Mike Pence on why he opposes the Fairness Doctrine

[raccoonradio]

Rep. Mike Pence, himself a former talk show host, on why he feels the Fairness Doctrine is wrong:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1881002/posts

"To avoid administrative costs and hours of paperwork and legal fees, broadcasters opted to offer noncontroversial programming. As a result, talk radio, as we know it today, simply did not exist."

Bring in FD, out goes political talk. In comes gardening shows.
Pence says that after the lifting of the FD, talk radio exploded (from 125 stations to 2000). While he does say conservatives
dominate national shows, there are many liberal and moderate voices locally (and who knows, with time liberal talk
radio could soon match conservative, I would think).

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press...Do you really want the government stepping in? What's next, the government shutting down a station whose views it doesn't agree with?
This isn't Venezuela.

Pence introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which will "prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."

If lib talk radio becomes a raging success, so be it. But do it through the free marketplace of
ideas, not governmental control.

 

[smedge2006]

Rep. Mike Pence, himself a former talk show host who wants to make sure he can get a job as a future talk show host and therefore has an obvious conflict of interest

"To avoid administrative costs and hours of paperwork and legal fees, broadcasters opted to offer noncontroversial programming. As a result, talk radio, as we know it today, simply did not exist."

Not just a misrepresentation of the facts of life in talk radio pre-1987 but a lie and a damned lie, as known to anyone who was in talk radio before 1987 and not a "Rush baby" -- but he's a politician, so why be surprised?

This isn't Venezuela.

If NBC had advocated violently overthrowing President Bush, and presented favorable and slanted coverage of an attempted coup d' etat against the President, imagine how quickly the Bush administration would move to yank its broadcast licenses, without an FD. That is what the station did in Venezuela that led to its license revocation.

Pence introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act,

Precisely. Freedom of Speech is for the BROADCASTERS -- as in station owners and their favorite ideological flunkies -- not us peons.

For an alternative view on FD, visit this link: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25820

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Freedom of Speech is for the BROADCASTERS

Otherwise known as freedom of the press. Can you go into a newspaper as the government and
demand they do 50 per cent liberal, 50 per cent conservative? How about walking into Air
America and saying they have to carry 50 per cent right-wing talk.

Fairness...
And many people btw mistake the "equal time rule" for FD. It's not the same thing. Equal time
relates to candidates and elections, not people in general. If you want to call up a religious
station and rant on their talk show about how there is no God, guess what: they have to right to hang up on you.

>>That is what the station did in Venezuela

Well, I hadn't heard that, to be honest.

 

[robbbc]

So we continue the FD debate without adressing any of the issues. This rep obviously has nothing new to say on the issue other than to throw some red meat at freepers. Who is pushing the FD on capital hill? Who is upping penalties for accidentally uttering a dirty word on the radio? Now there's an issue. How about local media control and ownership limits? Oh well- who cares when he can bloviate on the obvious. He does point out that he needs to educate people on the issue. Really? How? Does he have an opinion on increasing competition in media. Maybe if people felt that their local radio stations were actually run locally and not beholden to whatever CC or CBS or Disney wants this problem he needs to educate people on would go away.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

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.

----------

OpenSecrets.org reports Mike Pence has received $2,000 in campaign contributions from Amway. That, in and of itself, should give readers some pause.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.asp?ID=D000000111&Type=P&Cycle=A&Sort=A&State=IN

 

[justareporter]

Mr. Gilbow:

Thank you for a calm, reasoned and thoughful discussion of some of the issues (in lieu of the warm air) surrounding the fairness doctrine.

Nice job.

Expect to be pummeled by a string of waaaaaaaaaaaay to the edge right wing conservatives who are convinced fairness isn't fair.

Don't expect many facts...just a lot of opinion.

Been there...done that...I'm cheering from the sidelines this time.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Mr. Gilbow:

Thank you for a calm, reasoned and thoughful discussion of some of the issues (in lieu of the warm air) surrounding the fairness doctrine.

Nice job.

Expect to be pummeled by a string of waaaaaaaaaaaay to the edge right wing conservatives who are convinced fairness isn't fair.

Don't expect many facts...just a lot of opinion.

Been there...done that...I'm cheering from the sidelines this time.

I will admit to fueling the flames with some of the posts. But I am trying--hard as it may be sometimes--to show at least some restraint.

Thanks for the sentiments on what appears to be an attempt to resurrect a non-issue.

 

[raccoonradio]

Don't trash the Constitution just because nobody wanted to hear the molasses-laden voice of Al Franken....

Waah! We're not as talented as Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, or Savage! It's JUST NOT FAIR!

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Don't trash the Constitution just because nobody wanted to hear the molasses-laden voice of Al Franken....

Waah! We're not as talented as Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, or Savage! It's JUST NOT FAIR!

Nobody from Air America, past or present, was invited to testify before members of Congress.

And Stephanie Miller would go Waah! if she couldn't get such great comic material (for her) from the hosts you mention--with the exception of Ingraham, who has contributed to the Columbus station carrying her earning the position of DEAD LAST after she replaced Stephanie. Glenn Beck is beating Ingraham here even though he's on a station with a much weaker signal.

And since you brought up Franken...Norm Coleman has received $1,000 in campaign contributions from Amway.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.asp?ID=D000000111&Type=P&Cycle=A&Sort=A&State=MN