Here it comes: The Fairness Doctrine's Return Merged With Fairness Doctrine

[Adam's Apple]

Brace yoruselves because its coming back. IF you thought the FCC was out of control before, wait until they get the Fairness Doctrine back into law.

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927

Kucinich: Congress To Take On FCC

January 15, 2007

Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest(codewords for "agrees with our views") manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was also on hand at the conference and took broadcasters to task for their current content, speaking of "too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists." Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein also spoke at the event.

So the last paragraph sums up the attitude of the law perfectly. If we don't like what is on we WILL change it or remove it despite what audiences like watching or listening to. Also extending this to "If we don't like what is said on a political show, we will change it or remove it."

So basically good bye First ammendment, hello Soviet Union. Have to love that "Progressive" movement. What exactly are they progressing us towards?

This is a 6-page article. Might want to print out to read.

The Plan To Silence Conservatives
By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media
January 15, 2007

Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more "progressive" voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives.

for full article:
http://www.aim.org/special_report_print/5160_0_8_0/

 

[Avatar4321]

They cant do anything with it yet. The President will veto any bill.

However, if they win in 08 and keep Congress, then the American people is screwed unless the Court strikes it down. But id rather never have the court address the issue. there is too much risk in that.

 

[sitarro]

Kucinich......what does it say about this country that this weasal can somehow get enough supporters to continuosly run for the Presidency, kind of like Ralph "I Killed the Corvair for Ford" Nader.

 

[insein]

Hannity had Congressman Kuccinich on today. What an enlightening experience. I don't have the transcript yet but the Congressman said "We don't want to take you off the air, Sean. We want to make sure that there are opposing views to your view that can be accessed as well." Repeatedly Sean asked him about the NYT, LAT, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc and asked if they too would have to have an opposing view to their opinions. Kuccinich responded "those networks are fair and balanced and provide an opposing viewpoint already."

So the point Sean tried to get through to him but he kept dodging the slimiest way he could was that he was making the congress a dictator in that they decide who stays on and who stays off based on their arbitrary view of what a "fair and balanced" opinion is. In his eyes, if it ain't liberal, it's not fair and balanced.

The point i wanted Sean to drive home was who will be paying for these opposing points of view? We already saw that the American people do not want a liberal talk radio station by virtue of Air America going bankrupt. So according to the new installment of the Fairness doctrine, Air America will be funded by who? No ads want anything to do with them? Is Rush's network or Hannity's network supposed to pay to fund Air America too? Or is it that the American people will fund Air America in order to provide the "Fair and balanced" viewpoint that they will require by law. This is literally shredding the 1st ammendment in front of the American people's eyes and saying "your too stupid to know whats good for you. So we will tell you whats good for you."

 

[glockmail]

They cant do anything with it yet. The President will veto any bill.

However, if they win in 08 and keep Congress, then the American people is screwed unless the Court strikes it down. But id rather never have the court address the issue. there is too much risk in that.

If he does it will be his first veto, no?

The courts had the chance to rue on this before, didn't they? The Fairness doctrine was in effect for years before Reagan.

 

[trobinett]

insein posted:

Hannity had Congressman Kuccinich on today. What an enlightening experience. I don't have the transcript yet but the Congressman said "We don't want to take you off the air, Sean. We want to make sure that there are opposing views to your view that can be accessed as well." Repeatedly Sean asked him about the NYT, LAT, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc and asked if they too would have to have an opposing view to their opinions. Kuccinich responded "those networks are fair and balanced and provide an opposing viewpoitn already."

Well, isn't this just lovely?

"We don't want to take you off the air", well, I don't know about you, but I'm absolutely aw struck.

How much stupider can you get?

The left never fails to dumb found me with their absolutely stupid comments.

How this doesn't completely embarrass them is beyond me.

 

[glockmail]

....

How this doesn't completely embarrass them is beyond me.

Pure loathing for personal responsibility. That coupled with lack of pride.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I do not see what the big issue here is. These shows don't get taken off the air, I just think that these shows are not allowed to claim that they are News shows if they don't give equal air time to opponents. Rush, or Hannity, or O'Reilly (etc.) can just claim they are entertainment shows, like the Daily Show, instead of News shows. I think people will continue watching the same shows regardless of whether the FCC allows the shows to label themselves news.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm no fan of this legislation. I don't think will have much of an impact, and the only impact it might have is to make our News shows look more like episodes of Crossfire.

 

[Avatar4321]

If he does it will be his first veto, no?

The courts had the chance to rue on this before, didn't they? The Fairness doctrine was in effect for years before Reagan.

No, he has vetoed bills before. But he would be stupid not to veto it... then again...

As for the courts, the decision that allowed the fairness doctrine also said if there was a change of circumstances the question could be revisited and technology has come far enough to justify another look. But like i said, Lets not get to that point.

 

[Annie]

I do not see what the big issue here is. These shows don't get taken off the air, I just think that these shows are not allowed to claim that they are News shows if they don't give equal air time to opponents. Rush, or Hannity, or O'Reilly (etc.) can just claim they are entertainment shows, like the Daily Show, instead of News shows. I think people will continue watching the same shows regardless of whether the FCC allows the shows to label themselves news.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm no fan of this legislation. I don't think will have much of an impact, and the only impact it might have is to make our News shows look more like episodes of Crossfire.

Because it does not pertain to just 'news' but also 'opinion', which includes shows like Rush, Hannity, etc. On the other hand, 'entertainment' on the order of Law & Order and such, which while good programs, put forth the liberal ideology:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008935.php

January 16, 2007
Kucinich To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

The continuing impact of the Democratic takeover of Congress has just gotten worse. In a little-noticed development from this weekend, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would use his position on a House government-reform subcommittee to focus on the Federal Communications Commission -- and that the Fairness Doctrine may make a comeback:

Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.
​

The Fairness Doctrine did not require broadcasters to present issues in a "fair and honest manner"; it required them to turn their stations into ping-ponging punditry if they allowed opinion to appear on the air at all. It created such a complicated formula that most broadcasters simply refused to air any political programming, as it created a liability for station owners for being held hostage to all manner of complaints about lack of balance.

Congress and the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, and it allowed a market for political opinion to flourish. It also revitalized the AM band, which had been badly eclipsed for music broadcasting during the 1970s due to the rise of static-free FM stations. Radio stations could air local and syndicated talk shows without having to worry about metering time between differing viewpoints, allowing the station owners to reflect the market and their own personal preferences for politcal viewpoints.

Why would Kucinich want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and kill off the AM band and talk radio? Because his allies have proven less successful than conservatives at building a market for their broadcasts. Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and a slew of conservative thinkers carved out an industry out of the AM wilderness, and the Al Frankens and Wendy Wildes can't keep up without government intervention. Air America would lose as well in this scenario, but I'm sure Kucinich sees that as a fair trade, and for good reason.

Democrats aren't wasting much time in rolling back free speech now that they have the majority. Putting Kucinich in charge of domestic policy reform was no mistake on their part. They want to kill talk radio, and if they manage to hold their majority and win the White House in 2008, they just might do it.

 

[insein]

I do not see what the big issue here is. These shows don't get taken off the air, I just think that these shows are not allowed to claim that they are News shows if they don't give equal air time to opponents. Rush, or Hannity, or O'Reilly (etc.) can just claim they are entertainment shows, like the Daily Show, instead of News shows. I think people will continue watching the same shows regardless of whether the FCC allows the shows to label themselves news.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm no fan of this legislation. I don't think will have much of an impact, and the only impact it might have is to make our News shows look more like episodes of Crossfire.

Rush, Hannity and the like make no pretenses that what they are saying isnt their opinion. They tell you the news, then they give their opinion of the story. Thats exactly what they tell you. "My opinion on this," "this is what i think," "I believe that this," these are the types of things they say before giving their opinion. You have no misunderstandings that they are passing off their opinion as news. The actual news stations and papers like ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT and the like DO pass off opinion as news. Things like "horrific soldier actions embarass nation" as opposed to "soldiers allegedly commit crimes." Opinion is passed off as fact without an announcment of doing so.

That is besides the matter. The point here is that the liberal ideology has failed in the talk radio medium. So with this law being reenacted, stations will be REQUIRED by the government to provide an alternative POV to hannity or risk losing their license. So what the market said it doesnt want (liberal talk radio) the government will now force down our throats for no one to listen to but everyone to pay for. The real reason for this is not to expand their message, its to silence their opposition's message. They figure no one will follow the standards of creating an alternative voice and then they'll be able to remove their license.

They also want to further dictate what can be shown on TV "for the public good" as opposed to "what the public wants." Communism, socialism, totalitarianism. Its all the same. "Make the people take what we are giving them. The people will NOT decide what they like. We will decide it for them."

Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Not so much any more.

 

[glockmail]

....Things like "horrific soldier actions embarass nation" as opposed to "soldiers allegedly commit crimes." Opinion is passed off as fact without an announcment of doing so. .....

Excellent description. Yet these so-called educted Liberals don't see this? Sure. My money says they think they can pull the wool over the public's eyes and they won't know it.

They do have a good strategy, though. They've taken over the schools and are dumbing down generation after generation. Sooner or later the population at large will be like a bunch of sheep: compliant all the way from birth to the slaughterhouse.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Rush, Hannity and the like make no pretenses that what they are saying isnt their opinion. They tell you the news, then they give their opinion of the story. Thats exactly what they tell you. "My opinion on this," "this is what i think," "I believe that this," these are the types of things they say before giving their opinion. You have no misunderstandings that they are passing off their opinion as news. The actual news stations and papers like ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LAT and the like DO pass off opinion as news. Things like "horrific soldier actions embarass nation" as opposed to "soldiers allegedly commit crimes." Opinion is passed off as fact without an announcment of doing so.

Are you so sure this is true? If you apply this argument to your next paragraph then are you saying the market wants to hear liberal opinion as news? This contradicts what you say about the radio medium though, since you say people don't want to hear liberal radio like Air America. Why would that be, are liberals are too poor to own cars ?

That is besides the matter. The point here is that the liberal ideology has failed in the talk radio medium. So with this law being reenacted, stations will be REQUIRED by the government to provide an alternative POV to hannity or risk losing their license. So what the market said it doesnt want (liberal talk radio) the government will now force down our throats for no one to listen to but everyone to pay for. The real reason for this is not to expand their message, its to silence their opposition's message. They figure no one will follow the standards of creating an alternative voice and then they'll be able to remove their license.

Stations won't be required to submit a counterpoint if they don't even label Rush as opinion show, but an entertainment show. I am pretty sure that this piece of legislation will allow stations to do that, and then they don't have to provide a counterpoint to Rush.

They also want to further dictate what can be shown on TV "for the public good" as opposed to "what the public wants." Communism, socialism, totalitarianism. Its all the same. "Make the people take what we are giving them. The people will NOT decide what they like. We will decide it for them."

Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Not so much any more.

You can't argue for totalitarianism since it's a Democracy in America. The US population doesn't have to take anything. If people really want this repealed then they will elect representatives that will repeal it.

An informed public is required for a functioning Democracy. What if our public does not want to inform itself, what are you supposed to do? What do you do if the market is not really for news, but for entertainment parading as news. I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is very effective at solving the problem because you can't force people to inform themselves, so what is left?

 

[Annie]

Worth reading, but you have to understand the topic. Lots of links:

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22150/

Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Free Markets vs Fair Markets

Progressive podcast kvetch and former leftwing radio talk show diva Taylor Marsh accuses conservatives of “freaking out” over the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine, scuttled in 1987 by Ronald Reagan after its dubious 18 year hold on broadcast radio.

Writes Marsh, who accuses me of being my “usual obtuse self” (glad to know you read my site, Taylor!):

The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends, while the Democrats were still trying to figure out direct mail. I’m exaggerating, but Democrats were so dense about radio for so long it’s amazing there are still any progressive hosts out here working every day to get back on radio. As I’ve written many times, the Republicans have used radio to pump up emotion and GOTV. In case you haven’t noticed, radio works. Just ask Karl Rove, who has worked and worked and worked it. It’s about getting control of all the little stations in all the little towns so that you can influence all those people. The host gets to know his/her audience, they trust him/her, so when this host tells them to vote for Right Wing Randy/Roxanne, they likely will. After all, they’ve built up a trust. Republicans will do anything to get ratings, which includes leaving the facts out and plying their audience with daily doses of emotion instead. Democrats are still behind in radio, trying to reinvent the wheel instead of using their donor base to help hosts who could hold their own. Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?
​

As I noted in Ms Marsh’s comments, this is an issue that redounds to free markets and free speech, and should be as much a liberal concern (in the classical sense) as it is a “conservative” concern. Just as I find McCain-Feingold and progressive-enforced “free speech” zones in the modern academy completely odious, I find attempts by government to define political “fairness” equally open to cynical manipulation—and for that reason alone, never mind the dubiousness of its Constitutionality—I think it a horrific idea. And I don’t even listen to Hannity or Limbaugh.

Listen to Rep Maurice Hinchey, one of the supporters of this return to enforced “fairness”:

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because “neo-fascist” and “neo-con” talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the “illegal” war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the “right-wing oriented media” were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Hinchey, chairman of the “Future of American Media Caucus” in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the “corporate media.”
​

Well, I can certainly see why progressives would like people like Hinchey deciding what it is we should be listening to, their being so disinterested and all—though I find it striking that Hinchey has just admitted that one of the big reasons for the success of rightwing radio is that it’s being listened to incessantly by Democratic legislators. Else, how to account for so many of them voting to give the President the authority to go to war?

Gulled by Michael Savage. Who knew?

Or maybe I’m just being cynical. After all, maybe it’s just the slackjawed proles who, in between sucks on the duelling straws of their beer helmets, lap up the Neo-Con lies. And so what Hinchey is pushing for is what every good progressive pushes for: the chance to save us from ourselves by annointing themselves our official intellectual protectorate. You know, just so long as when we thank them we don’t try to shake their hands.

They hate it when we get all that Jesus stuff on them.

Not surprisingly, the meeting attended by Hinchey, et al, was heavily funded by George Soros—the very quintessence of “fairness” and non-partisan political discourse. And really, who doesn’t want the real King George using his money and influence to buy legislation and pull the strings of US political media just as surely as he’s been known to manipulate foreign currencies? After all, it’s not like he’s Jack Abramoff...

 

[eots]

I don't think the powers that be are interested in silencing the controlled media
they thrive off the false left / right paradigm. it is independent media like Alex Jones they wish to silence

 

[red states rule]

Liberals say they want to give people choice - as long as the people choose correctly

People choose to listen to Rush, Sean, and O'Reilly and that is what pises off liberals. Air America was a miserable failure and the libs cannot accept the fact people decided not to listen to a liberal radio network

Fox News destroys CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News and libs go nuts when they see the viewership numbers. For example, O'Reilly's 11:00 PM repeat usually has twice as many viewers as the little known program on CNN

 

[Deornwulf]

Let me get this straight - The Democrats are going to control the information outlets so that I can get the "proper" view of the actions of the so-called "Nazi" regime Bush has put into place with the help of talk radio?

....right.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let me get this straight - The Democrats are going to control the information outlets so that I can get the "proper" view of the actions of the so-called "Nazi" regime Bush has put into place with the help of talk radio?

....right.

Exactly...

Keep in mind liberal outlets dont need balance.

 

[CockySOB]

Exactly...

Keep in mind liberal outlets dont need balance.

That brings up an interesting question. Did Air America have any conservative shows? If so, what was the proportion of liberal shows to conservative shows? And whose definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" is to be used? Will htose definitions change as society's usage changes?

Damn, that's a can of worms for the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and I haven't but scratched the surface.