BiggusPrimus said:
For the first time, President Bush has come out in opposition to the "Fairness Doctrine"-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080311-3.html
This might not seem like a big deal to many, but Bush has never explicitely mentioned the Doctrine during his entire tenure in office. Up until this point any discussion of the issue by Federal elected officials has been confined to Congress, the group most likely to manipulate the law for it's own benefit. Bush's opposition means the issue is effectively dead until next year at the earliest.
More importantly, I think it starts the clock on efforts to make sure it
never returns. If opponents can prevent it's re-imposition during the next president's first term it's likely that the combination of evolving technology (wireless broadband and the "celestial radio") and court precedent will keep the FD from ever being brought back.
In effect, if we can just keep the beast in it's coffin until 2012 it won't be able to rise from the dead ever again.
Your friend forever,
Biggus
Biggus sweetie...For the umpteenth time, here is my posting on the subject from August 14, 2007:
From the recent report by the Center for American Progress on talk radio disparity:
From a regulatory perspective, the
Fairness Doctrine was never formally
repealed. The FCC did announce in
1987 that it would no longer enforce
certain regulations under the umbrella
of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989
a circuit court upheld the FCC decision.
The Supreme Court, however, has
never overruled the cases that authorized
the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness
Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that
the FCC has the authority to enforce it
again—thus it technically would not be
considered repealed.
Moreover, the original Communications
Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC
to require “reasonable access to or to
permit purchase of reasonable amounts
of time” by a legally qualified candidate
for federal elective office, and equal
opportunities must be afforded all other
candidates for that office.
These obligations
come from the same set of concerns
from which the Fairness Doctrine arose.
And Section 315 of the Communications
Act still requires commercial broadcasters
“to operate in the public interest and
to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of confl icting views of issues
of public importance.”
Thus, the public obligations inherent in
the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence
and operative, at least on paper. More
important, the Fairness Doctrine was
never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure
the fair discussion of important issues.
The Fairness Doctrine was most effective
as part of a regulatory structure that
limited license terms to three years, subjected
broadcasters to license challenges
through comparative hearings, required
notice to the local community that licenses
were going to expire, and empowered
the local community through a process
of interviewing a variety of local leaders.
Added to this regulatory structure was
the cooperation of the broadcast industry
through the National Association of
Broadcasters Code of Conduct.
Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
will do little to address the gap
between conservative and progressive
talk unless the underlying elements of
the public trustee doctrine are enforced,
in particular, the requirements of local
accountability and the reasonable airing
of important matters. The key principle
here is not shutting down one perspective
or another—it is making sure that communities
are informed about a range of
local and national public affairs.
In testimony recently before Congressional Democrats, Jones Radio Networks' Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller emphasized that what is at issue is not the Fairness Doctrine, but fairness.
Stephanie does not want to silence the likes of Rush, Sean, Savage and O'Reilly. It would leave Stephanie with nothing to say during the first hour of her own show.
By the way, only Big Eddie and Steph were invited to testify.
