You think the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional

[Benzoate]

The Fairness Doctrine
How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back
by Steve Rendall


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.

When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04). ...A short history of fairness

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, the doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation.
...
In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress mandated the FCC’s forerunner, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in such a manner as to ensure that licensees served the “public convenience, interest or necessity.”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. ...

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

There is not anything written in the constitution that says the government must set rules for radio stations that require radio stations to allow a "balance view " of political opinions. I also want to add that their isn't anything constitutional about the government forming a communications department like the FCC that oversees and regulates the used of a radio spectrum and telecommunications , but I will only focus on discussing the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional to me because it tells radio producers the amount of content you are allowed to play on the radio. That imposition violates the First amendment , plain and simple. If most radio listeners want to hear one political perspective more often than a different political perspective, then the radio producer or radio host should air the political perspective most favored by his audience. Pepsi is more of a popular soft drink than Coca Cola, but should congress intervene and write a law that says 50 % of the citizens must by Pepsi and the other half be require to buy coke simply because makes up the majority of soft drink revenues in the country ? I think not and the same logic should apply to radio.

 

[turbo]

You forget one little detail. The broadcast frequencies are a limited resource (which is currently pushing the conversion to DTV) and the broadcasters get those allocations essentially for free, with very minimal restrictions. You might want to give some concrete examples of where and when the fairness doctrine limits the broadcasters' freedom to choose and air content. There are radio stations running shows that are so right-wing that they deride average GOP congressmen and senators for being "liberals". The government does not force such stations to forgo their format and run shows by Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.

 

[russ_watters]

...and the broadcasters get those allocations essentially for free...

Well, I don't know what they originally paid for them or what the terms were, but the spectrum that is being reallocated is being bought/leased (?) for millions: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/02/11/daily73.html

My personal opinion (and I hadn't heard of this before) is that it is an empy rule that doesn't actually have any impact. That said, I do think it is unconstitutional because free speech limitations are never allowed to be content-based.

 

[Benzoate]

You forget one little detail. The broadcast frequencies are a limited resource (which is currently pushing the conversion to DTV) and the broadcasters get those allocations essentially for free, with very minimal restrictions. You might want to give some concrete examples of where and when the fairness doctrine limits the broadcasters' freedom to choose and air content. There are radio stations running shows that are so right-wing that they deride average GOP congressmen and senators for being "liberals". The government does not force such stations to forgo their format and run shows by Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.

I'll post directly what is in the Fairness Doctrine according to Wikipedia:

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. [2] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Okay I had part of that wrong , the FCC only requires radiobroadcasters to present contrasting views on the airwaves. Nevertheless, that is still in violation of the First amendment, since the FCC is attempting to control what radiobroadcasters should play on the air. Proponents argue that the Fairness Doctrine was introduce to ensure that the public hear a fair share of all viewpoints, but should the FCC have the authority over radiobroad casters to defined what is fair? Of course not. The radio spectrum is a medium that can be freely manipulated by any one, just like the Internet. There was a court case decades ago that questioned whether the fairness doctrine was constitutionalRed Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission where a representative for Red Lion Broadcasting Co. argued that the government should not have the authoritative to say what is free speech and what is not free speech because it would violated the first amendment.

 

[quadraphonics]

The radio spectrum is a medium that can be freely manipulated by any one, just like the Internet.

No, it manifestly is not. That's why we have an FCC in the first place. If everyone were free to manipulate the radio spectrum, nobody would be able to use any of the spectrum for anything (except a tiny minority who could afford transmitter so powerful as to block everyone else out).

 

[Benzoate]

No, it manifestly is not. That's why we have an FCC in the first place. If everyone were free to manipulate the radio spectrum, nobody would be able to use any of the spectrum for anything (except a tiny minority who could afford transmitter so powerful as to block everyone else out).

There is a tiny minority people , who own broadband internet , yet billions of people are able to log on to this particular internet everyday. The internet was originally operated by the internet and it was very slow and their were only a few thousand websites. Now look how the internet has evolved since its be solely in the hands of private telecommunications companies? There might be more people able to make use of the radio spectrum if the FCC did not intervene. Look what wonders came for the phone company onces it was deregulated. Before, the phone company was deregulated, it used to be a monopoly.

The FCC has fined radio stations hundred of thousands of dollars because radio commentators made 'obscene' or 'offensive' comments. Even the late comedian George Carlin , as many of you may know, had to take the FCC to the supreme court concerning George Carlin's 'seven dirty word' routine.

 

[LowlyPion]

Nevertheless, that is still in violation of the First amendment, since the FCC is attempting to control what radiobroadcasters should play on the air.

Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there are a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not permit the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain broadcasters, but only on a content-neutral basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Content_regulation

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regulation of radio broadcasting was important because at one time it was a major part of the country's communications infrastructure. With a limited amount of possible separate frequencies, further limited by certain sections being taken up by police and other safety and government services, it was thought that regulation of content would be important to prevent monopolization and manipulation of mass media and the primary source of communications and information distribution.
Any more this isn't so important since the spectrum of communications and information distribution media is far greater and radio is only a small, and often considered outmoded, portion of it.
So any more I don't think that the fairness doctrine is necessary.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a tiny minority people , who own broadband internet , yet billions of people are able to log on to this particular internet everyday. The internet was originally operated by the internet and it was very slow and their were only a few thousand websites. Now look how the internet has evolved since its be solely in the hands of private telecommunications companies? There might be more people able to make use of the radio spectrum if the FCC did not intervene. Look what wonders came for the phone company onces it was deregulated. Before, the phone company was deregulated, it used to be a monopoly.

You're missing the point. The internet has no physical limitation on bandwidth. The EM spectrum does. It is simply not physically possible for the FCC to allow unfettered usage with the EM spectrum.

Just look at what happens if the FCC screws up and grants people access to bands that are too close together: http://news.cnet.com/Nextels-radio-interference-plan--a-tough-call/2100-1039_3-5196027.html

 

[vanesch]

Regulation of radio broadcasting was important because at one time it was a major part of the country's communications infrastructure. With a limited amount of possible separate frequencies, further limited by certain sections being taken up by police and other safety and government services, it was thought that regulation of content would be important to prevent monopolization and manipulation of mass media and the primary source of communications and information distribution.

Also let us not forget that broadcasting communication such as radio was (thought to be) a major vector of the rise of Nazism in Germany for instance. So after WWII, it is comprehensible that one wanted to avoid a too monopolizing mass communication medium.

That said, even today, or especially today, there are people who think that there should be some constitutional guarantee of diversification of press and TV/radio, although it is not clear how exactly it should be implemented.

 

[quadraphonics]

There is a tiny minority people , who own broadband internet , yet billions of people are able to log on to this particular internet everyday. The internet was originally operated by the internet and it was very slow and their were only a few thousand websites. Now look how the internet has evolved since its be solely in the hands of private telecommunications companies? There might be more people able to make use of the radio spectrum if the FCC did not intervene. Look what wonders came for the phone company onces it was deregulated. Before, the phone company was deregulated, it used to be a monopoly.

Russ has already explained why your analogy is inapplicable. Look up "tragedy of the commons" for more reading.

The FCC has fined radio stations hundred of thousands of dollars because radio commentators made 'obscene' or 'offensive' comments. Even the late comedian George Carlin , as many of you may know, had to take the FCC to the supreme court concerning George Carlin's 'seven dirty word' routine.

I don't like FCC prudes censoring radio content any more than the next guy, but that's a very, very different matter than FCC control of spectrum allocation. The former is unwelcome paternalism, the latter is a mandatory part of keeping critical national infrastructure operational. One can demand that the FCC butt out of content issues and adopt policies to encourage greater competition, innovation and market flexibility without going off the deep end and insisting that regulations disappear entirely. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you don't believe me, try spending some time in cities near areas where the FCC has no mandate (i.e., border towns). You'll find that all of the radio stations you can receive emanate from across the border, and that the lawful owners (or, letters) of the American radio spectrum are screwed.

 

[LowlyPion]

... Any more this isn't so important since the spectrum of communications and information distribution media is far greater and radio is only a small, and often considered outmoded, portion of it.
So any more I don't think that the fairness doctrine is necessary.

It may be that today there is greater diversity in the distribution of information, but the principle still stands that broadcast frequencies are a scarce resource, insofar as radio broadcast is concerned, and it has been ruled that as such the Congress has the right to regulate, which it still does, both as its interstate commerce, as well as to insure that there is opportunity to present balanced points of view.

I think the Red Lion v. FCC ruling, pretty much spells out this apparent exception to free speech that the Supreme Court has established in recognizing that in conferring a right to utilize a scarce resource, the licensee also undertakes, as a part of that license, becoming a guarantor of the public trust, in insuring that the public's access to all views on issues of public interest are not dominated solely by the views of the broadcaster. If that responsibility is too burdensome, and they do not want to agree to such terms, I suppose that broadcasters could choose alternate commercial opportunities and not sign licenses.

Here is a copy of that decision by the Court:
http://epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It may be that today there is greater diversity in the distribution of information, but the principle still stands that broadcast frequencies are a scarce resource, insofar as radio broadcast is concerned, and it has been ruled that as such the Congress has the right to regulate, which it still does, both as its interstate commerce, as well as to insure that there is opportunity to present balanced points of view.

I think the Red Lion v. FCC ruling, pretty much spells out this apparent exception to free speech that the Supreme Court has established in recognizing that in conferring a right to utilize a scarce resource, the licensee also undertakes, as a part of that license, becoming a guarantor of the public trust, in insuring that the public's access to all views on issues of public interest are not dominated solely by the views of the broadcaster. If that responsibility is too burdensome, and they do not want to agree to such terms, I suppose that broadcasters could choose alternate commercial opportunities and not sign licenses.

Here is a copy of that decision by the Court:
http://epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

Ideologically speaking I would agree that we should make sure that information over airwaves be reported in a balanced manner. The thing is how many liberal politically oriented and news radio shows are there? I've only heard a couple that weren't entertainment oriented. Most news and talk radio is conservative because the vast majority of people who still listen to news and politics on the radio are conservatives. Otherwise they likely just listen to NPR and/or BBC. There just doesn't seem to be enough of a market to make it a commercially viable venture.

 

[LowlyPion]

Ideologically speaking I would agree that we should make sure that information over airwaves be reported in a balanced manner. The thing is how many liberal politically oriented and news radio shows are there? I've only heard a couple that weren't entertainment oriented. Most news and talk radio is conservative because the vast majority of people who still listen to news and politics on the radio are conservatives. Otherwise they likely just listen to NPR and/or BBC. There just doesn't seem to be enough of a market to make it a commercially viable venture.

I think the standard is "offer the opportunity for balance", not that any particular report could not be biased. Just that time be made available for counter views.

I like to think of the US Constitution as generally set up to protect the many from the tyranny of the few as well as protecting the few from the tyranny of the many.

 

[Phrak]

There is not anything written in the constitution that says the government must set rules for radio stations that require radio stations to allow a "balance view " of political opinions.

It's right here.
Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I also want to add that their isn't anything constitutional about the government forming a communications department like the FCC that oversees and regulates the used of a radio spectrum and telecommunications , but I will only focus on discussing the Fairness Doctrine.

Like it or not, Article 1 Section 1, again.

The Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional to me because it tells radio producers the amount of content you are allowed to play on the radio. That imposition violates the First amendment , plain and simple.

Maybe. By first ammendment, broadcasters were not forced to present, themselves, opionions they oppose. They were forced, to at most, let others present their opinions.

So taking action, TV stations will find some straw man they can cut up, or anyone of the innumerable endruns. If His Grand Eblobiator of the FM Waves complains so much, it is because it would cut into his mouth time. Forced to it, he'd find his own endrun.

Though, if history is any standard, more virulent anti-free speech laws would be expected, under a democrate controlled congress and presidency.

 

[Benzoate]

It's right here.
Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I suggest you take a look at the article on the Enumerated powers of the Legislative Branch, and the Enumerated Power section doesn't say anything about congress regulating communications airwaves. Congress is allowed to regulate our naval forces, and the use of land but not telecommunications. Nor does the Enumerate clause say anything about congress shall make sure that radio broadcasters air 'balance' political views on radio.


Article 1 Section 1 is only describing the kinds of power the legislative branch of the Federal government are allowed to have over the other two branches of the federal government. (executive and judicial). It also says in Section 1 of Article 1 that although legislative powers have the authority to investigate private affairs , there are limitations . This section of the article mainly describes The Legislative Branch ability to legislate and investigate, it barely describes its ability to regulate. Recently , (circa 1934) the courts granted regulatory powers to congress.

Also in Article 2 of the Constitution which mainly describes the powers of the executive branch. Article 2 explicits stays that the Executive Branch can: make treaties , the power to appoint public officials like judges, and command the military and grant pardons.

 

[russ_watters]

Ideologically speaking I would agree that we should make sure that information over airwaves be reported in a balanced manner.

I understand that that's your opinion, but do you have a logical basis for it? Something from the Constitution that would imply it?

The thing is how many liberal politically oriented and news radio shows are there?

There are tons, just none of them as popular as some of the major conservative ones.

Most news and talk radio is conservative because the vast majority of people who still listen to news and politics on the radio are conservatives. Otherwise they likely just listen to NPR and/or BBC. There just doesn't seem to be enough of a market to make it a commercially viable venture.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

It's right here.
Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I don't think that is applicable to the statement you were responding to. It is understood that Congress has broad legislative power based on that clause. What isn't clear (well - it's clear to me...) is how such legislation could not be a violation of the 1st amendment. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Phrak]

You all want it both ways. A liberal interpretation of the first amendment, and a Libertarian interpretation of the Constitution without regard to case law. why ever did I step into this political thread.

 

[russ_watters]

The first amendment is part of the Constitution.

Anyway, Article I, Sect 1 doesn't stand on it's own. It's clear by the wording that it only exists to state that Congress has legislative authority. There is nothing to interpret in that section. Authority over what is in other parts of the Constitution. And the limits are in the Bill of rights.

You want substantiation of my statement about content reglation. Here's some:

Content regulation
The courts have rarely treated content-based regulation of the press with any sympathy. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish.

Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there are a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not permit the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain broadcasters, but only on a content-neutral basis.

For newspapers, the issue is crystal clear: you can't regulat content. For radio/tv, the wik seems to contradict itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Googling the issue turned up this article by a legal organization that basically says what I'm saying, but goes further to say this is an attempt by Democrats in Congress to censor conservative radio and tv. I guess it's probably Fox's fault - as long as liberals dominated tv, it was ok that Rush Limbaugh dominated radio. Now that Fox has provided some balance to TV, conservatives have an overall advantage (balanced tv, unabalanced radio).

In recent months, several Democratic leaders in Congress have called for reinstatement of
the Fairness Doctrine,1 an antiquated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule dating
back to the 1940s that was abandoned during the Reagan administration. In theory, the Fairness
Doctrine was designed to enhance political discourse by requiring television and radio broadcast
stations to provide “fair” coverage of controversial issues of public importance.2 In practice,
however, the Fairness Doctrine stifled political debate and forced broadcasters to significantly
limit their coverage of controversial topics. After nearly four decades of experience in applying
the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC concluded in 1985 that the Fairness Doctrine “inhibits the
presentation of controversial issues of public importance . . . impedes the public’s access to the
marketplace of ideas and poses an unwarranted intrusion upon the journalistic freedom of
broadcasters.”3
It is abundantly clear that, if the Fairness Doctrine were reimposed today, it would have
the same chilling effect on broadcast television and radio programming that it previously had.
The Fairness Doctrine is disturbingly reminiscent of George Orwell’s classic 1984 in which “Big
Brother” was always watching and listening to ensure that no one dared to question the
government.4 The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by some
members of Congress to silence those who disagree with them, particularly conservative talk
radio show hosts.5 As one Congressman recently observed, “attempts to restore the Fairness
Doctrine are based in attempts to reduce public speech, not enhance it.”6

It's long, but they have six points:

This memorandum explains why the Fairness Doctrine suppresses discussion of
important public policy issues and would violate the First Amendment if reenacted. The
memorandum begins in Section I by discussing the FCC’s determination in 1985 that the
Fairness Doctrine should be abandoned because it did not further the public interest. Section II of
the memorandum describes how the financial burden the Fairness Doctrine imposed upon
broadcasters forced them to self-censor their discussion of controversial issues. Section III then
explains that the Fairness Doctrine has been used as a tool to silence broadcasters critical of
government policies and would be used for this purpose again if it were reinstated.
Section IV of the memorandum discusses why allowing the marketplace to determine the
value of broadcast programming is a much sounder public policy than having government
censors review the content of speech and impose an abstract notion of “fairness.” Section V then
observes that the proliferation of media technology since the Fairness Doctrine was first
implemented during the 1940s has eliminated any need or justification for the Fairness Doctrine.
The memorandum concludes in Section VI by explaining that reimposing the Fairness Doctrine
would violate the First Amendment by substantially chilling public debate on controversial
issues of importance.

http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/acljfairnessdoctrinememo_08012007.pdf

Also, page 10 has some interesting stats about viewer/listenership demographics (ie, what conservatives watch/listen to vs what liberals watch/listen to).

 

[russ_watters]

And here's the wiki on the fairness doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Supreme_Court_1969_decision

 

[WheelsRCool]

In my opinion, the Fairness Doctrine isn't "fair" and this is just an attempt by the Left to censor talk radio, which is heavily dominated by conservatives and libertarians. They know that if these stations are required to give three hours of an Al Franken for three hours of a Sean Hannity, that the Al Franken likely will not attract near the same ratings, leading these stations to just cancel their Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaughs altogether to avoid losing huge sums of money.

The argument over the airwaves being publicly-owned perhaps could have applied somewhat back in the 20th century, but times have changed. The reason I believe the FCC shot down the Fairness Doctrine was because new mediums for communicating news were coming out.

Today, we have cable TV, the Internet, satellite radio, etc...and there is also National Public Radio which is very Left-leaning and has a huge audience. There are plenty of sources on television, Internet, print media, radio, etc...both Left and Right.

 

[turbo]

WRC, you are very far off-base here. The fairness doctrine was instituted WAY before right-wing talk radio took off - even before I was born. It was not designed by "liberals" to censor talk radio. It was an attempt to ensure that opposing viewpoints on issues important to the public interest could be heard, though with NO equal-time requirement. You should perhaps do a little research before making such claims - such fundamental misunderstandings empower your adversaries and discredit your statements in the eyes of those that you are trying to sway.

 

[isly ilwott]

In my opinion, the Fairness Doctrine isn't "fair" and this is just an attempt by the Left to censor talk radio, which is heavily dominated by conservatives and libertarians. They know that if these stations are required to give three hours of an Al Franken for three hours of a Sean Hannity, that the Al Franken likely will not attract near the same ratings, leading these stations to just cancel their Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaughs altogether to avoid losing huge sums of money.

The argument over the airwaves being publicly-owned perhaps could have applied somewhat back in the 20th century, but times have changed. The reason I believe the FCC shot down the Fairness Doctrine was because new mediums for communicating news were coming out.

Today, we have cable TV, the Internet, satellite radio, etc...and there is also National Public Radio which is very Left-leaning and has a huge audience. There are plenty of sources on television, Internet, print media, radio, etc...both Left and Right.

WRC, you are very far off-base here. The fairness doctrine was instituted WAY before right-wing talk radio took off - even before I was born. It was not designed by "liberals" to censor talk radio. It was an attempt to ensure that opposing viewpoints on issues important to the public interest could be heard, though with NO equal-time requirement. You should perhaps do a little research before making such claims - such fundamental misunderstandings empower your adversaries and discredit your statements in the eyes of those that you are trying to sway.

I think WRC is right on...with the interpretation of today's liberal thinking in wanting to return to the censorship by government (at the point of the gun). Why, it's simply not fair that the conservatives are so effective in using the radio to sway the political balance in their favor. It's just not fair...so let's demand that they present the liberal side.

Air America failed because Air America couldn't hold an audience and had to pay for air time instead of enlisting eager sponsors to underwrite the cost in exchange for their commercials reaching millions of listeners. There were no millions of listeners. Why? Because Al Franken has nothing to say that's worth listening to. They tried guest hosts such as Alec Baldwin who couldn't even attract phone calls from listeners...the HE couldn't fill the dead air time with off the cuff comments that seem to flow so easily from the lips of conservative hosts.

Interesting, riveting, liberal talk radio programs are not an impossible dream...just highly unlikely to be developed any time soon.


I am waiting for the day that the ACLU, at the request of American atheists, approaches with a drive to force the Christian broadcasters to give equal time to the proponents of godlessness. After all, it's only fair.

 

[WheelsRCool]

WRC, you are very far off-base here. The fairness doctrine was instituted WAY before right-wing talk radio took off - even before I was born. It was not designed by "liberals" to censor talk radio. It was an attempt to ensure that opposing viewpoints on issues important to the public interest could be heard, though with NO equal-time requirement. You should perhaps do a little research before making such claims - such fundamental misunderstandings empower your adversaries and discredit your statements in the eyes of those that you are trying to sway.

I'm not talking about who originally instituted the Fairness Doctrine. You are correct on its original intention and perhaps back when TV channels were far fewer, there was no cable, Internet, etc...that was true (however, even then, the result was that stations would avoid much political talk radio altogether because it makes no sense from a profit standpoint to play radio that won't make money).

But now, this argument doesn't hold. There are plenty of ways to get the Left and Right viewpoints out now, and there is nothing preventing the Left talk shows from succeeding on the radio these days, except that the talk radio audience tends to prefer the more right-leaning shows. There is no need for the government to police the radio-waves.

As for no equal time requirement, I stand corrected, however, I don't really see how else the stations could do it without equal time. What are they going to do, give an hour and a half to Sean Hannity and a half-hour to Alan Colmes? I think equal time would be one of the only ways to allow equal views to be espoused, especially to keep the FCC bureaucrats at bay.

I doubt any radio executive could say with a straight face, "We give equal chance to the Left and Right to espouse their views. The fact that we give the Right much more time each day than the Left means nothing."

The Fairness doctrine required stations to air views in a way that the FCC deemed was "fair," "equitable," and "balanced." The problem with this is there is no way that bureaucrats can deem what is "fair." It is subjective.

The Democrats are not stupid. They know full well that the Fairness Doctrine would kill conservative talk radio. As pointed out by isly ilwott, "Air America," a very Left-leaning talk-radio network, had to file for bankruptcy in 2006. For whatever reason, talk radio listeners just tend to prefer the conservative-oriented shows. If they thus force stations to air Left-leaning radio with Right-leaning radio, it will kill the Right-leaning radio because the stations are not going to lose out on so much money. they will just avoid all politically-oriented radio altogether and play something else that makes more money. If the stations were publicly-owned, it would be different, but these stations are owned by companies that need to make a profit. And nationalization of the media would be a very bad idea, I would think.

BTW, Alan Colmes, a successful Liberal talk-show host, is against the "Fairness Doctrine" as well, because he understands the importance of radio listeners to keep a show alive.

 

[turbo]

I think WRC is right on...with the interpretation of today's liberal thinking in wanting to return to the censorship by government (at the point of the gun). Why, it's simply not fair that the conservatives are so effective in using the radio to sway the political balance in their favor. It's just not fair...so let's demand that they present the liberal side.

Please Google on the "fairness doctrine" and get some perspective on its origins. Whether you "think WRC is right on" does not alter the facts. If your opinions converge, fine, but they are ill-informed opinions because they are in conflict with the facts.

Edit: BTW are either or you aware that the fairness doctrine has not been applied for over 20 years? If you or the OP think that the fairness doctrine has been used by liberals to quash right-wing talk-radio, this might be a good time to to cite some examples. PLEASE link to reputable sources.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Please Google on the "fairness doctrine" and get some perspective on its origins. Whether you "think WRC is right on" does not alter the facts. If your opinions converge, fine, but they are ill-informed opinions because they are in conflict with the facts.

Which "facts" do you mean?

Edit: BTW are either or you aware that the fairness doctrine has not been applied for over 20 years? If you or the OP think that the fairness doctrine has been used by liberals to quash right-wing talk-radio, this might be a good time to to cite some examples. PLEASE link to reputable sources.

No one said the Fairness Doctrine, in its original form, was used for this purpose. But the Fairness Doctrine was done away with because it was recognized that it was stifling talk radio.

The drive to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, in my opinion, is to stifle talk radio. As I said above, the Left are not stupid. They are aware that the Fairness Doctrine would kill conservative talk radio.

If it was reversed, and liberal talk radio dominated the air, and conservative radio struggled, would they be so adamant to re-instate it, with full knowledge that, in such an instance, it would likely kill liberal talk radio...?

Remember, radio stations make money through advertisements. In order to make money through said advertisements, they need an audience. If they have to air talk radio that alienates their audience, in order to meet some definition of fairness as defined by bureaucrats, then they will just stop airing all such radio altogether and air something else, that is guaranteed to make money.

There is a much larger plethora of media today for both sides to air their viewpoints: Blogs, Youtube and related sites, news websites, cable TV news networks, satellite radio, magazines, books, Internet forums (like this one!), and the much larger amount of radio networks these days, in which the only reason conservative talk hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity dominate is because that is what most talk radio listeners seem to prefer; for Left-leaning people, there are hosts such as Alan Colmes, also there is National Public Radio.

But it is more easy to get an equal point-of-view these days than ever before. If you are driving home and listening to, say, Rush Limbaugh, and hear him say something about Barack Obama that you might be suspicious of let's say, all you need do is Google it, come onto a forum like this one to discuss it, you can go to a conservative forum and discuss it, such as Freerepublic, then you could check it out at DemocraticUnderground, etc...we have no need for the government to police the airwaves for what they deem as "fairness" these days.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The public should own the public airwaves and a lot of these technologies were sold off to state supported corporations, at the "barrel of a gun."

I think in a democracy it is essential to hear all sides of an opinion, otherwise you'll have enormous disinformation, such as the media's failure to accurately report the history of the nation of Iraq, of past attempts by the West to "colonize it," of the efforts (and, as we now know, success) to destroy the WMDs in the 90s (which is not "ancient history" anyway), and so on.

Media should act as a fourth branch of government to keep the others in check and you can't have that when the only place you're allowed to discuss facts at length is dominated by propagandists.

That said, I'm wondering what would happen to PBS. PBS has gotten worse over the years, but they still provide an essential news service that is better than the mainstream media in many ways (people who listened to PBS were not as ill-informed about Iraq and have paid attention to the excellent journalism of Bill Moyers before he was retired, although these people might have been educated anyway).

What if Conservatives call for PBS to focus less on news, nature, and science, and more on financial markets, propaganda, and religion?

I would hate to see PBS go and am not sure the gains made in "balancing" talk radio would be worth it.

 

[russ_watters]

Please Google on the "fairness doctrine" and get some perspective on its origins. Whether you "think WRC is right on" does not alter the facts. If your opinions converge, fine, but they are ill-informed opinions because they are in conflict with the facts.

Edit: BTW are either or you aware that the fairness doctrine has not been applied for over 20 years? If you or the OP think that the fairness doctrine has been used by liberals to quash right-wing talk-radio, this might be a good time to to cite some examples. PLEASE link to reputable sources.

Tubo, please read the thread. All of that has been covered and you have completely misunderstood peoples' points here.

 

[russ_watters]

...a lot of these technologies were sold off to state supported corporations, at the "barrel of a gun."

Huh? Could you explain that, please? What technolgies, what corporations, when?

I think in a democracy it is essential to hear all sides of an opinion, otherwise you'll have enormous disinformation, such as the media's failure to accurately report the history of the nation of Iraq, of past attempts by the West to "colonize it," of the efforts (and, as we now know, success) to destroy the WMDs in the 90s (which is not "ancient history" anyway), and so on.

Media should act as a fourth branch of government to keep the others in check and you can't have that when the only place you're allowed to discuss facts at length is dominated by propagandists.

That said, I'm wondering what would happen to PBS. PBS has gotten worse over the years, but they still provide an essential news service that is better than the mainstream media in many ways (people who listened to PBS were not as ill-informed about Iraq and have paid attention to the excellent journalism of Bill Moyers before he was retired, although these people might have been educated anyway).

What if Conservatives call for PBS to focus less on news, nature, and science, and more on financial markets, propaganda, and religion?

I would hate to see PBS go and am not sure the gains made in "balancing" talk radio would be worth it.

That's all so wrong, it is tough to know were to begin.

-It would be unAmerican to have the government run the media.
-PBS isn't run by the gov't, so conservatives can't change the programming.
-Democracy isn't about forcing equality, it is about allowing equality. Forcing opinions on people or forcing people to change the content on the government's order is unconstitutional - it's censorship.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Nothing in my post is innacurate or wrong. point by point

Technologies:

The Communications Act of 1934 gave corporations the right to "license" and own the public air waves for free. The FCC still gives away the licenses that authorize radio and television broadcasters to use public airwaves. In other words, the public technically owns and pays for what the private corporations profiteer off of.

This is well known to a student of history; there was a debate about it in the 30s and as a result of owning public airwaves corporations and their subsideraries and child companies were required by law to report news. They got around it by doing a poor job on the news and continually lobbying congress to weaken said laws.

One perfect example of this is the in 1996 when Congress handed over to broadcasters the right to broadcast digital television on the public airwaves, which was estimated to be worth 40-70 billion dollars, for nothing. Even Bob Dole expressed outrage at this act and made it a campaign issue. There was not even an auction for distribution of licenses as there has been for cell phone usage and so on.

Conservatives and PBS:

Conservatives have already called on NPR to provide more "conservative programs," even in congress. I have seen on C-SPAN conservatives asking NPR to balance their programs.

Since both PBS and NPR receive money from the government they would obviously be targets to attempt to "balance" these programs more to the right as conservatives like Bill O'Reilly compare NPR as being to the left of "North Korean state media."

As for Democracy, this is about the public reclaiming tax payer assets and regulating corporations who old monopolies on information. This is more about regulating corporate monopolies than it is about "free-speech," the goal is more free-speech.

They do this in Britain and Canada to some degree where the public has more control over their air waves and all candidates are required to have at least some amount of time on the networks, which I believe are directly paid for by taxes, such as the BBC.

This isn't anti-American as Thomas Jefferson said that Americans ought to be able to hear all sides of an issue, and then make a properly informed decision regarding issue. He would have no problem with regulating corporations.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson even wrote repeatedly that corporations and banks should be abolished.

Thomas Jefferson is as American as apple pie.

I'm not sure how I feel about the fairness doctrine because conservatives would try and dismantle NPR and PBS (Bush has already cut funding for PBS and NPR has steadily been declining in quality, neither are really "leftist outlets" as bill o'reilly claims), but I disagree as well with the claim that regulating corporations is equatable to anti-free speech, even though the corporations have benefitted from tax payer assets.

I support what is called an "audience network"

During its time slot, the Audience Network would air a variety of cultural, political, entertainment, scien*tific or other programs that it produced or obtained. It would periodically inform the public about the organization's activities and discuss media reform is*sues. With its financial resources, and its access to airtime, Audience Network, at both local and national levels, could also provide central production facilities and act as a time broker for other non-profit groups that wished to professionally produce and air programs.

The structure of the Audience Network organiza*tion would be similar to that of the successful Citizen's Utility Boards (CUBs), which represent the interests of utility consumers at the state level. Audience Network would represent the interests of its members before the FCC, the courts, and Congress itself — wherever broad*casting policy is being made. Any citizen over the age of 16 could become a member of Audience Network by contributing a modest amount, say $10 annually, to the organization. Members' contributions would consti*tute Audience Network's basic source of funding; the group would require no expenditure of tax dollars.

The Audience Network would be governed demo*cratically. Members would elect delegates who would in turn elect a board of directors to decide what projects and programming the group would pursue. A power to recall delegates would further ensure accountability. Because the public must take the affirmative step of joining and thereby funding Audience Network, the organization is assured active participants and would rightly fold if adequate membership was not forthcom*ing. Based on the CUB experience, that seems unlikely. Other mechanisms, whereby directors and delegates can serve only limited terms and are required to survey the interests of their members, will also assure that Audience Network will not become a lazy or wasteful bureaucracy, but instead an organization that is re*sponsive to the needs of those it represents.


The Audience Network, in short, could serve as a self-funded, independent ongoing communications link among viewers and listeners. According to a sur*vey conducted by the Annenburg School of Communications, the public demands no less. Three-quarters of those polled felt that "broadcast time should be set aside for ordinary people to show their programs and views." “It would appear," the study concluded, "that were the opportunity available, a sizeable portion of the population would try their hand at television communication.” Congress should reflect the will of the people and give the public that community opportunity. A modest portion of the public’s airwaves should be returned to that public in a systematic, yet flexible manner of uses. Let the audience give itself what it wants and needs.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1315-The-Audience-Network.html


Basically, the audience network would give access to Americans the airwaves they already should own. It would ge given an hour of prime-time television and one hour of drive time radio every day, and its programming would be driven democratically by membership open to all for a small public fee.



http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1315-The-Audience-Network.html

 

[WheelsRCool]

In fact, Thomas Jefferson even wrote repeatedly that corporations and banks should be abolished.

Thomas Jefferson is as American as apple pie.

There were two schools of thought on this, the two biggest proponents being Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man, but he was stuck living in a fantasyland. He wanted us to remain a simple agrarian-based society, with no banks or corporations and so forth as you have pointed out. He HATED paper money.

Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both also hated the idea of a central bank. It was Alexander Hamilton who recognized that the U.S. needed to industrialize, had to be in the business of controlling its monetary policy, etc...

It has been said that Americans Admire the World of Thomas Jefferson, and Live in the World of Alexander Hamilton. It has also been said, "There is a reason there is no memorial to Alexander Hamilton- Modern day America IS his Memorial."

I support what is called an "audience network"

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1315-The-Audience-Network.html

Basically, the audience network would give access to Americans the airwaves they already should own. It would ge given an hour of prime-time television and one hour of drive time radio every day, and its programming would be driven democratically by membership open to all for a small public fee.

But programming is driven democratically. The market is the ultimate democracy. People vote with their dials in talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, for example, don't have the biggest audiences because people just tune into them regardless. People tune into them because they like listening to them.

So the people "vote" through the market.

If the people decide they want to hear mostly liberal talk radio, then you will see liberal talk radio start surging in listenership, and conservative radio shows decline. Advertisers would start moving to the liberal talk radio.

If you go the supermarket and buy grapes, you are "voting" with your dollars for the agriculture industry to produce more grapes, for example.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I understand that that's your opinion, but do you have a logical basis for it? Something from the Constitution that would imply it?

The 1st Amendment. Although the supreme court seems to think that the first amendment does not apply to the regulation and licensing argument I would humbly disagree. The government needs to protect and ensure free speech. If there is a limited public theatre for dispersal of information and ideas it becomes the responsability of the government to regulate the stage (with in reason) so that a variety of demographics get their opportunity on it.

I already stated though that in modern times radio doesn't have the importance as an information source that it once did and so doesn't seem to need such regulation any more. So I agree with my argument but I believe it is outmoded.

 

[mheslep]

... I guess it's probably Fox's fault - as long as liberals dominated tv, it was ok that Rush Limbaugh dominated radio. Now that Fox has provided some balance to TV, conservatives have an overall advantage (balanced tv, unabalanced radio)...

I agree with where you are going but not your premise. Fox is still mainly just cable. Even today most viewers are still over the air and the traditional lefty networks still dominate their.