Fairness doctrine

[kaufcom]

Broadcaster's no more "pander" to reactionaries when they run conservative talk shows than they "pander" to rednecks when they broadcast country music.

Bad analogy. Music programming is a different animal than political talk programming. The FCC has never been asked to provide "equal time" for music programming.

A return of the Fairness Doctrine will effectively kill almost all spoken word radio programming, with the possible exception of sports talk.

It didn't kill it before. What makes you think it will kill it now?

The handful of controversial talk show hosts from back in the days of the old Fairness Doctrine survived mostly because there were few complaints to the FCC about them, and the FCC wasn't all that proactive in enforcing the Doctrine. They tended to only investigate and take action if they received complaints.

This doesn't make any sense. First you say there were "few complaints", then you say that the "FCC wasn't all that proactive," then you say that the FCC only took action "if they received complaints." How about providing some examples, rather than just bloviating.

there is no real political discussion in newspapers, and there hasn't been any real discussion in newspapers since Gutenberg invented movable type.

What are you talking about. Do you read more than the funnies, obituaries, and style section? There is a section of the of the newspaper that features editorials, then their letters to the editor, and the so-called "op ed" section which usually contains four or five columnists who are expressing political views.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

The FCC has never been asked to provide "equal time" for music programming.

Doesn't mean they can't, Fairness Doctrine or not. The FCC power to regulate, encompassed in Red Lion and Pacifica, is very far reaching. I'm of the opinion that if it was ever proposed, especially under a "new" Fairness Doctrine, that formats could be regulated and formats threatened with extinction could be saved by the FCC stepping in and saying "there's a need for that service".

There's nothing that says the Fairness Doctrine must be limited solely to political or public issues.

 

[kaufcom]

Doesn't mean they can't, Fairness Doctrine or not. The FCC power to regulate, encompassed in Red Lion and Pacifica, is very far reaching. I'm of the opinion that if it was ever proposed, especially under a "new" Fairness Doctrine, that formats could be regulated and formats threatened with extinction could be saved by the FCC stepping in and saying "there's a need for that service".

There's nothing that says the Fairness Doctrine must be limited solely to political or public issues.

The FD was law of land for 40 years. Give me one example of how it was ever used to regulate music programming? If you want to stay in the theoretical area let me propose a new topic. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

The FD was law of land for 40 years. Give me one example of how it was ever used to regulate music programming?

I never said it was. But the legal basis behind the Fairness Doctrine--stated by the Supreme Court, no less--in Red Lion supports the contention that the FCC can regulate radio formats if it chose to do so. If it can regulate the presentation of viewpoints (which is what the Fairness Doctrine did and would do in a proposed new version), it very well can regulate the avenues for the presentation of those views (those avenues being formats).

Remember, as late as the waning 1970s, the FCC stepped in and prevented format changes and license transfers/sales if the result would be a loss of a programming service to a segment of the community. It's one reason why ethnic stations hung around so long on bigger FM signals in major markets.

 

[kaufcom]

Remember, as late as the waning 1970s, the FCC stepped in and prevented format changes and license transfers/sales if the result would be a loss of a programming service to a segment of the community. It's one reason why ethnic stations hung around so long on bigger FM signals in major markets.

This had nothing to do with the FD. Findings based on the FD were initiated after a complaint was generated, license transfer involve other issues e.g. minority ownership, local programming coverage.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Bad analogy. Music programming is a different animal than political talk programming. The FCC has never been asked to provide "equal time" for music programming.

So? I simply pointed out, accurately, that all radio programming is currently directed at specific market niches, not at general mass audiences. Whether it is music aimed at fans of a specific genre of music, or political talk aimed at those who share a common political point of view, the programming is specifically focused at a niche in the market. That point was about market targeting, nothing more and nothing less. And that niche targeting will not change regardless of whether the Fairness Doctrine is re-introduced or not.

It didn't kill it before. What makes you think it will kill it now?

As I explained, before there weren't so many organized pressure groups and political action committees who would file complaints with the FCC. People have learned that it is far more effective to misuse the courts and regulatory agencies to achieve a political goal than it is to work on Congress. It takes a great deal of work to get a majority in Congress to pass a law. It only takes careful shopping for a sympathetic judge to get a law negated through the courts.

After all, before the Fairness Doctrine was removed, America wasn't blessed with the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.

There is a section of the of the newspaper that features editorials, then their letters to the editor, and the so-called "op ed" section which usually contains four or five columnists who are expressing political views.

"Expressing political views" is not the same as "discussing". For there to be "discussion", there must be a back and forth exchange of views, often conflicting views. A dozen column inches of carefully screened and selected letters to the editor, and some space giving to syndicated columnists who are to the print media what Rush, Franken, and the rest are to radio is not "discussion".

Read this next bit carefully. "Discussion" and "expression" are two different words, with two different meanings. The fact that political opinions are expressed in a given medium does not mean that they are being discussed in that medium.

This had nothing to do with the FD.

But it had everything to do with the power of the FCC to grant, renew, and transfer station licenses. The old Fairness Doctrine said what it said. If there is a new Fairness Doctrine written, it will say what it will say. And as Mr. Morgan points out, the courts have given the FCC the power, through the Red Lion and Pacifica rulings, to include many new things in a new Fairness Doctrine that wasn't in the old Fairness Doctrine. Therefore, no arguments of yours about what the old Fairness Doctrine did or didn't say, or how it was or wasn't enforced, means diddly-squat regarding what a new Fairness Doctrine will or won't say, or how a new Fairness Doctrine will or won't be enforced.

BTW, the fact that the law regarding the FCC's power to include anything they want to include in a new Fairness Doctrine does not come from a law passed by Congress, but rather a decision of the courts, is exactly what I was talking about regarding how 21st Century pressure groups will use the courts to make any new Fairness Doctrine a far bigger pain in the posterior to broadcasters than the old one was.

Are you planning going to go back to counting how many times anyone posts anything again? Have you nothing better to do with your time?

 

[evnlee]

Doesn't mean they can't, Fairness Doctrine or not. The FCC power to regulate, encompassed in Red Lion and Pacifica, is very far reaching. I'm of the opinion that if it was ever proposed, especially under a "new" Fairness Doctrine, that formats could be regulated and formats threatened with extinction could be saved by the FCC stepping in and saying "there's a need for that service".

There's nothing that says the Fairness Doctrine must be limited solely to political or public issues.

The FD was law of land for 40 years. Give me one example of how it was ever used to regulate music programming? If you want to stay in the theoretical area let me propose a new topic. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

sigh.

How many times are you going to ask for 'one example', and then dismiss it when it is provided?

Anyone remember when 'one example' of how the FD restricted 'free speech' in news reporting, and I provided said example in the words of none other then DAN RATHER?!

Anyone care to recall how that was answered?

Hey, Baroosk. Give me 'one example' where you have accepted proof when you asked for it. :

 

[AKLes]

Some of us are just living for the day when stations airing music that denigrates women, glorifies killing police and sanctifying gang violence will be forced to balance all that hate. Who knows; Jimmy Swaggart might be able to make a comeback!

I, too, can remember the days of FCC regulation of formats when sales of stations that were playing classical music were thwarted because the prospective new owners proposed to abandon the format.

Yup.

An FCC that can give you everything can take away everything!

For a model, see Canada.

Mandated French language formats
Mandated Canadian (music) content

Think of it here! Mandated Spanish-language formats. Mandated Mandarin formats (in selected markets). Mandated Athiest programming to balance Christian programming and mandated Islamic programming to balance.......

Mention Global Warming and a group will spring up professing a belief in Global Cooling if only in order to be able to sue.

Silly? Consider those lawyers who run around measuring the height of toilets to file lawsuits in which there is no plaintiff other than the law firm.

We NEED a Fairness Doctrine! It'll keep so many lawyers busy they won't have time to run for congress!

 

[country24]

Why do I keep seeing "Fairness Doctrine" and "Equal Time" discussed as if they were the same thing? The "Fairnes Doctrine" simply stated that if a controversial subject were discussed, some time must be devoted to both sides. Not equal time but some time. The "Equal Time" law, which is still in effect, applies only to candidates for public office, not to issues, opinions or even endoresment of candidates.

Or is everyone just assuming that if the Democrats get back in power they will write a new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" that will allow them to harass statons that program consertative talks shows and pretend that it's the same "Fairness Doctrine" we used to have?

And by the way, the reason the "Fairness Doctrine" didn't stiffle talk shows when it was in effect is that fortunately it was never enforced, except for the Red Lion case. I'm afraid we wouldn't be so lucky if it is ever resurrected and revised the way the Democrats are contemplating.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Why do I keep seeing "Fairness Doctrine" and "Equal Time" discussed as if they were the same thing?

Because the old Fairness Doctrine was one thing. It said what it said. But this is about the proposals for a new Fairness Doctrine. Didn't you read what I wrote in my earlier post?

Or is everyone just assuming that if the Democrats get back in power they will write a new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" that will allow them to harass statons that program consertative talks shows and pretend that it's the same "Fairness Doctrine" we used to have?

It's more than an assumption. Based on what the most outspoken proponents of a new, revised Fairness Doctrine have said they'd like to see included, it is a fair bet that if the nation has a new, revised Fairness Doctrine inflicted on it, it will be far more draconian and repressive than its predecessor, and it will be enforced with far more vigor than its predecessor was. But don't expect anyone to pretend that the new Fairness Doctrine is the same as the old Fairness Doctrine. Those who want to ram that thing through will loudly and proudly proclaim how they've made a newer, better Fairness Doctrine. After all, those who advocate the new Fairness Doctrine are the same people who support politically correct doublespeak. They'll proclaim that repression is freedom, defeat is victory, and black is white. That is, after all, what they do best.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

This had nothing to do with the FD.

I never said it did. I simply made the argument that if the Fairness Doctrine was ever re-established (and the way it's being bandied about by politicos, I assume it would be statutory rather than regulatory), the same legal-First Amendment basis for it would also favor a return to the FCC's regulation of formats themselves.

Don't look too deep or make an argument about somethin I didn't say. I'm talking legally, nothing else.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

BTW, the fact that the law regarding the FCC's power to include anything they want to include in a new Fairness Doctrine does not come from a law passed by Congress, but rather a decision of the courts,

Actually it does come from a law passed by Congress: it's all rooted in the 1934 Communications Act, which granted a wide array of regulatory powers to the FCC. As part of that regulatory power, the FCC enacted the Fairness Doctrine.

All the Supreme Court held in Red Lion is that such a regulation does not violate the First Amendment because broadcast communications operate in a scarce limit of frequencies (spectrum), so to maximize their public use, the FCC can regulate more than would normally be permissible. This means content-based restrictions are not invalid on their face, if it's meant to present opposing viewpoints within the scarce resource of broadcast frequencies.

And all of that language about scarcity, public use, etc. was written into the original 1934 Act by Congress.

What the Court DID make up was protecting, but channelling, indecent speech. That decision (Pacifica) has been ridiculed for years, including by me, here and in my law school thesis (which I'm now revising for publication). But, it is law, and as such, the FCC can regulate under it. Combining Red Lion and Pacifica, and the Commission's own past precedents of actually preventing format changes, there is no reason it couldn't do so again--either by statute or by regulation.

Whether that happens is a political decision by Congress and/or the Commission itself. Same as if the Fairness Doctrine comes back. If the political climate is ripe for the Fairness Doctrine to come back, the political cliamte is certainly ripe for format regulation to rear its head. (I'll leave for you all to decide if that head is ugly or not.)

 

[kaufcom]

I said...

The FD was law of land for 40 years. Give me one example of how it was ever used to regulate music programming?

sigh.

How many times are you going to ask for 'one example', and then dismiss it when it is provided?

Anyone remember when 'one example' of how the FD restricted 'free speech' in news reporting, and I provided said example in the words of none other then DAN RATHER?!

Anyone care to recall how that was answered?

Hey, Baroosk. Give me 'one example' where you have accepted proof when you asked for it. :

Evelyn... Tell me what kind of music Dan Rather performs. Is he rocker, a rapper, or a country music singer. I can't seem to place him?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Actually it does come from a law passed by Congress: it's all rooted in the 1934 Communications Act, which granted a wide array of regulatory powers to the FCC. As part of that regulatory power, the FCC enacted the Fairness Doctrine.

I understand that all court decisions are based on "interpreting" what is written in legislation. However, my point (and I'm sure that you understood what I was referring to) is that courts have been extremely imaginative in how they "interpret" statutes, to the point where they are creating new laws from what amounts to whole cloth based on some incredibly imaginative and creating reading of statutes.

The court's reasoning behind Red Lion went far beyond a simple "interpretation" of the 1934 Communications Act.

The FD was law of land for 40 years. Give me one example of how it was ever used to regulate music programming?

And you were told that this discussion isn't about what the FCC did under the old Fairness Doctrine. It's about what the courts told the FCC it could do, and about how the FCC has the court-given power to start regulating music programming if it were to choose to do so. And, there have been instances listed in here where the FCC did reject applications for license transfers because of applicants stated intentions to change music formats. The fact that the FCC used its powers in a manner that wasn't covered by the old Fairness Doctrine doesn't mean that the FCC won't continue to use those same powers, especially if there is a new Fairness Doctrine written that goes beyond what the old Fairness Doctrine said.

Tell me, do you understand the concept I'm talking about? Can you grasp the idea that there was an old Fairness Doctrine that said one thing, and that was enforced in a certain way, but we're all talking about a new Fairness Doctrine that is a work-in-progress that is being written even as we type these posts? Can you grasp the fact that the new Fairness Doctrine could have additional clauses written into it that would also cover music programming?

You're real good at counting. Can you also understand the concepts of the past and the future? Can you understand that the way things were done in the past might be changed and done differently in the future?

I'm not going to bother counting how many times you keep asking for "one single example" of the old Fairness Doctrine as some sort of totally irrelevant proof about what could be contained in the new Fairness Doctrine. I'm not going to count it because such counting is a pretty stupid waste of time, and anyone who did such a thing would be demonstrating a petty and anal-retentive mind. But the principle of observing that someone keeps harping on a moot point does make sense. Your persistence in trying to use the history of the old Fairness Doctrine as indicating what a new Fairness Doctrine might hold in store for broadcasters is beating a totally moot point into the ground.

Any new Fairness Doctrine will be new. So anything that happened under the old Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant.

Do you or don't you understand that simple statement?

 

[kaufcom]

Do you or don't you understand that simple statement?

I'm not going to repost your statement. If anyone is interested in your bloviating they can scroll up. Why are you wasting everyone's time speculating on a law that doesn't even exist. A law you that you have no idea about how it was used when is was in effect for 40 years. If the FD is reintroduced by the new Democratic controlled Congress, we'll see what it looks like then. My guess is that it is going to be a lot weaker than the original FD. And that one had very little effect on talk radio and absolutley no effect on music programming. If you want to talk about issues related to license transfers, why don't you start a new thread.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

And that one had very little effect on talk radio and absolutley no effect on music programming. If you want to talk about issues related to license transfers, why don't you start a new thread.

The Fairness Doctrine itself did not have any effect on music programming. The legal reasoning behind the Fairness Doctrine did.

Hence, why the Commission could force a format to remain on a signal if there was a transfer OR if there was complaints about the format's impending extinction and lack of service to that portion of the community.

Because the Fairness Doctrine (and FCC regulation) was upheld to First Amendment scrutiny on a viewpoint analysis because of the peculiar position of broadcasting and the limited resources available, that same viewpoint scrutiny could very well uphold a format regulation based on the limited resources available.

That's the beginning and the end of the argument. It is related to the legality and constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, not the Doctrine itself.

 

[evnlee]

Do you or don't you understand that simple statement?

I'm not going to repost your statement. If anyone is interested in your bloviating they can scroll up. Why are you wasting everyone's time speculating on a law that doesn't even exist. A law you that you have no idea about how it was used when is was in effect for 40 years. If the FD is reintroduced by the new Democratic controlled Congress, we'll see what it looks like then. My guess is that it is going to be a lot weaker than the original FD. And that one had very little effect on talk radio and absolutley no effect on music programming. If you want to talk about issues related to license transfers, why don't you start a new thread.

good grief, someone call Walgreens!

Baroosk, how can you say about the Fairness Doctrine "you have no idea about how it was used when is was in effect for 40 years."

Did we not go through this already? Dan rather has already told you that a 'chilling wind' hung over radio newsrooms simply by the threat of it's use.

" Evelyn... Tell me what kind of music Dan Rather performs. Is he rocker, a rapper, or a country music singer. I can't seem to place him?"'

well, according to The NY Observer, in a recent interview with Rebecca Dana about his new show on Marc Cuban's network he prefers folk songs and WW2 ditties.

In fact "During the interview, Rather sang a bit of "It's a Long Way to Tipperary," and later, Dana relates, Rather "stood to go, then remembered something he wanted to say and sat down again. He began searching through his pants and jacket pockets. He produced a black leather billfold with a $100 bill sticking out. From somewhere within the wallet, he retrieved a 15-year-old Post-It note that was folded in half. On it, his children had written the lyrics to 'Paths of Victory,' by Bob Dylan. For the second time in as many hours, Mr. Rather began to sing again...'Trails of troubles,' he spoke-sung, 'roads of battle, paths of victory I shall walk.' A pause while he recalled the words. 'The evening dust is rolling. I’m walking down the track. There’s a one-way wind a-blowing, and it’s blowing at my back.'”



http://www.observer.com/20060911/20060911_Rebecca_Dana_media_nytv.asp

 

[Radio_Realist]

Why are you wasting everyone's time speculating on a law that doesn't even exist.

Because, as an American, I have an opinion on what laws should be passed, and what laws should not be passed. And, the process of passing laws is supposed to include lawmakers reading what their constituents think about those laws before the laws get passed.

The time for citizens to express their opinions about laws is before the legislative bodies responsible for passing those laws actually does so. It is a little late to express opposition to a law after it has been passed. Then it's too late.

My guess is that it is going to be a lot weaker than the original FD.

Maybe it will be, maybe it won't be. One important thing that would contribute to making any new law weaker than the old regulation would be public discussion of the law before it gets passed.

Is that a concept you can understand? Do you grasp the idea that lawmakers can (and should) be influenced by public discussion before they pass laws, instead of waiting until after the new law is a done deal?

 

[kaufcom]

Sometimes I think that you just like to post stuff without regard if it makes any sense

RR said

The Fairness Doctrine itself did not have any effect on music programming. The legal reasoning behind the Fairness Doctrine did.

What?

Hence, why the Commission could force a format to remain on a signal if there was a transfer OR if there was complaints about the format's impending extinction and lack of service to that portion of the community.

There is not one case in the 40 history of the FD where a station was "forced" to make a format change. Again you are confusing the FD with license transfers?

Because the Fairness Doctrine (and FCC regulation) was upheld to First Amendment scrutiny on a viewpoint analysis because of the peculiar position of broadcasting and the limited resources available, that same viewpoint scrutiny could very well uphold a format regulation based on the limited resources available.

What?

Why don't you go back to debating the differences between liberal and progressive talk radio. Even that discussion made more sense than you are making now.

 

[kaufcom]

Baroosk, how can you say about the Fairness Doctrine "you have no idea about how it was used when is was in effect for 40 years."

Actually, I know a lot about the Fairness Doctrine and was involved in drafting filings when I worked in the TV industry. I also know that it was rarely used in the radio business. If you are going to say that weak kneed radio executives were intimidated by it, that's another story.

Did we not go through this already? Dan rather has already told you that a 'chilling wind' hung over radio newsrooms simply by the threat of it's use.

C'mon Evelyn, you know I was responding to a post regarding the effect of the FD on music programming