Fairness Docrine Coming Back?

[WillowTree]

And you know this HOW?

answer the basic question.. why can't progressives get their message out without having it legislated... doyathink? we'll wait !

it has NOTHING to do with Democrats getting their message out.

It has to do with issues of public importance, where the station who has the only Public radio in town reaching everyone, does not cover the issue of public importance thoroughly...where all that is important to the public is aired and the public can decide.

That's it.






it does not cover talk show hosts....

it is regarding the news, with issues of GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST and IMPORTANCE....not yackydee yak....political spinning of talk show hosts.

Care

what issues of public importance...

 

[Care4all]

Care, you should do some reading about the number of 'airwaves' available. It's not the days of 'olde.'

There are no more public airwaves in radio or tv today than there was yesterday, so i have no idea what you mean?

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine

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.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year....

Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

 

[WillowTree]

There are no more public airwaves in radio or tv today than there was yesterday, so i have no idea what you mean?

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine

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.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year....

Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

what issues of great public importance??? And if the so called leader man goes on TV and gives his liberal spin for 90 minutes then does McCain get an equal 90 minutes free to tell his side???

 

[Care4all]

answer the basic question.. why can't progressives get their message out without having it legislated... doyathink? we'll wait !

it has NOTHING to do with Democrats getting their message out.

It has to do with issues of public importance, where the station who has the only Public radio in town reaching everyone, does not cover the issue of public importance thoroughly...where all that is important to the public is aired and the public can decide.

That's it.






it does not cover talk show hosts....

it is regarding the news, with issues of GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST and IMPORTANCE....not yackydee yak....political spinning of talk show hosts.

Care

what issues of public importance...

I gave an example above.....

 

[WillowTree]

it has NOTHING to do with Democrats getting their message out.

It has to do with issues of public importance, where the station who has the only Public radio in town reaching everyone, does not cover the issue of public importance thoroughly...where all that is important to the public is aired and the public can decide.

That's it.






it does not cover talk show hosts....

it is regarding the news, with issues of GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST and IMPORTANCE....not yackydee yak....political spinning of talk show hosts.

Care

what issues of public importance...

I gave an example above.....

I missed the issue of great public importance!! which is it?? and who decides???

 

[WillowTree]

There are no more public airwaves in radio or tv today than there was yesterday, so i have no idea what you mean?

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine

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.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year....

Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

 

[michiganFats]

I think this whole debate is bullshit, because in order for you to believe that the Fairness Doctrine will do any good, you have to believe that a legitimate, accurate viewpoint is being suppressed. I take the time to read legislation at the House and Senate web-sites (unless it's monstrously long), and it is just mind-boggling how often both sides are just flat out wrong about what's in proposed legislation, or in legislation that has been passed. What this really is is one side bitching and moaning because their bullshit artists aren't as accomplished as the other sides bullshit artists.

 

[Annie]

There are no more public airwaves in radio or tv today than there was yesterday, so i have no idea what you mean?

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine

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.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year....

Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

Who's to define 'important' and 'fair'? That's the first problem you are not addressing.

When you have broadcast heads, the Chairman of the FCC, law professors, the media museum, all in agreement regarding the 'chilling effect', it gives you no pause?

 

[Care4all]

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine



Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

what issues of great public importance??? And if the so called leader man goes on TV and gives his liberal spin for 90 minutes then does McCain get an equal 90 minutes free to tell his side???

Here's another one....

Let's say a public radio station who owns the lease that reaches the masses, was owned by an OBAMAITE, and he refused to cover the stimulus from the opposing to Obama's view....

this is an issue of great public importance....but the station just kept covering and repeating the Dem's lie about how great this stimulus package is WITHOUT EVER COVERING the opposing views of why others think it is bad...

This would be an issue of great public importance that the Public should get ALL THE information about.....

A complaint would be filed against the radio station from those who want the Public to know more about the Stimulus package with the FCC....and if deemed correct, the FCC would register such with the radio station and the radio station would have to cover the news on the opposing points of view, of this issue of great importance to the Public.....

I do NOT SEE HOW this could be BAD?

Care

 

[WillowTree]

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

what issues of great public importance??? And if the so called leader man goes on TV and gives his liberal spin for 90 minutes then does McCain get an equal 90 minutes free to tell his side???

Here's another one....

Let's say a public radio station who owns the lease that reaches the masses, was owned by an OBAMAITE, and he refused to cover the stimulus from the opposing to Obama's view....

this is an issue of great public importance....but the station just kept covering and repeating the Dem's lie about how great this stimulus package is WITHOUT EVER COVERING the opposing views of why others think it is bad...

This would be an issue of great public importance that the Public should get ALL THE information about.....

A complaint would be filed against the radio station from those who want the Public to know more about the Stimulus package with the FCC....and if deemed correct, the FCC would register such with the radio station and the radio station would have to cover the news on the opposing points of view, of this issue of great importance to the Public.....

I do NOT SEE HOW this could be BAD?

Care

I bolded the bad for you a couple of answers ago.. take a deep breath and read..

 

[Care4all]

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine



Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

Who's to define 'important' and 'fair'? That's the first problem you are not addressing.

When you have broadcast heads, the Chairman of the FCC, law professors, the media museum, all in agreement regarding the 'chilling effect', it gives you no pause?

This was the case when it was law previously, there didn't seem to be a problem... why do you think there will be one now?

PEOPLE, file complaints with the FCC....i would bet there were also guidelines on how the FCC handled each....i don't believe it was willy nilly...this was NEVER a complaint about the Fairness doctrine when it was law....?

 

[Annie]

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

Who's to define 'important' and 'fair'? That's the first problem you are not addressing.

When you have broadcast heads, the Chairman of the FCC, law professors, the media museum, all in agreement regarding the 'chilling effect', it gives you no pause?

This was the case when it was law previously, there didn't seem to be a problem... why do you think there will be one now?

PEOPLE, file complaints with the FCC....i would bet there were also guidelines on how the FCC handled each....i don't believe it was willy nilly...this was NEVER a complaint about the Fairness doctrine when it was law....?

It was a problem Care, that is why the FCC said it was unconstitutional themselves. Even the head now, Obama's choice, is on record saying it's a bad idea. But, he'll listen to the Democrats who want to argue it.

 

[Care4all]

Who's to define 'important' and 'fair'? That's the first problem you are not addressing.

When you have broadcast heads, the Chairman of the FCC, law professors, the media museum, all in agreement regarding the 'chilling effect', it gives you no pause?

This was the case when it was law previously, there didn't seem to be a problem... why do you think there will be one now?

PEOPLE, file complaints with the FCC....i would bet there were also guidelines on how the FCC handled each....i don't believe it was willy nilly...this was NEVER a complaint about the Fairness doctrine when it was law....?

It was a problem Care, that is why the FCC said it was unconstitutional themselves. Even the head now, Obama's choice, is on record saying it's a bad idea. But, he'll listen to the Democrats who want to argue it.

as you said the FCC was run by PARTISAN HACKS and they CAN NOT in ANY WAY determine whether something is constitutional or NOT.....that is the job of the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that IT WAS CONSTITUTION.

yes, the SC ruled it was constitutional...and has stood by such....as far as i can tell...

 

[Annie]

This was the case when it was law previously, there didn't seem to be a problem... why do you think there will be one now?

PEOPLE, file complaints with the FCC....i would bet there were also guidelines on how the FCC handled each....i don't believe it was willy nilly...this was NEVER a complaint about the Fairness doctrine when it was law....?

It was a problem Care, that is why the FCC said it was unconstitutional themselves. Even the head now, Obama's choice, is on record saying it's a bad idea. But, he'll listen to the Democrats who want to argue it.

as you said the FCC was run by PARTISAN HACKS and they CAN NOT in ANY WAY determine whether something is constitutional or NOT.....that is the job of the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that IT WAS CONSTITUTION.

yes, the SC ruled it was constitutional...and has stood by such....as far as i can tell...

So you want the 'partisan hacks' in charge of what is and isn't on the air? That doesn't sound like you.

 

[Care4all]

Reagan and Bush 1 vetoed the new legislation from congress to add it back after the FCC on THEIR OWN abolished it....

 

[Care4all]

It was a problem Care, that is why the FCC said it was unconstitutional themselves. Even the head now, Obama's choice, is on record saying it's a bad idea. But, he'll listen to the Democrats who want to argue it.

as you said the FCC was run by PARTISAN HACKS and they CAN NOT in ANY WAY determine whether something is constitutional or NOT.....that is the job of the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that IT WAS CONSTITUTION.

yes, the SC ruled it was constitutional...and has stood by such....as far as i can tell...

So you want the 'partisan hacks' in charge of what is and isn't on the air? That doesn't sound like you.

no, i want the people to decide....they are the ones that file the complaint, with GUIDELINES of how the FCC proceeds....from legislation, if necessary.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How is giving people MORE INFORMATION curtailing free speech my dear?

the equal time for politicians was incorporated in to the FCC rules already....those are there, in place, already.

The Fairness doctrine is about issues of great public interest only....

And the FCC DOES NOT FILE a claim against the radio stations, INDIVIDUALS file claims with the FCC if they feel the PUBLIC'S radio station is not allowing them to get their point of view on the issue of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE is not being covered. The FCC reviews these complaints....to see if they are true, and if they are, they request the PUBLIC radio station cover the issues.....NOT WITH EQUAL TIME.....

Yes, there may be the paid for internet, there may be the paid for satellite stations, this is NOT the FREE PUBLIC airwaves....which ARE LIMITED....in their reach to the Public and many times only one station gets the lease to reach the masses and other stations are given limited reach.....

so, I respectfully disagree with those that oppose this and are making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of partisanship, in my humble opinion.

care

what issues of great public importance??? And if the so called leader man goes on TV and gives his liberal spin for 90 minutes then does McCain get an equal 90 minutes free to tell his side???

Here's another one....

Let's say a public radio station who owns the lease that reaches the masses, was owned by an OBAMAITE, and he refused to cover the stimulus from the opposing to Obama's view....

this is an issue of great public importance....but the station just kept covering and repeating the Dem's lie about how great this stimulus package is WITHOUT EVER COVERING the opposing views of why others think it is bad...

This would be an issue of great public importance that the Public should get ALL THE information about.....

A complaint would be filed against the radio station from those who want the Public to know more about the Stimulus package with the FCC....and if deemed correct, the FCC would register such with the radio station and the radio station would have to cover the news on the opposing points of view, of this issue of great importance to the Public.....

I do NOT SEE HOW this could be BAD?

Care

Care,

Just so you know, when this was in place before, it wasn't an issue. They just didn't do political speech on the radio. The owners saw no money in hassling about balance and if they would run afoul of the regulation, so they just didn't do it.

As wildly profitable as some of the shows are, I doubt they would last long once the regulation goes into effect. It'll be back to the good ole days of Bluegrass & country music on 80% of the AM radio stations with 20% for God, spanish and a few rock stations.

That there is what you call a "chilling effect."

 

[Tech_Esq]

This was the case when it was law previously, there didn't seem to be a problem... why do you think there will be one now?

PEOPLE, file complaints with the FCC....i would bet there were also guidelines on how the FCC handled each....i don't believe it was willy nilly...this was NEVER a complaint about the Fairness doctrine when it was law....?

It was a problem Care, that is why the FCC said it was unconstitutional themselves. Even the head now, Obama's choice, is on record saying it's a bad idea. But, he'll listen to the Democrats who want to argue it.

as you said the FCC was run by PARTISAN HACKS and they CAN NOT in ANY WAY determine whether something is constitutional or NOT.....that is the job of the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that IT WAS CONSTITUTION.

yes, the SC ruled it was constitutional...and has stood by such....as far as i can tell...

Post the citation to the supreme court case or name it so I can find it please.

 

[Annie]

Reagan and Bush 1 vetoed the new legislation from congress to add it back after the FCC on THEIR OWN abolished it....

Thanks for that, led to this:

Report: new Fairness Doctrine would face high legal hurdle - Ars Technica

Report: new Fairness Doctrine would face high legal hurdle
Talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine raises hackles on both sides of the aisle for different reasons. Any attempt to revive it would face an uphill battle in the courts, a Congressional research report says.

By Matthew Lasar | Last updated February 12, 2009 9:40
Text Size
Print this article
Leave a comment

Is Congress going to introduce a bill calling for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine? Dark predictions continue to emanate from various experts auguring an attempt to revive it. But according to the Library of Congress' Thomas guide on Congressional action, the only active Fairness Doctrine-related bills in the House and Senate would bar the FCC from ever bringing the policy back again.

Some lawmaker out there is obviously interested in the Doctrine, though, because the Congressional Research Service has recently published an analysis (PDF) of the regulation's history and prospects, one that recently showed up on Wikileaks. What does it conclude? Its main findings can't be encouraging to pro-Fairness Doctrine schemers lurking around the corridors of Capitol Hill.

"Any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine likely would be met with a constitutional challenge," the study warns. "Whether a newly instituted Fairness Doctrine would survive constitutional scrutiny remains an open question." One thing is for sure—wherever you stand on this controversial question, this report is one of the best summaries of the issue available on the Web.....

There have been hints from SCOTUS that they may well overturn Red Lion, if pressed:

Nicholas Johnson, With Due Regard for the Opinions of Others

...But the doctrine's moorings are coming loose in the gale-force winds from the FCC, broadcasters and political opponents. Although the Supreme Court never overruled Red Lion, it has given hints of wanting to distance itself from the decision. In dicta, even the Red Lion court suggested that "if experience" found "the net effect is reducing rather than enhancing . . . coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications.*'

In CBS v Democratic Nat'l Comm. (1973) 412 US 94, justice Potter Stewart said in a concurring opinion that he had joined the Red Lion majority "with considerable doubt," and Justice William 0. Douglas added that he had not participated in the decision "and, with all respect, would not support it. The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime."

The court's opinion in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v Tornillo (1974) 418 US 241, suggested striking parallels to Red Lion’s consideration of the personal attack doctrine. A Florida statute gave political candidates a legally enforceable right of reply to newspaper attacks. State legislative candidate Patrick Tornillo sued the Miami Herald, which challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds, and won. The core question, said the court, was "compelling editors or publishers to publish that which 'reason tells them should not be published."' It concluded, "The choice of material to go into a newspaper . . .--whether fair or unfair--constitutes the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press."

If it's true for newspapers, broadcasters asked, why not for us?...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Reagan and Bush 1 vetoed the new legislation from congress to add it back after the FCC on THEIR OWN abolished it....

Thanks for that, led to this:

Report: new Fairness Doctrine would face high legal hurdle - Ars Technica

Report: new Fairness Doctrine would face high legal hurdle
Talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine raises hackles on both sides of the aisle for different reasons. Any attempt to revive it would face an uphill battle in the courts, a Congressional research report says.

By Matthew Lasar | Last updated February 12, 2009 9:40
Text Size
Print this article
Leave a comment

Is Congress going to introduce a bill calling for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine? Dark predictions continue to emanate from various experts auguring an attempt to revive it. But according to the Library of Congress' Thomas guide on Congressional action, the only active Fairness Doctrine-related bills in the House and Senate would bar the FCC from ever bringing the policy back again.

Some lawmaker out there is obviously interested in the Doctrine, though, because the Congressional Research Service has recently published an analysis (PDF) of the regulation's history and prospects, one that recently showed up on Wikileaks. What does it conclude? Its main findings can't be encouraging to pro-Fairness Doctrine schemers lurking around the corridors of Capitol Hill.

"Any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine likely would be met with a constitutional challenge," the study warns. "Whether a newly instituted Fairness Doctrine would survive constitutional scrutiny remains an open question." One thing is for sure—wherever you stand on this controversial question, this report is one of the best summaries of the issue available on the Web.....

There have been hints from SCOTUS that they may well overturn Red Lion, if pressed:

Nicholas Johnson, With Due Regard for the Opinions of Others

...But the doctrine's moorings are coming loose in the gale-force winds from the FCC, broadcasters and political opponents. Although the Supreme Court never overruled Red Lion, it has given hints of wanting to distance itself from the decision. In dicta, even the Red Lion court suggested that "if experience" found "the net effect is reducing rather than enhancing . . . coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications.*'

In CBS v Democratic Nat'l Comm. (1973) 412 US 94, justice Potter Stewart said in a concurring opinion that he had joined the Red Lion majority "with considerable doubt," and Justice William 0. Douglas added that he had not participated in the decision "and, with all respect, would not support it. The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime."

The court's opinion in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v Tornillo (1974) 418 US 241, suggested striking parallels to Red Lion’s consideration of the personal attack doctrine. A Florida statute gave political candidates a legally enforceable right of reply to newspaper attacks. State legislative candidate Patrick Tornillo sued the Miami Herald, which challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds, and won. The core question, said the court, was "compelling editors or publishers to publish that which 'reason tells them should not be published."' It concluded, "The choice of material to go into a newspaper . . .--whether fair or unfair--constitutes the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press."

If it's true for newspapers, broadcasters asked, why not for us?...

Thanks for that. Those cases were decided by courts far more liberal than the current one. Even the last two cited. The most conservative member of those two courts was a new appointee in 1971 named William Rehnquist. He was the lone conservative until Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment in 1981.

I think the major problem is going to be getting a case to the Supreme Court in the first place. The FCC likes to play the extortion game. If you protest a ruling and try to take it to court, they hold all actions on your license. So, you cannot do any mergers, acquisitions or renewals while you persist in this childish action of questioning its decision.

Pretty rough on corporations that own a lot of radio stations and could fund a challenge. That's why the Court hasn't been able to decide any profanity issues from all the FCC fines that have been issued. These corporations can't stand the financial losses it would cause to get into court.