Democrat Accuses Jay Leno of Bias

[Stephanie]

Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006 11:03 p.m. EDT
Democrat Accuses Jay Leno of Bias

A California congressman lodged a federal complaint Tuesday against "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," for featuring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as a guest one month before the election while snubbing his Democratic opponent.


U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles, argues in a Federal Communications Commission complaint that the NBC program is violating the equal time provision of the Federal Communications Act.


Schwarzenegger is to appear Wednesday on the talk show.


His opponent, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, asked to appear on the show but had not received a response by Tuesday afternoon, said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Angelides' campaign.


A "Tonight Show" spokeswoman confirmed the Republican governor's appearance but did not respond to repeated requests for comment.


"Use of the broadcast spectrum is granted as a public trust," Becerra wrote in the complaint filed on Angelides' behalf. "It is not to be used to favor certain candidates."

Federal rules require broadcast stations to give equal time to candidates who appear on the air, although the rules do not apply to news programs, interview shows and documentaries in which the candidate is not the sole focus.


An FCC spokeswoman said she could not comment because she had not yet seen a formal complaint.


The equal time question came up during the 2003 gubernatorial recall election, when Schwarzenegger declared his candidacy on Leno's show in a surprise announcement.


Not long afterward, the "Tonight Show" invited all 135 recall candidates to appear, although they were hardly given equal time with Schwarzenegger. Instead, they were given 10 seconds to shout their ideas, all at the same time.

Television stations also stopped airing Schwarzenegger's movies after he declared his candidacy to avoid violating the equal time provision.

In his letter to the FCC, Becerra said the "Tonight Show's" decision to give the recall candidates air time in 2003 demonstrates that the show felt it was liable under the equal time provision.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/10/230636.shtml?s=ic

 

[insein]

once again thank you John McCain for Campaign Finance Reform and all the Constitutional Bliss it brought us.

 

[Abbey Normal]

When I saw this thread title, I thought it was a joke. Leno anti-Dem? He spends about half his monologue ridiculing Bush every night.

 

[Stephanie]

When I saw this thread title, I thought it was a joke. Leno anti-Dem? He spends about half his monologue ridiculing Bush every night.

I knooooooowwwwwwwwwww.... Can you believe it....

but I felt a little more chill run up my spine.....
remember that thing called the fairness doctrine, I think that's it???
Call me Miss paranoid........????????

 

[insein]

The Fairness Doctrine

- A piece of unconstitutional legislature that requires any thought on television, radio and probably internet if reenacted to speak about the liberal ideology in a positive light or risk losing broadcast license, radio frequency license, internet provider agreement.

Basically think Soviet Union in America and you have the fairness doctrine.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

When I saw this thread title, I thought it was a joke. Leno anti-Dem? He spends about half his monologue ridiculing Bush every night.

In all fairness, Leno did the same thing to Clinton. Leno is pretty apolitical. He is an equal oppurtunity jokester. Sometimes he is even funny. Not that often though.

 

[Avatar4321]

once again thank you John McCain for Campaign Finance Reform and all the Constitutional Bliss it brought us.

Actually, this has nothing to do with Senator McCain. This rule has been around forever, the FCC created the Fairness doctrine to enforce this provision back in the 50s. Reagan repealed the doctrine, but Democrats are quite open in wanting to enforce more "balance" in the media. IE get them free advertisements

 

[Abbey Normal]

In all fairness, Leno did the same thing to Clinton. Leno is pretty apolitical. He is an equal oppurtunity jokester. Sometimes he is even funny. Not that often though.

You are right. He is a comedic opportunist. The most important thing for him is to get the laughs. To say that he is anti-Dem is preposterous.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Actually, this has nothing to do with Senator McCain. This rule has been around forever, the FCC created the Fairness doctrine to enforce this provision back in the 50s. Reagan repealed the doctrine, but Democrats are quite open in wanting to enforce more "balance" in the media. IE get them free advertisements

Great.

 

[Eightball]

When I saw this thread title, I thought it was a joke. Leno anti-Dem? He spends about half his monologue ridiculing Bush every night.

Maybe, just maybe, Leno will wake up and the scales will fall off his eyes and he'll start to be a convert to the other-side.

If these Demo's keep up this infantile stuff, they will even alienate their own base. At least I would think that would happen, but maybe their base is too far gone to see a way out of their plight(enslavement).

 

[jillian]

The Fairness Doctrine

- A piece of unconstitutional legislature that requires any thought on television, radio and probably internet if reenacted to speak about the liberal ideology in a positive light or risk losing broadcast license, radio frequency license, internet provider agreement.

Basically think Soviet Union in America and you have the fairness doctrine.

How on earth is it unconstitutional for media to have to give equal time?

Please site the Supreme Court case which makes such a ruling.

 

[Avatar4321]

How on earth is it unconstitutional for media to have to give equal time?

Please site the Supreme Court case which makes such a ruling.

I would think you of all people should know what the First Amendment says.

Just so you know, its the Constitution, not the Supreme Court that determines what is unconstitutional.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Just so you know, its the Constitution, not the Supreme Court that determines what is unconstitutional.

Who decides if something is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the Constituion, therefore having the sole discretion of declaring a law unconstitutional. Didn't you pay attention in Civics?

 

[jillian]

I would think you of all people should know what the First Amendment says.

Yup... and what it DOESN'T say is that anyone is entitled to free air time.... since that's what we're really talking about.

Just so you know, its the Constitution, not the Supreme Court that determines what is unconstitutional.

No... the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. The words mean only as little or as much as the Court says it does.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Yup... and what it DOESN'T say is that anyone is entitled to free air time.... since that's what we're really talking about.

He is a "guest." I'm pretty sure that the government shouldn't have any say as to who Jay Leno has on his show. That is an open door to censorship.

 

[jillian]

He is a "guest." I'm pretty sure that the government shouldn't have any say as to who Jay Leno has on his show. That is an open door to censorship.

I understand your point. But media s required to give equal time to candidates, particularly close to election time. Do you think someone should be allowed to sway an election by giving one person air time and denying air time to his or her opponent?

 

[insein]

I understand your point. But media s required to give equal time to candidates, particularly close to election time. Do you think someone should be allowed to sway an election by giving one person air time and denying air time to his or her opponent?

He's a guest on a TV show. WTF does it have to do with Equal anything.

All this fairness bullcrap is ridiculous. It amounts to "free" airtime for those that don't wish to pay for it. If a political candidate paid to appear on a TV show and his opponent doesnt wish to pay to appear on the same show, is it fair that, in your view, the opponent would get to go on for free just to get equal airtime?

Fairness doctrine reeks of censorship and socialism. I want no part of it. Schwarzenegger is an actor and a public figure as well as a politician. Arnold is interesting to certain people. Can Jay Leno not bring an interesting interview on his show because he happens to be a politician without bringing on a guy he's never met and would make for a boring interview? Does Jay have to suffer a bad program with bad ratings in order to give "fair" time to people he doesnt want to talk to?

It'd be the same for Liberals. Does Al Franken have to bring on George Bush to give him fair time because he also brought on John Kerry to speak to a primarily liberal audience? Franken would lose the 5 people that were listening to him because they dont want to hear Bush speak.

Enough with the "Fairness" Censorship.

 

[Avatar4321]

Enough with the "Fairness" Censorship.

It was exactly because of self censorship that the FCC repealed the fairness Doctrine.

Oh and the first think a Democrat congress is going to try to do is legislate the Fairness Doctrine to force Conservative talk off the air. Its not a coincidence that the Rush Limbaugh show was on the air a year after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the FCC. Nor is it difficult to understand why Radio was dying before hand. Nor is it difficult to see what the consequences of forcing all broadcast media to give air time to respond to anything that is aired, especially for free.

And who gives the government the right to determine how to "balance" the media? Its too subjective. Our founders would be rolling around in their grave is the government attempts to overburden peoples rights to free speech and limit what the media can say.

 

[jillian]

It was exactly because of self censorship that the FCC repealed the fairness Doctrine.

Oh and the first think a Democrat congress is going to try to do is legislate the Fairness Doctrine to force Conservative talk off the air. Its not a coincidence that the Rush Limbaugh show was on the air a year after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the FCC. Nor is it difficult to understand why Radio was dying before hand. Nor is it difficult to see what the consequences of forcing all broadcast media to give air time to respond to anything that is aired, especially for free.

And who gives the government the right to determine how to "balance" the media? Its too subjective. Our founders would be rolling around in their grave is the government attempts to overburden peoples rights to free speech and limit what the media can say.

First of all, the Supreme Court has already held the Fairness Doctrine Constitutional. So your persistence in saying it is a Constitutional issue or that government can somehow not require it ... is patently incorrect.

And Self-censorship had nothing to do with the Republican's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine...

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC [1] (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers (and the court, five years later, would unanimously overturn a Florida statute on newspapers), the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the scarcity of radio stations. Critics of the Red Lion decision have pointed out that most markets then and now are served by a greater number of radio stations than newspapers.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to intimidate and silence political opposition. Although the Doctrine was rarely enforced, many radio broadcasters believed it had a "chilling effect" on their broadcasting, forcing them to avoid any commentary that could be deemed critical or unfair by powerful interests.[citation needed]

The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in its Syracuse Peace Council decision which was upheld. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.

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

 

[insein]

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to intimidate and silence political opposition. Although the Doctrine was rarely enforced, many radio broadcasters believed it had a "chilling effect" on their broadcasting, forcing them to avoid any commentary that could be deemed critical or unfair by powerful interests.[citation needed]

That right there sums up the Fairness Doctrine. The parting Shot about Limbaugh is the exact reason the Fairness doctrine was implemented. Opposing POV's were to be squashed. It wasnt about giving fair airtime to the opposition. They knew that in an arena of public opinion, their ideas could lose. So the point was to force opposing views off the air for failure to put the contrarian view against it. So just shut down the source instead of "having a debate" as so many liberals love to say. Having a debate is the last thing they want. Shutting up opposing POV's is the goal of liberalism. Sounds quite familiar. Somewhere in russia i believe.