The Fairness Doctrine

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927

Kucinich: Congress To Take On FCChttp://www.fmqb.com/images/trans.gifJanuary 15, 2007
Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.
The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.
In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.
Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was also on hand at the conference and took broadcasters to task for their current content, speaking of "too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists." Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein also spoke at the event.



I am saying that if the Democrats even try to push this through...I will vote a straight Republican ticket regardless. This would be the biggest step on our first amendment rights in a VERY long time. Whose going to be the judge of this "Fair and honest manner" If they attempt to shut down a Limbaugh or a Hannity, the Democrats are going to find out how big of a pull those two and conservative talk radio guys have because I don't see there core audiences taking it lying down and for that matter I wouldn't be happy about it either. As an American, it is my choice of who I listen to and not the government to decide to make it balanced for me.

[NormanPride]

Most of America is too stupid to decide what is and isn't slanted. Just playing devil's advocate.

I agree, though, that we cannot let something like this happen. As much good as it is trying to do, it opens the door for too much government regulation.

[OklahomaTuba]

Its not trying to do any good at all.

Its another attempt by a neo-fascist socialist to control "the right wing" and free speech. Simple as that.

Basically, Kucinich and the other tinfoil hat wearing lefty loons are ****ed that left-wing hate radio sucks and no one will listen to it.

[soonerscuba]

Meh, I would be way, way, way, way, way, way more worried about the net neutrality issue, which guess who typically favors? Let's just that the ma and pa telecommunications giants are going to rake us in ways we can't imagine if the internet becomes a pay for content/speed based on corporate relation.

[OklahomaTuba]

As an American, it is my choice of who I listen to and not the government to decide to make it balanced for me.

Liberals and "progressives" love diversity and inclusion, as long as it doesn't include those they disagree with.

This is just one of MANY examples of this.

[yermom]

i can't remember if i'm for or against "net neutrality"

[soonerscuba]

i can't remember if i'm for or against "net neutrality"

Well, do you feel that Cox is entitled to block or provide lower speeds to sites that don't join in corporate agreements. For example if ABC paid enough money Cox could allow ESPN to load faster than CNNSI... the question becomes where does it stop?

[King Crimson]

keep in mind that FOX"s "Fair and Balanced" routine is bit of a riff on the Fairness Doctrine--and a nod to the old standards of objective journalism--by providing "two sides". i'm not totally in favor of it (FD) since the availability of media outlets may make it a bit anachronistic more suited to a 3 network TV market and crowded radio spectrum, but the FCC has been a real enemy of market pluralism in the media market-place since the 1996 Telecom Act.....through a sham policy misnamed "de-regulation" that enabled corporate mergers and consolidation and such that eventually create massive barriers to access for media production by making virtual monopolies legal and the price of entry far too great for anyone who is not a multi-national corp. or owned by one.

now, i would agree that the government dictating or arbiting content is essentially a propaganda model (or close to it)....but you need to realize that at all national media outlets an alarming % of national news passes through government hired PR firms before the viewer ever sees it--or comes directly from press releases. so, it's not like there's any "independent" journalistic purity at stake.

i wouldn't worry about Hannity or Rush going anywhere. Market share is too great and the FD would only require FOX to air differing opinions as the Hannity and Colmes show used to somewhat do.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The thing is if you tune in to listen to Hannity or Rush, you probably don't want to hear a Colmes or a Franken...

[soonerscuba]

Primary source news, then form opinion, remove the middle man, be smarter. YWIA.

[yermom]

Well, do you feel that Cox is entitled to block or provide lower speeds to sites that don't join in corporate agreements. For example if ABC paid enough money Cox could allow ESPN to load faster than CNNSI... the question becomes where does it stop?

yeah, i understand the issue, and think that is crap, but when someone says "net neutrality" which side are they talking about?

[soonerscuba]

The side that is against paying for speed of access. Most people that aren't CEOs of telecoms would be in favor of net neutrality.

[yermom]

ok, thanks :D

[Octavian]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2955/bitenailseh4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[yermom]

you know, i'm not a big fan of the FCC, but if they didn't exist all we would probably have by now are the god channels versus the pr0n channels

[King Crimson]

The thing is if you tune in to listen to Hannity or Rush, you probably don't want to hear a Colmes or a Franken...

I'd agree, and i don't like any of them. this is essentially my point about the increased availability of media content vs. 30 years ago making the FD a bit anachronistic.

since the 96 Telecom act the clear winner has been a drastic de-limitation of "plurality" in the public media market. listen to FM radio. now, again, my point to the expanded options available--like Sirius or cable TV or the Dish or blogs etc...

However, there are those who will argue and has been argued much on this board in the past that a simple reductive political either/or set of arguments is ultimately harmful to the US--as the assured divisive activities of our elected officials will no doubt demonstrate in the coming years and upcoming POTUS election.

[Jerk]

Before the Repubs got kicked out of power, Rush asked Hastert what the Democrats would do first. His reply? "Consolodate power" and he was dead on. They are also going trying to make every member of a lobbying organization register as a lobbiest. So, AARP and the NRA would have to register their millions and millions of members.

They are going to do everything in their power to insure that they never lose it again.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am saying that if the Democrats even try to push this through...I will vote a straight Republican ticket regardless. This would be the biggest step on our first amendment rights in a VERY long time. Whose going to be the judge of this "Fair and honest manner" If they attempt to shut down a Limbaugh or a Hannity, the Democrats are going to find out how big of a pull those two and conservative talk radio guys have because I don't see there core audiences taking it lying down and for that matter I wouldn't be happy about it either. As an American, it is my choice of who I listen to and not the government to decide to make it balanced for me. I would hope you are right on this, but I'm not so sure. SURPRISINGLY FEW people made a stink when the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform went through. It is clearly in violation of the First Amendment.(I know you like McCain, and I do too, sometimes) There are many spineless republicans who don't want to stand by conservative principles and the constitution. They just don't want to fight with anyone.
They ALL fear the MSM(translate: Network TV) It would be interesting if somehow, someone would try to include Network TV, along with radio, in the application of the "Fairness Doctrine". A smart republican in congress would do that. The only one I think had the cajones to do that was Tom DeLay, and he's gone. Well, Mitch McConnell in the Senate might have the testicular fortitude to do it...?

[King Crimson]

one thing that makes something like the Fairness Doctrine or legislating "immoral" content (sex, violence etc.) as Leiberman and others have tried to do in the past--or since the emergence of broadcast radio and movies and comic books in the early 20th Century....is that it brings the sanctity of the free market (supply and demand, the consumer is always right) and free speech right up against arguments about "values" in a pretty insoluble catch 22. and often, there are people who will argue both sides in unwitting but total contradiction of themselves.

Favor: note that the original blurb from Gandalf's post does include non-political entertainment content. for better or worse.

[FaninAma]

I will simply be amazed if the Democrats can push through anything controversial in the Senate where they hold a 1 vote majority. Even if the can pull over a few of the northeastern RINOs they will still be several votes short of eneding debate.

At this point it's nothing but posturing for the media and blowing smoke. And yes, Dennis Kuccinich is a flaming idiot and a prime example of why Congress is held in lower esteem than lawyers and journalists.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

but the FCC has been a real enemy of market pluralism in the media market-place since the 1996 Telecom Act.....through a sham policy misnamed "de-regulation" that enabled corporate mergers and consolidation and such that eventually create massive barriers to access for media production by making virtual monopolies legal and the price of entry far too great for anyone who is not a multi-national corp. or owned by one.

But in that same vein, the Telecom Act of 1996 also gave competitive agencies certain rights as far as negotiating access rights, the right to arbitration and state moderation of access lease provisions, and the power to declare a non-negotiating incumbent provider in violation of the standard. So with that, we actually see the potential for operating costs for competitive providers decreased because of legislation defining the scope of how a competitor can work with the incumbent provider and not be victim to the woes of insanely high easement and pole leases.

So infrastructurally speaking, the Telecom Act of '96, though posed a deregulation in the body of media application, infrastructurally establishes oversight to foster competition. Hence why you see competitive providers exploding all over the U.S., Cox Communications being our local and most classic example.

[Jerk]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2955/bitenailseh4.gif (http://imageshack.us)


Alot of people will think that when the day comes when liberals are hanging from lamposts.

I kid! I kid! I'm a non-violent person.

Peace brothers! Peace be unto you! Kumbuya! and all that other sh.t

[Ike]

you know, i'm not a big fan of the FCC, but if they didn't exist all we would probably have by now are the god channels versus the pr0n channels

I refuse to recognize that this would be a bad thing.