Fairness Doctrine

read and learn - hard but try

This piece is good and below is the alternative argument - an example of the fairness doctrine in action. This is another non issue from the wingnuts.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.


Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm
 
Some history.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was introduced in 1949 as a rule that you must follow if you were to get a license to broadcast over the airwaves. (Specifically 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]).

It was applied, at that time, in a case by case basis from then until 1967, it did not require 'equal time' but did suggest that contrasting views be presented. In 1967 the 'equal time' restrictions were added. In 1974 the FCC stated that it had never had to enforce the rules because everybody just "voluntarily" subjected themselves to the "spirit" of the rule.


The SCOTUS rejected a plea for a hearing on the rule (which does create the wonder of how they were 'voluntarily' following the rule but at the same time trying to get it struck down) in 1959 saying that it was the right of the listeners that was paramount, not that of the person holding the license. The court stated at that time that if it ever did restrain speech then it would listen to arguments of constitutionality.

Later in 1974 a Unanimous court decision written by Chief Justice Warren Berger stated that, "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." Yet they restated that if it ever came about that it did actually limit speech they would listen to the case and also reiterated that the FCC was under no obligation to continue the rule, and stated in this decision that technological changes have made it necessary to review and maybe change or abolish the rule.

In 1987 the FCC voted to remove the rule in a 4-0 vote stating, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional. This was also upheld by the Appeals court, the SCOTUS decided not to hear the case at all, upholding the Appeals Court's decision in 1989.

In 1987 the legislature tried to make a law to reinstate the rule (this time an actual Bill) but it was vetoed by Reagan. Again in 1991 it was tried and failed when George HW Bush threatened to Veto the bill. It was never even passed.

Two rules were maintained until the year 2000, those that required a person or entity under "personal attack" be notified and given time to respond if they wished and the "political editorial" rule where if a station itself put forward an editorial (not a show on the air the station itself) that endorsed a position or candidate the opposition must be informed and allowed time to respond. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

And thus we are where we are now.

Thank you for your attention.
 
Damocles said:
Some history.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was introduced in 1949 as a rule that you must follow if you were to get a license to broadcast over the airwaves. (Specifically 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]).

It was applied, at that time, in a case by case basis from then until 1967, it did not require 'equal time' but did suggest that contrasting views be presented. In 1967 the 'equal time' restrictions were added. In 1974 the FCC stated that it had never had to enforce the rules because everybody just "voluntarily" subjected themselves to the "spirit" of the rule.


The SCOTUS rejected a plea for a hearing on the rule (which does create the wonder of how they were 'voluntarily' following the rule but at the same time trying to get it struck down) in 1959 saying that it was the right of the listeners that was paramount, not that of the person holding the license. The court stated at that time that if it ever did restrain speech then it would listen to arguments of constitutionality.

Later in 1974 a Unanimous court decision written by Chief Justice Warren Berger stated that, "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." Yet they restated that if it ever came about that it did actually limit speech they would listen to the case and also reiterated that the FCC was under no obligation to continue the rule, and stated in this decision that technological changes have made it necessary to review and maybe change or abolish the rule.

In 1987 the FCC voted to remove the rule in a 4-0 vote stating, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional. This was also upheld by the Appeals court, the SCOTUS decided not to hear the case at all, upholding the Appeals Court's decision in 1989.

In 1987 the legislature tried to make a law to reinstate the rule (this time an actual Bill) but it was vetoed by Reagan. Again in 1991 it was tried and failed when George HW Bush threatened to Veto the bill. It was never even passed.

Two rules were maintained until the year 2000, those that required a person or entity under "personal attack" be notified and given time to respond if they wished and the "political editorial" rule where if a station itself put forward an editorial (not a show on the air the station itself) that endorsed a position or candidate the opposition must be informed and allowed time to respond. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

And thus we are where we are now.

Thank you for your attention.
Click to expand...


Thank you Damo. Good concise info.
 
Solitary said:
Yes, its a part of the problem. But its one of the problems that comes with a free society. If the listeners are so stupid as to believe anything they hear, then they could be led astray by newsletters, websites or any other means of getting the message across.
Click to expand...

Yes it is really the stupidity of many americans is the core of the problem.

I guess for the same reason we have many laws protecting people from their own stupidity. Like making bombs or bio weapons at home. Keeping guns away from toddlers, drinking age, etc.
 
Solitary said:
Yeah, they should be using private airwaves.
Click to expand...

the airwaves belong to the public like the roads. now if you get it off the net or cable it is another issue. they are private.

with the airwaves it is kinda like privatizing a road and saying that only liberals or conservatives or some such group can drive on it.
 
uscitizen said:
the airwaves belong to the public like the roads. now if you get it off the net or cable it is another issue. they are private.

with the airwaves it is kinda like privatizing a road and saying that only liberals or conservatives or some such group can drive on it.
Click to expand...

Or its like making a toll road. No one is forbidden from driving on the road, as long as they pay for it.

Any alternative ideology is welcome to have a talk show. But the simple fact is that only conservative talk shows have made money at it.
 
Solitary said:
Or its like making a toll road. No one is forbidden from driving on the road, as long as they pay for it.

Any alternative ideology is welcome to have a talk show. But the simple fact is that only conservative talk shows have made money at it.
Click to expand...

News used to be a required public service, not a cash cow.
 
uscitizen said:
News used to be a required public service, not a cash cow.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the costs for getting the news out has continued to go up.

If you want to make news a public service, that is all well & good.

But talk radio is not news. It is privately purchased programming created and broadcast for profit.
 
Solitary said:
The problem is that the costs for getting the news out has continued to go up.

If you want to make news a public service, that is all well & good.

But talk radio is not news. It is privately purchased programming created and broadcast for profit.
Click to expand...

And should have a running banner on the bottom explaining that to the stupid public. They seem to believe it is news.
 
uscitizen said:
And should have a running banner on the bottom explaining that to the stupid public. They seem to believe it is news.
Click to expand...

You mentioned this once before. How do we put a banner across the bottom of AM radio signals?
 
Anytime it is written it should be written thusly "Fairness" Doctrine. It does not require fairness it requires that people that PAY for the right to use the public airwaves give free airtime in 3 hour blocks to liberal talk radio that NO ONE will pay ad fees for. I have never understood the left on this issue. If left wing talk radio was actually listened to in markets all across the US then people would put their ads there. I know people that think Limpballs is an idiot but they pay prime fees for the 12 noon break ad space on our local radio station that broadcasts Rush. The truth of the matter is, liberals don't spend time with the AM radio on listening to talk radio and wouldn't if Al Franken and Rachel Maddow did a show together, at least not in big enough groups to demand the ad rates that Rush does. This is nothing more than legislative tantrum throwing. "YOU WILL LISTEN TO ME! YOU WILL LISTEN TO ME!" I don't need a talk radio show to tell me what I already believe. For some reason the right does. I listen to Rush occasisonally for about an hour. I really enjoy it the day after the election because it is so much sour grapes. But I didn't want to run over to Air America's website and listen to their streaming audio because I already know what I think about the Obama victory.

Lefties, give up this completely anti-liberal idea of the "Fairness" Doctrine. It is liberals that have constently been the champion of the marketplace of ideas. It is liberals that think that if ideas have no capital they will go away and if they do they will endure. LIberals have historically decried censorship, book burning etc, (with the exception of Tipper Gore trying to ban Rap). The "Fairness" Doctrine is the otherside of the censorship coin. It says we can FORCE you listen to and broadcast OUR ideas to counter YOUR ideas. It runs contrary to American ideals and everyone of you would reject it IF Rush was a liberal talkshow host and it was conservatives trying to push the "Fairness" Doctrine on you and you KNOW you would.
 
The phrase, "Fairness" Doctrine itself is doublethink. It is doubleplusungood.

(Can you tell I'm in the middle of 1984?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top