The Fairness Doctrine: It's Baaaaaaack! (Maybe)

[fred flintstone]

"Dennis the Menance," a progressive Democract, says Congress will bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Kucinich: Congress Will Consider Bringing Back Fairness Doctrine

At the "Conference for Media Reform" in MEMPHIS FRIDAY, Rep. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), making a surprise appearance, said that in his new capacity as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he would hold hearings on media ownership and the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

"We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda," KUCINICH said, adding that "the entire domestic agenda has been ignored while the focus has been on the acceleration of wealth upwards." "We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," the OHIO Congressman and Presidential candidate said.

If they pull this off, will it change much about talk radio? Probably not much?
Hosts may have to let callers who disagree with them make their case before insulting them and cutting them off.
Hosts may be have to be less partisan, more willing to take on ALL politicians and bureaucrats and ALL the dumb things they do, with less of the current root-root-root-for-the-home-team.
Maybe some owners will be encouraged to operated paired liberal-conservative talk stations, which just might be good business.
Otherwise, business as usual.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

They are now in a position to move a progressive agenda?

First off, there is no progressive majority in the House. On one of the main progressive agenda items--embryonic stem cell funding--the Dems 30-seat House gain netted only *15* additional votes in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That's 1/2 of that "progressive" position.

Second, as Kucinich probably doesn't know--since he's often lacking on facts but big on the invective (as his term here as Mayor proved)--the fairness doctrine before was nothing more than an FCC regulation, one which was held constitutional but is still subject to criticism. If Kucinich gets his due and the "progressive" position moves forward--as he says--is he seeking for there to be a statutory fairness doctrine?

And if so, how long until the first station owner has a case before the US District Court seeking to have it enjoined and struck down?

Kucinich is a historically-racist buffoon, but the old blue hairs in Cleveland love him and his ethnic background. Politics is wonderful, but the resulting governance, not so much.

 

[AKLes]

And, of course, fairness demands that any new 'Fairness Doctrine' be equally applied to all print media.

Imagine how popular that might be!

 

[fred flintstone]

Print media are not licensed to use the electromagnetic spectrum.
Radio is.
This is a false issue and you know it.
Radio has always been regulated. Only know it has gotten regs tailor-made for it by industry lobbyists.
Except radio did better under the old rules.

 

[Oldbones]

Radio has always been regulated. Only know it has gotten regs tailor-made for it by industry lobbyists.
Except radio did better under the old rules.

Radio did better when there were no other choices.

Do you favor similar regulations on satellite radio? After all, it uses electromagnetic spectrum too.

 

[fred flintstone]

Radio did better when there were no other choices.
Do you favor similar regulations on satellite radio? After all, it uses electromagnetic spectrum too.

Satellite radio does have regulations - just not the same regulations.

The point is, the courts have ruled the first amendment bars most attempts to regulate the print media but not government licensed wireless media.

I find it ironic that many of the same people who object to government "interference" in the context of the fairness doctrine or ownership limits are perfectly comfortable with it in the context of the "seven words," Howard Stern's bits or Janet Jackson's left [edit].

 

[Phil Boyce]

OK to use a few nice cliche's, "you can't unring the bell" and "you can't put the genie back in the bottle."

When congress repealed the Fairness Doctrine, they let the genie out of the bottle. The idea was simple, and still is. There are SO many media outlets including lots of radio stations in each market, that it is unfair, and probably unconstitutional to place those restrictions on radio stations. You can't go back now, because to put those old rules back in place would kill talkradio now, as we know it.

The nice thing about Air America is that it proves the point: Radio is so big and broad, it can support all kinds of opinions. But even without AA, every listener has a multitude of choices to get their information...and those choices are growing rapidly.

You can't go back now, years after the fact, and punish talkradio for it's own success. You can't go back to a station like WABC and say "OK you have 3 hours of Rush, now you have to follow that with 3 hours of Al Franken." It would destroy WABC or any station like mine.

As technology grows, there are even more places to get your info than when the FD was repealed. Back then there were no blogs. Today there are tons of them, spewing out all kinds of info...some of it right some wrong. Listeners have an enormous number of choices and sources.

So I can't see it happening. The genie is out of the bottle.

pb

 

[fred flintstone]

You can't go back now, because to put those old rules back in place would kill talkradio now, as we know it.

No, Phil. I don't think it would.

Worst case scenario: Some group owners would operate paired conservative-liberal talk stations in a given cluster. That already has happened in some markets.

More likely scenario: WABC and other talk stations would end up sounding more like NJ101.5 - less ideological, less partisan. Willing to take shots at ALL politicians and bureaucrats, ALL the dumb things they do. Talk show hosts would become equal opportunity gadflies - not party shills. This might even enhance and broaden the appeal of talk radio.

It might also mean hosts would have to let people express differing viewpoints without cutting them off and saying things like "Get off the phone, ya big dope." That, too, might enhance the appeal of talk radio.

A new and improved Fairness Doctrine (by whatever name) might be mean a bit more work for you for a time, but it would NOT mean the end of talk radio as we know it. In addition, there's some evidence that strident political talk is on the down-hill run. This could revive it.

 

[DaleGriffin]

This is a pipe dream and will never happen. Dennis Kucinch attaching his name to it makes it even less likely.

 

[fred flintstone]

This is a pipe dream and will never happen. Dennis Kucinch attaching his name to it makes it even less likely.

Then why are the right-wing bloggers and activist groups so scared?
Why are they a trying to rouse the rabble with tales of plans to "Silence Conservatives?" (Family Security Matters)(National Ledger)*
Why are they evoking the name of their favorite bogeyman, George Soros? (AIM)*
Because they think this is a "pipe dream" that will "never happen?" Right!
Because the neo-con elite is worried they will not be able to manipulate and control gullible dupes like you.

* And why is it articles pop up on various right-wing blogs and websites with - not just the same talking points - but with identical wording?

 

[DaleGriffin]

Then why are the right-wing bloggers and activist groups so scared? because they are playing the same stupid game you are

Why are they a trying to rouse the rabble with tales of plans to "Silence Conservatives?" (Family Security Matters)(National Ledger)*because they are playing the same stupid game you are

Why are they evoking the name of their favorite bogeyman, George Soros? (AIM)*because they are playing the same stupid game you are

Because they think this is a "pipe dream" that will "never happen?" Right! because they are playing the same stupid game you are

Because the neo-con elite is worried they will not be able to manipulate and control gullible dupes like you. No, it is because they are playing the same stupid game you are


* And why is it articles pop up on various right-wing blogs and websites with - not just the same talking points - but with identical wording? because they are playing the same stupid game you are


Us against them, us against them. All of you are the same. Same tactics, same attempting to silence the oppostition, same garbage. When your in power claim you have a mandate, when you don't claim we should all work together. Hate speech, hate speech, both sides same tactics different political teams.

 

[fred flintstone]

Congratulations on learning how to cut and paste.
Now learn how to think for yourself.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Let me see, if I do not agree with you I do not think for myself, if I think you and your mortally enemies are both wrong, then I do not think for myself.

So, if I agree with you I am right. Is this the logic?

 

[fred flintstone]

So, if I agree with you I am right. Is this the logic?

I wouldn't know. So far, I haven't seen you agree with me.

I don't say I'm always right.
I do draw my own conclusions.
I don't have talk show hosts do my thinking for me.
I don't close my mind to differing viewpoints.

But the main point here is "fair use."
I have heard conservative talk show hosts use sound bites from other programs, including liberal talk shows.
Are they wrong, too?

 

[DaleGriffin]

Yes, they are wrong. the difference is most groups do not care. Spocko is using it to hurt the company, therefore they care. the said part is your arguments require so little thought you jump form thread to thread not knowing which one you are in. For example this one, Fairness Doctrine not Evil Empire tries to crush freedom fighter.

 

[XTalker]

A Fairness Doctrine that would require radio stations to offer precise equal time to all sides of an issue would kill talk radio in all but the very large markets. Stations would be burried in paperwork, keeping track of who said what and for how long! The record keeping alone would paralyze stations in all but the biggest cities and the format - the forum for free expression - would disappear for most Americans.

You see, the liberal left feels fairness is not about open discussion of issues, or free speech by host, guests and listeners. The liberal left thinks fairness is about forcing exposure and discussion of their view of the issue without regard for what the majority wants.

The reason talk radio is successful is because of listeners who tune in in large numbers and purchase the products and services offered by advertisers on talk radio stations. Air America has proven liberals can't compete in the open marketplace!

It wouldn't only destroy talk radio, but more than likely, would see the further demise of news on the radio as well.

 

[fred flintstone]

A Fairness Doctrine that would require radio stations to offer precise equal time to all sides of an issue would kill talk radio in all but the very large markets. Stations would be burried in paperwork, keeping track of who said what and for how long! The record keeping alone would paralyze stations in all but the biggest cities and the format - the forum for free expression - would disappear for most Americans.

You see, the liberal left feels fairness is not about open discussion of issues, or free speech by host, guests and listeners. The liberal left thinks fairness is about forcing exposure and discussion of their view of the issue without regard for what the majority wants.

The reason talk radio is successful is because of listeners who tune in in large numbers and purchase the products and services offered by advertisers on talk radio stations. Air America has proven liberals can't compete in the open marketplace!

It wouldn't only destroy talk radio, but more than likely, would see the further demise of news on the radio as well.

You may be confusing the former Fairness Doctrine with the Equal Time laws. The fairness doctrine was a far more general guideline.

Talk Radio and the Fairness Doctrine co-existed for almost 20 years.

Are you saying only majority viewpoints should have a place in broadcasting? That's what happened in Germany. One party won an election and put the majority viewpoint on the air.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Talk Radio and the Fairness Doctrine co-existed for almost 20 years.

And talk radio has been without the Fairness Doctrine now for almost 23 years.

If it really is that big a deal, don't you think the public pressure would have been enough that the FCC would have had no choice but to re-institute it at some point in the last 23 years?

Since they didn't, doesn't that alone speak volumes to the made-up character of it being a problem.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Fred says:

might also mean hosts would have to let people express differing viewpoints without cutting them off and saying things like "Get off the phone, ya big dope." That, too, might enhance the appeal of talk radio.

You thinK? Don´t tell me you believe it is a good idea for government to control things like "Get off my phone you big dope." ??? You want government to get in the middle of this and start legislating catch phrases on the radio, in case they are too one sided?

pb

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I've said it before, and I think it's apropos now, too.

If the Fairness Doctrine comes back in some form (same or modified), and there isn't a great turn-around in legal opinion, the Red Lion decision from 1969 upholds its constitutionality.

That is, Red Lion held that the Communications Act of 1934 permitted government regulation (via the Fairness Doctrine, then an FCC regulation) of content aired on licensed stations.

If the new doctrine (perhaps statutory) wishes to give such broad content-based power to the government, there is nothing to stop the Commission from mandating clearance for certain formats on the licensed stations. Thus, all in the exercise of fairness and access to the public licensed spectrum, a station may be required to air oldies, or ethnic commentary, etc.

Unless we really want that, it's best to keep this FD cat in the bag.