How about restrictions placed on anti-Bush protests? Those are seen as infringements of free speech.

Or the partisan screening of attendees at public rallies in public areans to exclude oppostion supporters?

Or the people who get dragged out of Bush photo ops because of what is printed on their shirts?

This is no different. Just because the fences are not as clearly defined does not mean they do not exist.

True, Congress may not restrict free speech. Nowhere does it say that they may not act to protect it.

between free speech and providing security.

The "free speech" zones at the convention were ridiculous. But there's no national law now requiring "free speech zones". The convention case was probably decided by the NYPD, not the President.

And in fact, you can still stand in front of the White House and call the President a retarded son of a bitch. If you do it without disturbing the peace or endangering people, nobody will stop you.

You can post on this board and say just about anything you want about Bush (within the bounds of the laws protecting his safety). But the government doesn't owe you your own radio station on which to say it.

"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."

We've got to support the first amendment.

...is likewise limiting freedom of speech.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress (i.e., the government) from limiting our freedom of speech. All other limitations are constitutional - although they may or may not be legal.

Congress cannot place limits or changes on what the press may say.

...when it deregulated the communications industry. What followed was a concentration of media outlets in the hands of a small number of like-minded entities, who greatly restict access to the media against those who are not of like mind.



That is a restriction of free speech.

To take an extreme example, even if there was only one media/press outlet - they still could not be limited by the government in what they said.

That's the Constitution - it prohibits the Fairness Doctrine. The fairness doctrine reminds me of the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790's - it's the idea that some speech has to be tempered or reduced for the common "good."

The problem is that the restrictions on free speech or restrictions on the freedom of the press are prohibited by the First Amendment.

The government didn't say liberal speech was now outlawed.

It's not the government's job to ensure that every view is given equal access to all forms of media.

Right-wing radio is big now. It wasn't always thus, and will not always be thus. I don't want the government constantly tinkering with the media to "get it right".

Don't like Rush? Listen to Air America and support them and their sponsors. Convince more people to listen. Write to your local stations and ask them to carry some of Air America's shows.

But ultimately, the stations are making business decisions, not political ones.

Media Regulation Timeline
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html


"...1987 "Fairness Doctrine" eliminated. At its founding the FCC viewed the stations to which it granted licenses as "public trustee" — and required that they made every reasonable attempt to cover contrasting points of views. The Commission also required that stations perform public service in reporting on crucial issues in their communities. Soon after he became FCC Chairman under President Reagan, Michael Fowler stated his desire to do away with the Fairness Doctrine. His position was backed by a 1987 D.C. Circuit Court decision, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, which ruled that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC no longer had to enforce it. (Full history of the Fairness Doctrine)

February 8, 1996 President Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is generally regarded as the most important legislation regulating media ownership in over a decade. The radio industry experiences unprecedented consolidation after the 40-station ownership cap is lifted. Clear Channel Communications owns 1200 stations, in all 50 states, reaching, according to their Web site, more than 110 million listeners every week. Viacom's Infinity radio network holds more than 180 radio stations in 41 markets. Its holdings are concentrated in the 50 largest radio markets in the United States. In 1999 Infinity owned and operated six of the nation’s Top 10 radio stations..."


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

"FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate..."