Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[Johnny Morgan]

Part of a democracy is a fair and balanced exchange of ideas and opinions that we proudly say to other nations that we are. We should get back to living it.

Is a part of democracy having the government REQUIRE that a fair and balanced exchange of ideas and opinions occurs?

Does democracy endorse governmental force?

And, please explain to me the logic and reasoning behind applying this Fairness Doctrine (either in its old or in its new format) ONLY to talk and opinion on issues, and not on ALL programming aspects.

Also, where is the line drawn? Whose opinions need to be fairly represented on an issue? Does a new Fairness Doctrine require an open invitation to all sides? An opportunity to respond? To whom is that extended? How much time do they get? Fairness Doctrine of old wasn't equal time--which is limited solely to official candidates for federal office. Does the new Fairness Doctrine make it equal time for all? Equal time just for some? How do you determine who gets what time?

Is it applicable just to have a host say X and then explain that some people think Y? May the host state his preference for X? May he pursuade towards X, while pointing out the deficiencies in Y? Or must he merely state that X and Y exist, and that's all he can say?

Does it apply to sports talk programming? Music?

These are unanswered questions that have been religiously avoided by almost EVERY proponent of a new Fairness Doctrine. they're much more comfortable stating that the lack of one is a problem, without explaining any solution or application of a new one.

So, we're all ears--anyone who wants a new FD, tell us what it will entail. And if you plan to limit it in certain ways, you better have a damn good explanation for the UNFAIRNESS of that.

 

[SirRoxalot]

"Fairness"

As one pointed out if you want to have only one opinion without a fair discussion,then resort to a newspaper's editorial page and become a columnist.

If you don't like the opinions expressed on the radio, gather together your supporters and buy some airtime. If you have enough supporters, buy a radio station. If you get enough listeners to support your point of view, you'll end up on radio stations all over the country - just like Windbag Limbaugh.

Fairness is all about equal OPPORTUNITY. You have every opportunity to purchase airtime, or radio stations, or radio groups. They're for sale in virtually every market, every day. IF your programming is compelling, or entertaining, and of interest to as few as 10% of the listeners, YOU WILL BE A HUGE HIT. Heck, if you get a 3 share in most markets - not a 3 rating, but 3% of those listening to the radio - you'll likely be on the air for as long as you wish IF you have sponsors that want to appeal to your audience.

Life isn't fair. Stop whining, roll up your sleeves, convince some backers to pony up, and put together product that will appeal to an audience. There are plenty of radio stations looking for content - not to mention Internet streams, podcasts, infomercials, and all kinds of other means to distribute your content.

The reason that the Fairness doctrine went away in the first place is because the FCC realized that it would not stand up to a Supreme Court challenge. There is no "fair" way to determine "fairness". Even the "Equal Time" provision for candidates was almost unenforceable because of the varied state and local laws for determining who was an actual candidate. It ended up in NO discussion because broadcasters preferred to avoid allowing candidates to any airtime if it meant that they'd have to give up equal airtime to several other candidates for the same office - whether they were viable candidates or not.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

The reason that the Fairness doctrine went away in the first place is because the FCC realized that it would not stand up to a Supreme Court challenge.

I think you may mean renewed Supreme Court challenge. It was upheld once before, in Red Lion. It was partly the same court in 1987.

Even the "Equal Time" provision for candidates was almost unenforceable because of the varied state and local laws for determining who was an actual candidate.

Application as a candidate for federal office is the standard. That's easy to determine.

It ended up in NO discussion because broadcasters preferred to avoid allowing candidates to any airtime if it meant that they'd have to give up equal airtime to several other candidates for the same office - whether they were viable candidates or not.

That's right. The stations were free to offer ad time, at lowest unit rate, to all the candidates, but equal time out of their broadcast day makes zero business sense if they have to offer substantially the same to Joe Schmo, Silly party candidate for the 13th Congressional District.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

You overlook one thing; Radio,and Televison broadcasting WAS NEVER created nor intended to be exclusively for private profit. It was and at last look at the rules, created "To serve the public interest".NOT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF ANY LARGE OWNERSHIP GROUP OR A PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS BUSINESS ACCOUNT. It appears the conservative talk show blowhards are very afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard without hanging up on them,interupting them or shouting them down. What a pity.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Oh, and the liberal talk show blowhards are SO much "fairer" about hanging up on people, interrupting them, or shouting them down. Please.

There's a very simple answer to the problem of talk show hosts who spout views that you don't approve of. TURN THEM OFF. There's a very simple way to support talk show hosts who spout views that you do approve of. TURN THEM ON.

If you can't find talk show hosts who support your views, become a talk show host. Get enough others who support your views to give you enough cash to buy some airtime. Then you can hang up on people, interrupt them, or shout them down.

There are no rules preventing broadcast companies from making a private profit. If the public isn't interested in their products, they won't listen, and there will be no profit.

I'm much more comfortable allowing public support - i.e. listening - determine who should have access to espouse their views on the airwaves than having a government agency dictate "fairness". As long as the content is legal - i.e. not indecent or profane - market economics works for me.

Since you don't agree with the "conservative talk show blowhards", there must be sufficient outlets for opposing opinions to allow you make that value judgement.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Did I deny Liberal talk hosts do the same? Nope. There are fewer of them, not because of the listenership,but advertisers and you know it. The basic line is, those who are opposed to the fairness doctrine returning are afraid of some actually being allowed to express an opposing view point on the same level and the listeners are actually hearing some facts instead of an embellished opinion bordering on lies. "so it goes"

 

[gr8oldies]

Advertisers are interested in reaching consumers, period. So far there are no liberal hosts who are bringing in sufficient audience to interest advertisers.

 

[TheRover]

Newspapers are privately owned,the radio frequencies are owned by the citizens of this country and they have a right to have access to them,no matter whose license occupies it. Part of a democracy is a fair and balanced exchange of ideas and opinions that we proudly say to other nations that we are. We should get back to living it.

I'd like to think that my local FM Rock station was "Fair & Balanced" . . .

Consultants and advertisers have access . . . .

Big Business Corporate Radio Stations server Big Business.

AND, the public's input on content is hardly representative.

Big Busines and Government . . . They are about the same now...

Whether it's the govt. or big business..... the little guy gets cr@pped on every time !

 

[stench]

The repeal allowed stations to take political positions and not be punished for it---there was money to be made in right wing rhetoric and someone made sure that the cash register rung.

The bigger change though IMHO is when the corporations decided that Journalism needed to be Entertainment and the measuring stick became ratings instead of integrity--The fall of CBS News is a testament to that.

Here is what has transpired without the Public's knowledge

1. A few people control the flow of information
2. Opposing viewpoints on issues of Public Interest do not need to be heard
3. Local has been redefined to meet the needs of the few instead of the many
4. Your Privacy is no longer protected.

The following is from Wikipedia.

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

The doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987. Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to deny a forum for political opposition.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (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, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.

Under Mark S. Fowler the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the Reagan administration influenced FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had "never made the doctrine a binding requirement." In August 1987, the Commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in its Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC insisted that 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 perceived to be unconstitutional.

In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[gr8oldies]

A few people controlling the flow of information...I'd argue that we have more information sources than ever. We had the New York Times and Wasington Post setting the national agenda and CBS, NBC and ABC following suit back in the 50s and 60s. That was pretty close to a monopoly on national news. Not only that, one could only find news coverage at certain times of the day.

 

[4dude]

I think this doctrine is long gone

 

[radioplayer]

Well, well well.....now we have yet another big mouth talk show yacker (IMUS) who's gotten his big head in trouble....AGAIN. The Fairness Doctrine would not only require a opposite point of view, but it would have deflated this personality's head a LONG TIME AGO....!

Are you die-hard speak "whatever" you want to folks going to weigh in and tell us how much better broadcasting has become and how much better informed the public is because we now have so many more "outlets" by which to choose from....?

This is going to be entertaining to read....

 

[Johnny Morgan]

The alternative outlets argument need only one fact to support it here:

Imus went on Al Sharpton's radio show.

Remember, if the Fairness Doctrine was around, Rev. Al would be required to air the opposite point of view (viz., the Imus position) anyway.

You'd have Imus giving the Sharpton position...and Sharpton giving the Imus position, each on separate radio stations.

So, explain to me exactly what replication of material across multiple stations adds to the discussion?

 

[radioplayer]

You missed my point, but that's okay. It was that these guys currently can say pretty much "whatever they want" therefore, we have these big Mega stars today that have little accountability. The Imus story is interesting in that finally there's something coming back to him in terms of public outrage and now, loss of his airtime on CNBC.

If one was subject to opposite points of view, they would have to back up their spats and at the same time, could not get away with nearly as much as Rush, Imus and many others currently do.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Your Real Objection?

You missed my point, but that's okay. It was that these guys currently can say pretty much "whatever they want" therefore, we have these big Mega stars today that have little accountability. The Imus story is interesting in that finally there's something coming back to him in terms of public outrage and now, loss of his airtime on CNBC.

If one was subject to opposite points of view, they would have to back up their spats and at the same time, could not get away with nearly as much as Rush, Imus and many others currently do.

Speaking of missing the point...

Don't Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Randi Rhodes, and a host of others with "opposite points of view" have their own radio shows? Don't they have "spats(?)" that are based on dubious contentions, and don't they get away with every bit as much as Rush, Imus, and many others currently do?

What Mr. Morgan is saying is that there is no lack of outlets for varying viewpoints. There isn't even a real lack of radio outlets for varying viewpoints. The biggest difference is in ratings, and that's apparently what you object to.

 

[gr8oldies]

How exactly would a FD have prevented Imus from saying "Nappy Headed Hos"?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

If one was subject to opposite points of view, they would have to back up their spats and at the same time, could not get away with nearly as much as Rush, Imus and many others currently do.

How would a Fairness Doctrine make them back up their spats? All they would have to do is present the opposing argument--it doesn't even need to BE by another person.

Don Imus was doing the same schtick 30 years ago...WHEN THERE WAS A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

I'm failing to see the point here: if the argument is that the Fairness Doctrine would present the opposing viewpoint, I second gr8oldies: how would the FD prevent Imus from making this statement at all?

Even under a new, improved FD, "nappy headed hos" could still be said--Imus would just have to present some viewpoint saying that these ladies aren't nappy headed hos.

And if it really is "all about the words" (as we've heard countless activists, media commentators, and even the Rutgers' coach say), what would the FD do to prevent the race-based reaction and blood-letting that has transpired since? Does the fact that Imus had some point contra his take away the sting these ladies apparently felt from these words?

I think you're being led astray by whoever is consulting you on what the Fairness Doctrine did, and what a new one would purport to do.

And, again, if it's really *all about the words* that were spoken, how would a Fairness Doctrine that merely presents opposing viewpoints stop the words already flaoting around in space?

 

[SirRoxalot]

"Nevermind!"

How exactly would a FD have prevented Imus from saying "Nappy Headed Hos"?

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have prevented the statement, but a representative of the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team would have been allowed to call Imus a "stringy-headed radio ho" the next day. Equal time would have been allowed for response, which would have gotting this whole thing over with a lot quicker that the current process.

You know, maybe I'm beginning to swing to the other side. If only we could figure out how to rate the people who "represent the opposition" to make sure that they're as effective as the original host. Apparently some of the people advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine weren't around when Gilda Radner did her "Emily Litella" responses as required by The Fairness Doctrine in its heyday.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

but a representative of the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team would have been allowed to call Imus a "stringy-headed radio ho" the next day. Equal time would have been allowed for response, which would have gotting this whole thing over with a lot quicker that the current process.

Fairness Doctrine does not equal Equal Time.

All Imus would have to do is present the opposing argument or viewpoint. He doesn't have to have a representative of Rutgers on his show--he could have made the argument himself, or had McCord do so, or some producer, or a caller.

All the old, expired FD did was require that the opposing side was represented in the presentation. It NEVER was a free-entry to the air, nor was it an equal time provision.

But it doesn't change the fact that the activists now seeking Imus's head are saying that it's the words themselves that are the problem (some folks on Radio-Info are talking about Imus being a racist, which is a new spin--intent behind the words. But Imus is still a "racist" (allegedly) when reporting ball scores, so it still comes down to the words said.). If it really is the *words* that are the problem, a post-speech remedy of "fairness" is not going to fix the problem already spoken.

And this is all academic because the Fairness Doctrine applied ONLY to discussions of controversial issues of public importance.

Imus calling the Rutgers' women's basketball team "nappy headed hos" is not a discussion of controversial issues of public importance.

What WOULD be governed by the Fairness Doctrine would be the discussion we're having now--whether Imus should be fired, have to apologize, the effect of the comment on race relations, hypocrisy of Sharpton, et al., etc.

It wasn't subject to the FD when he said it, but the commentary now would be.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Putting the Government In Charge

So, under the old Fairness Doctrine, we have an FCC that has to determine:

1) What issues are "controversial issues of public importance".

2) Exactly what viewpoint is an "opposing argument or viewpoint".

The old Fairness Doctrine had no regulation regarding the effectiveness of the spokesperson who presented the allegedly "opposing argument or viewpoint". The opposition speaker was rarely a broadcaster, and usually read a prepared statement poorly. Is that fair?

The Fairness Doctrine went away because it was unwieldy at best, and prevented serious discussion at worst.