The Fairness Doctrine

[American Patriot]

This thread is about that thing we should be calling the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Please post news about it here.

Thanks

[American Patriot]

How to Stop the Fairness Doctrine
Unto the Breach ^ | 1 July 2008 | Chris Carter

Democrat Representative Louise Slaughter is actively trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine. She is not alone, she has the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with Senators Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein.

What is the Fairness Doctrine? It is archaic rule that forces television and radio stations to air both sides of controversial issues. If this is reenacted, conservative and Christian talk radio programs are unlikely to be aired due to the demand for equal time, which the station is forced to provide - free of charge. Proponents in the past have admitted that the goal of the Fairness Doctrine is not providing both sides of an issue, it is to silence conservative and Christian talk radio.

John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” That is precisely why the Fairness Doctrine is on the rise again - elements of our government fear an informed electorate.

In the summer of 2007, Representative Mike Pence introduced H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA). The BFA, if passed, would forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine. The BFA was sent to committee, and Speaker Pelosi has already stated that she will not allow the bill to come to a vote.

But ‘We the People’ have an opportunity to defeat the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Pence has started a discharge petition, which if he can collect 218 signatures, will force the BFA to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House. And whenever freedom comes to an up-or-down vote in the House, freedom always wins. No Democrat so far has signed the petition, despite the fact that 113 Democrats voted in favor of a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine last year.

It is up to us. These politicians must have the support of their constituents in order to get reelected, and they know that. If we make our voices heard, we can force their hand on this issue. We must make our government know that we will not allow them to strip us of our right to free speech.

This isn’t the Soviet Union in the Cold War, this is the United States of America! We have the right to free speech, but when the government regulates what we can or can’t hear, is our speech free anymore? Even broadcaster Dan Rather said, “Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.”

Contact your US Representative and tell them that to sign the discharge petition for the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

[American Patriot]

The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.[1]

[1] Clark, Drew (20 October 2004) "How Fair Is Sinclair's Doctrine?" Slate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[American Patriot]

History and information:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/...irnessdoct.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfm

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20080612d.html

[American Patriot]

Here's "the other side's take" on the subject:

	Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives	Wednesday, July 02, 2008
	Featured Views
	Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
	Published on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by FAIR The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back by Steve Rendall 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. When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04). But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives. Variety (10/25/04) underlined industry concerns in a report suggesting that Sinclair’s partisanship was making other broadcasters nervous by fueling “anti-consolidation forces” and efforts to bring back the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine: Sinclair could even put the Fairness Doctrine back in play, a rule established in 1949 to require that the networks—all three of them—air all sides of issues. The doctrine was abandoned in the 1980s with the proliferation of cable, leaving citizens with little recourse over broadcasters that misuse the public airwaves, except to oppose the renewal of licenses. The Sinclair controversy brought discussion of the Fairness Doctrine back to news columns (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04; L.A. Times, 10/24/04) and opinion pages (Portland Press Herald, 10/24/04; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/22/04) across the country. Legal Times (11/15/04) weighed in with an in-depth essay headlined: “A Question of Fair Air Play: Can Current Remedies for Media Bias Handle Threats Like Sinclair’s Aborted Anti-Kerry Program?” Sinclair’s history of one-sided editorializing and right-wing water-carrying, which long preceded its Stolen Honor ploy (Extra!, 11–12/04), puts it in the company of political talk radio, where right-wing opinion is the rule, locally and nationally. Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone—one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy. A short history of fairness The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.) The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. Formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, the doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation. Early on, legislators wrestled over competing visions of the future of radio: Should it be commercial or non-commercial? There was even a proposal by the U.S. Navy to control the new technology. The debate included early arguments about how to address the public interest, as well as fears about the awesome power conferred on a handful of licensees. American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people. — Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03) In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress mandated the FCC’s forerunner, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in such a manner as to ensure that licensees served the “public convenience, interest or necessity.” As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out (California Lawyer, 8/88), it was in that spirit that the FRC, in 1928, first gave words to a policy formulation that would become known as the Fairness Doctrine, calling for broadcasters to show “due regard for the opinions of others.” In 1949, the FCC adopted the doctrine as a formal rule (FCC, Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 1949). In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC. — U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcast-ing Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974). How it worked There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views. In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.” Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media. Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment. According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman. As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues. The doctrine’s demise From the 1920s through the ’70s, the history of the Fairness Doctrine paints a picture of public servants wrestling with how to maintain some public interest standards in the operation of publicly owned—but corporate-dominated—airwaves. Things were about to change. The 1980s brought the Reagan Revolution, with its army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance—it’s a toaster with pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.” Of course, Fowler and associates didn’t favor total deregulation: Without licensing, the airwaves would descend into chaos as many broadcasters competed for the same frequencies, a situation that would mean ruin for the traditional corporate broadcasters they were so close to. But regulation for the public good rather than corporate convenience was deemed suspect. Fowler vowed to see the Fairness Doctrine repealed, and though he would depart the commission a few months before the goal was realized, he worked assiduously at setting the stage for the doctrine’s demise. He and his like-minded commissioners, a majority of whom had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, argued that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. Moreover, rather than increase debate and discussion of controversial issues, they argued, the doctrine actually chilled debate, because stations feared demands for response time and possible challenges to broadcast licenses (though only one license was ever revoked in a dispute involving the Fairness Doctrine— California Lawyer, 8/88). The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80s, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law. Help would come in the form of a controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Their 2–1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so—that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion. “The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide. A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer (8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.” Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto. Where things stand What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03). The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3–4/95). Some towns have two. When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.” Bringing back fairness? For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.” According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.” Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine. What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse. Steve Rendall is FAIR's senior analyst and co-host of CounterSpin, FAIR's national radio show.

[American Patriot]

More of the LEFT'S bullshit:

		The "Fairness Doctrine" "If we agree fairness is a goal, then we have to agree the industry will be fairer with a doctrine than without." --Larry King, host of CNN's Larry King Live in an article written for the Federal Communications Law Journal What Is It? According to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR): "The Fairness Doctrine has two components. First, and most importantly, it affirmatively requires that each broadcast licensee carry some coverage of controversial issues of public importance. This ensures that every broadcaster meets its duty to inform the electorate on public issues. The better-known second prong of the doctrine requires reasonable balance in the coverage of these issues in a station's overall programming. The station has broad discretion on how to provide balanced coverage -- be it through news, talkshow discussions, guest editorials or other programming." The Fairness Doctrine was enforced from 1949 through 1987, and compliance with it was a condition that broadcast licensees were required to comply with to receive and to renew their license. Over the years, a wide variety of organizations (energy, environmental, and health among others) used it to obtain reply time in ballot issue cases. For a brief history of the politics and legal decisions affecting this regulation, see "Breeding a press of water carriers, or the "Age of Aquarius" - Part III: "Borking" the Fairness Doctrine" by James Higdon. In the article this description is quoted from, FAIR cites one example of how this regulation could be implemented... for every three or four minutes of paid broadcast advertising advocating a particular cause, the opposing view would be allowed a minute or so to respond. Why Is It No Longer Enforced? The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." In this statement, the FCC fails to acknowledge some basic facts: the airwaves, unlike print, or the Internet, have inherent limits on diversity and accessibility. In any one area, only a limited number of frequencies are available... so, even if you had the resources to do so, setting up a competing broadcast station next to "Hot Talk 560" on the AM radio dial, without acquiring a government license, would result in prosecution. Thus, if broadcasters have the right to refuse to air your views, it is quite possible for them to completely silence all opposing points of view. A situation which "liberal" radio listeners find all too familiar. A review of conservative literature discussing the Fairness Doctrine attributes the explosive growth of right-wing talk radio to the elimination of this regulation. Freed from the unpleasant obligation of having even the slightest obligation to provide a balanced point of view (the "inhibition" mentioned by Ronald Reagan's FCC above), corporate America has embraced the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage with a vengance. This is what conservatives would like to portray as "an upsurge in public affairs programming and discussion of controversial issues" on the radio. In actuality, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine has had almost no effect in this area outside of right-wing talk radio. Research demonstrates "that there was not a mass effort by broadcasters to begin or cease editorializing after the Fairness Doctrine was set aside by the FCC in 1987". In fact, only two stations, out of 306 surveyed, began to broadcast editorials at that point. According to Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting (CIPB), "Research demonstrates that news and public affairs substantially declined after termination of the Fairness Doctrine, contrary to broadcaster promises. What did increase were right wing talk shows and religious right ministries, now free to editorialize against their favorite demons without fear of contradiction." Corporate America and the right-wing sound the alarm every time that the idea of restoring the Fairness Doctrine is raised: "It will be the death of talk radio." It will "end discussion of controversial issues... rather than risk having to provide equal time, broadcasters will simply not cover anything." Horsepucky, in my opinion - no sane manager would pull Rush Limbaugh off the air, just because they might have to provide an hour of "liberal" programming or some other opportunity for an opposing viewpoint to be heard. What conservatives and corporate America are really afraid of, is that some fire-breathing liberal or leftist (god-forbid) will prove to be economically viable, and put the lie to the proposition that "liberals aren't entertaining or interesting". Why Should The "Fairness Doctrine" Be Restored? Are you fed up with the "proliferation of extreme right-wing mono-dimensional political discourse monopolizing national airwaves with simplistic mantras and relentless character assassination?" asks Gerry Rempel, Democratic Party activist from Eugene, Oregon The consolidation of media ownership into fewer and fewer hands, the potential for conflicts of interests, and the virtual exclusion of significant opposing viewpoints are good reasons to campaign for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Without the leverage of the Fairness Doctrine, opposing and alternative viewpoints, even when willing and able to pay for the airtime, can and will be excluded from the airwaves. Despite the hyperbolic tone of most commentary on the subject, the opponents of the Fairness Doctrine make valid points. The very broadness of discretion that the Federal Communications Commission (the body which issued and administered the Fairness Doctrine regulations) gave to broadcasters created a significant level of uncertainity which in some cases led to avoidance of controversy. In other cases, for fear of having to provide "free" airtime to opposing points of view, stations refused to carry political advertising. But the answer to these complaints is not abolition, but reform that corrects these problems. In a Federal Communications Law Journal article otherwise hostile to the Fairness Doctrine, Henry Geller makes the point that "The FCC, however, has never adopted objective, effective standards of public service for broadcasting. On the contrary, it has specifically rejected such an approach and deliberately followed vague standards." In other words, these rules have never really been given a chance to work effectively. Conclusion In another article about Hate Radio talk show host Bob Grant (whose racist rantings finally resulted in his show being driven off the air after African-American churchs launched a boycott of his advertisers), FAIR says: "The best answer to hate speech is not suppression, but more speech. And the best answer to hate radio is diverse programs offering opposing views. Unfortunately, since the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine seven years ago, many station managers don't feel the need to offer even the semblance of balancing perspectives." It's time to restore the Fairness Doctrine, and restore some small semblance of balance to the airwaves. Over 60% of the American public, when surveyed in 1993, supported restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and the concept of equal time for opposing views. Exercise your right to freedom of speech, and tell Savage's advertisers and corporate sponsors that you're tired of being bombarded by one-sided hate radio rants. Sign the petition to "Boycott Savage Nation Advertisers". Fairness Doctrine Resources Note: This section just started; more resources will be added as they are found. Talk radio needs some balance, by Wayne Madsen in the Pioneer Press (12/23/2002) "It is high time for the Federal Communications Commission to re-institute its traditional Fairness Doctrine and guarantee equal access for all points of view over the public — that is — our airwaves. [...]" Don't see a frame with buttons to your left? Click here.
· info@savagestupidity.com · © 2002 ·

[American Patriot]

http://www.savagestupidity.com/fairness-doctrine.html

(Link to above article)

[American Patriot]

And yet more crap from a Leftist congresswitch:

				12.17.04 What Happened to Fairness?
									More on This Story: Select One The Fairness Doctrine FCC and Deregulation Resources Media Consolidation RoundupFCC Rule Changes Media Deregulation Timeline Previous Page

Congresswoman Slaughter and The MEDIA Act For the nearly 20 years she has been in Congress, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has fought for fairness on the airwaves. Her latest legislation on the topic is HR 4710, "The MEDIA Act," which would reinstate the fairness doctrine and ensure that broadcasters present discussions of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Read the transcript of a web exclusive conversation between Bill Moyers and Congresswoman Slaughter below. Also on the NOW site: find out more about the fairness doctrine and media consolidation. Transcript BILL MOYERS: You were elected in Congress in 1986. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Exactly. BILL MOYERS: That was the year the fairness doctrine went down and you've been fighting ever since to resurrect it. Why? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: I have. And, you know, I was so committed to it and I kept doing bills. Because the airwaves belong to the people. I think we've good and sufficient examples now of what has happened to us with media consolidation — the fact that the information coming to us is controlled, the fact that at least half the people in the United States have no voice because they're not allowed in on talk radio. BILL MOYERS: Tell me exactly what the fairness doctrine was. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Pretty much that you had an obligation to present two sides of an issue. There wasn't really an obligation to go out and hunt for somebody if something outrageous was said on a station that you owned, or television station. But if someone asked to come on to present an opposing view, they were allowed to do it. And the stations were obligated to do it. And most station owners that I've talked to have said it wasn't onerous. They didn't find it all that difficult. BILL MOYERS: What happened to the fairness doctrine? It was in effect for years. In the early '80s the Federal Communications Commission decided to… LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Do away with it the grounds, on the grounds that they said it was not a law. It was just a policy. Congress then sprang into action and passed a law putting it into a law that… BILL MOYERS: They overrode the FCC? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: They overrode the FCC. And I'll tell you that it was such an astonishing vote. I think it was three to one in the House, two to one in the Senate. Among the people voting for it were Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich and others. BILL MOYERS: To keep the fairness doctrine. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: To keep the fairness doctrine and codify it into law. But President Reagan vetoed it. And I remember my party was in charge at the time, the Democratic party. And I went to the leadership. And I said, "This is outrageous. We've got to try to override that veto." And they would not. They did not make any attempt despite the overwhelming vote in both houses to codify the fairness doctrine. They refused to try to override that veto. And we tried again in about 1993, I think. But it didn't go anywhere. And throughout all this time, I was also sponsoring a piece of legislation to require the broadcasters using our airwaves to give a small box of time to the challenger and the incumbent free. And they'd break it up into 60 seconds, whatever. It wouldn't bore people. But the candidate had to sit as you and I are sitting and talk to the camera. And we wouldn't have all these voice-overs. And I tried that one for six years and found out a few years ago that the broadcasters spent $11 million to kill that one amendment. BILL MOYERS: Talk to me about the power of the broadcasters. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Overwhelming. Overwhelming. We had in 2002, Senator Torricelli [of NJ] was able to pass an amendment in the Senate that said that all broadcast media — this was in relationship to political campaigning — so advertising, that they had to give us the lowest commercial rate and couldn't put us on at 2 a.m. on Sunday morning, right. It was to comply with law that was already on the books. And [Torricelli's amendment] passed, I think, 98 to nothing. When we brought the Torricelli amendment over to the House and I managed the bill, we couldn't pass it because the broadcasters had had time between the Senate and the House [votes] to lobby against it. And we lost by two-thirds. One-third of the House of Representatives would stand up and say, "Yes, we have to comply with a law that's on our books." BILL MOYERS: So when the fairness doctrine went down in 1986, that was the first year you came to Congress, what was the consequence of it? What happened as a result? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: AM radio rose. It wasn't even gradual, Bill. I mean, almost immediately. And I should point out to you that when we tried to reinstate [the fairness doctrine] again in '93, one of the reasons we couldn't was that Rush Limbaugh had organized this massive uprising against it, calling it "The Hush Rush Law." Which again said that while Rush can speak and anybody that he wants to can speak on those stations, the rest of us can't. But he aroused his listeners so that they contacted their members of Congress and killed the bill, and that's not the first time we've seen that. I don't know if you remember, but I believe it was Massachusetts I think where they were doing seat belt law? And talk radio was against it and killed that bill. I mean we've seen this before. BILL MOYERS: Well, you know some serious people, including some liberals have said that one reason Rush Limbaugh has succeeded is because he is good entertainment. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Exactly. He doesn't make any pretense of being a news person or even telling you the truth. He says he's an entertainer. BILL MOYERS: And you're saying that kind of discourse is dominating America right now. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Dominating America and a waste of good broadcast time and a waste of our airwaves. BILL MOYERS: Not to the people who agree with him. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, they don't hear anything else. Why would they disagree with him? BILL MOYERS: But today, you don't have to just listen to one radio. You've got a choice of radio stations. You've got the internet. You've got the magazines. You've got how many? Five hundred channels, they say? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Yes. But we don't have all those people lining up to discuss what's going on, what's happening in our country. Frankly, I want every American, every single one, to understand what's happened here. We were able to stop some consolidation last year. But the FCC was intent on simply allowing three or four corporations to own it all. BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you that every day in America according to our research, on the 45 top rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk and only five hours of talk from the other side of the aisle? Now the nation is evenly divided politically, but on talk radio… LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Actually more than that. There was a poll done that showed that 70 percent of Americans — conservatives, liberals, whatever stride — said they're not being told the truth anymore. But what upsets me frankly, is I'm surprised it's five percent. And I think that's because one radio station in my district was converted to Air America… BILL MOYERS: To the liberal network. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: …to sort of keep us quiet. It says to me that that's why senior citizens don't understand now that social security is going to be privatized. And that they don't understand what the Medicare bill that was passed intends to do, and that's get rid of Medicare and push everybody on HMO by 2010. Because we have no way in the world to get this information out to people. And it is a shame. BILL MOYERS: You're saying that the removal of the fairness doctrine and the concentration of power in a handful of major media companies have led to a one-side political discourse? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Oh, I believe it. Absolutely. BILL MOYERS: Is somebody going to say, "Is this just a question of a Democrat who feels she's not getting her message out and she's mad?" LOUISE SLAUGHTER: No. It isn't. I mean I get reelected, I've done extremely well in my district because people appreciate that I fight for things. I think all Americans would feel the same way I do exactly if we just had the ability to tell them. Reinstating the fairness doctrine would make a major difference in this country. BILL MOYERS: What does your bill before Congress propose? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: So far, it just reinstates [the fairness doctrine.] But you know, I've been giving some thought to it this week. I will in no way do anything to hurt the first amendment. I'd die for it. I certainly don't want to do anything about censorship or anything. I simply want equal time. As simple as we can make it is that we simply want to reinstate it. That people have an opportunity to give them an opposing view, that you can't own a radio station in the United States that simply gives one side all day long. BILL MOYERS: So you're primarily concerned about radio? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: No. I'm concerned about television as well. But radio is probably where we're going to get the biggest problems in trying to get this done, because people have the radio on all day. They listen to it. And I think that says a lot. I think we can see that reflected in what people are thinking and feeling today. BILL MOYERS: You know people say well, "Yes, it is in principle true that the government, the people passed to the television and radio companies the right to use the airwaves, the public spectrum." But cable's a different baby altogether. Cable is unregulated. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Right. BILL MOYERS: Are you proposing the fairness doctrine for Fox News or MSNBC? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: You bet. BILL MOYERS: You are? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Yes. Fairness isn't going to hurt anybody. I just can't imagine these people who want to fight against fairness. And I noticed that just recently, I believe President Clinton said that the 1996 Telecommunications Bill was probably one of his worst mistakes? BILL MOYERS: He signed it? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: You see this is what's happening out there. People I think are really saying, "Wait a minute. This has gone way too far." BILL MOYERS: Well you know, someone would say that you've been elected to Congress repeatedly since 1986. So clearly the loss of the fairness doctrine didn't prevent you… LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Didn't impede me. No. Because I'm able to buy advertising. In today's world, a candidate who is not on television is not real. Nobody knows about them. They basically don't exist. BILL MOYERS: People contribute money for you to pay for advertising. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: And that's the way it goes. Back in the old days, you know we used to have door hangers, billboards, and all those kind of things. But mostly now, with most candidates for Congress they simply raise money for television and hand it over. BILL MOYERS: When your constituents in your district listen to talk radio, what are they hearing? Is there a lot of right wing talk radio in your radio? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Oh yes, absolutely. Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, the whole nine yards. BILL MOYERS: Are you saying that Rush Limbaugh… LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Rush Limbaugh has every right to be on there. But that radio station has to give equal time to another point of view. BILL MOYERS: If you get the fairness doctrine back, Rush Limbaugh is still going to be on the air and Sean Hannity's going to still be on the air? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, of course. I mean… BILL MOYERS: What will be the difference? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: The difference would be that there would have to be somebody there saying, "Come in." The fact is, what we're talking about with fairness is that a radio station, television station that has opinion, has to give an opposing opinion a chance. And I think that that's terribly important to us. It's not asking much. And we're not as informed as we ought to be. BILL MOYERS: Now we have the internet. Anybody can say what they will, when they want to say it… And we know that a lot of these bloggers that we know about on the internet that get picked up and circulated to major media. So there is an antidote now… LOUISE SLAUGHTER: There is an antidote now, except everybody is not on the internet. Everybody has no access to see what they're talking about. I don't think there's any question that MoveOn when they organized against further consolidation of media, and had over two million e-mails going into the FCC, made a big impression. I think the Sinclair thing is also somewhat resolved. I have to say at the same time, I think that the internet had an effect on that. BILL MOYERS: Some conservative writers have said that, "Look, Congresswoman, the market worked. When Sinclair tried to insert his politics views into a commercial field, the public reacted, the bloggers reacted, the opposition reacted. And Sinclair changed its policy." LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well we didn't have that a couple, three years ago. But I'm not sure we can just leave it to that. That we can hope that the bloggers will be enough to counteract it. The fact that Sinclair wanted to do it in the first place, indicates that they had no restrictions on them of any sort, and apparently that they thought it was there to use as they saw fit. It's a little difficult once the owners of Sinclair have already declared their preference and given huge amounts of money to one party to even when they would do this, not to say this is one step forward, further of what they want to do to support their candidate. But now people are saying, "Well wait a minute. We shouldn't just hear from one side of this issue. There must be some reason those people in Congress are doing this. We would like to hear from them or their supporters or people who agree with them to see what is it. What's going on here? What is it that we need to know about this legislation?" Just hearing it from one side is not sufficient. In fact, it's dangerous. BILL MOYERS: You're saying that your fairness doctrine would simply mean that if a radio station or television station offers one position, like Rush Limbaugh, on a bill or a campaign of President or an election, they should also have people who disagree with Rush Limbaugh? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Absolutely. They should not be putting their own bias and their own feelings out on their radio station because they think they own it. It has to be done as a public trust and in the public interest. BILL MOYERS: But the first amendment guarantees the right of free press. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: If they owned the airwaves, then I'd probably have no complaint. But they don't. It belongs to us. Part of our democracy. It's part of the ability that we have to contact our citizens. It's a way that we want our children to grow up with some understanding of what this country is about and what it's based on and what their choices are. BILL MOYERS: You've been up against the big broadcasters before. LOUISE SLAUGHTER: I have. BILL MOYERS: So what makes you think you can win now? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: So many things are happening in the country. I have a grandson that's a sophomore at George Washington. He asked me to come and speak to the Young Democrats. I've been doing that for years. It was always five kids in a room. So I called him on the way and said, "Where's this held?" He said, "Grand Ballroom." And I thought, "Oh, that's gonna look good." Over 300 students, standing room. I've never seen that. I've been in this business a long time. There is a new sense in this country. A porter this morning at the Rochester airport said to me, "Everybody's gotta get out." He started ticking them off. "Senior citizens, all the minorities, gays, everybody, this is it. The country is really up for grabs here." And I think that part of it, and the reason we are in this position that we are in, and perhaps part of the reason the polls are the way they are, are what people hear. They may hear whatever they please and whatever they choose. And of course they always have the right to turn it off. But that's not good enough either. The fact is that they need the responsibility of the people who are licensed to use our airwaves judiciously and responsibly to call them to account if they don't. BILL MOYERS: Who decides what fairness is? What is fair? What's the truth? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, in political circles, it's the equal time piece where if one candidate gets to say something on the air, equal time, no matter what it is, is given to the opponent, again if asked. But fairness can't be that difficult. Surely, we have evolved to the stage here in this century that we can understand some sort of balance, some sort of sense. To me it is a feeling that my country is spilling out hatred and lies on many, many of these stations to people who hear nothing but that, who never believe or hear any countervailing opinion. I think this is one of the most dangerous things in the world, and it actually cuts out a point of view of half of America. And anything that we own as Americans, as a government, like the radio and television waves, should not be used in that way. BILL MOYERS: Are you saying that the major broadcasters are against fairness? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Sure! It was their lobbyists that killed the little bill I had on giving opponents a little bit of time on free television. Yes, I'm saying that. They won't come out and say it themselves. They don't have to. They hire a lobbying firm in Washington that will spend you know, $11 million for that one amendment that I had. Unfortunately for us campaigns coincide with football season, and it kind of sort of makes it a little hard sometimes for because that time goes at such an extraordinarily high commercial rate to let us in at a low one. BILL MOYERS: You raised Sinclair. Did the broadcast of that controversial documentary critical of Kerry, STOLEN HONOR, did that really matter? I mean throughout the Presidential campaign, there were newspaper editorials, there were cable channels covering the campaign. There was the Internet. And in the end, what difference does it make that a company like Sinclair shows a film criticizing Kerry? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, let me tell you why it matters. One of the things that I'm distressed about, and I am a true patriot, is that I think what they've done with this film and others, they have called into question the medals won by every soldier, sailor in this country. When you can slime three Vietnam heroes in four years and you can question a man's Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts and the military sits there… The Navy finally quietly on the hush said, "Those medals were deserved." You know, it was a terrible thing that's been done to our heroes. It's an awful thing that they would do this to him, in order to keep him from being the President of the United States when it's something that is based on falsehood. This is what I'm talking about. To spew this out all day long based on untruths is awful. I mean I'm glad we've got these fact-checkers out there. But they have not checked those ads very well. How in the world can we say we are exporting democracy all over the world and we don't have it here at home? BILL MOYERS: You think that stations, radio and television that are licensed should be required to offer an alternative. Would you feel this way if Rush Limbaugh were a Democrat, a liberal? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Yes, I would. Yes, I would. I have no question about that. I think it's just so important, because I'm not sure Americans have a chance to know what's going on. Now, I know the news comes so fast and furiously. But I go out and I make speeches, and I always make it a point to really, "Let me tell you what's going on. Let me tell you what's in Washington, what you're not hearing." People are uniformly stunned. They can't believe. They couldn't believe that Medicare bill. And that the Democrats were shut out of the room, or that Charlie Rangel and the Democrats in the Ways and Means Committee were gonna be arrested by the Capitol police for using the Ways and Means Library. I mean, this is outrageous. We'll never put a stop to this kind of action, unless people know it. BILL MOYERS: Where were the journalists? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Where were they? Where were they? I think Washington is covered very poorly. I've got a couple newspapers that I'd walk 100 miles to get. But for the most part, I think, as I said, they take it off of the wires. BILL MOYERS: You're saying that the press didn't cover these stories and that talk radio skewed the issue? LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Talk radio didn't want to mention it. I bet you that nobody's ever heard Rush Limbaugh say anything about Tom DeLay and what he did and his ethics problems. He's not gonna talk about that. But should America know or not that the Majority Leader, the Majority Leader has turned the whole Congress upside down and that what Americans learned on how a bill is passed has no relationship at all to what's going on in Washington now. I think America wants to know that. I want them to.

[samizdat]

a nation that is afraid of its people....

I hate and fear all people equally. That's fair.

I hope this thread can assimilate all censorship topics, s/a google manipulation, website blackouts, etc.

[American Patriot]

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Axelrod Reverses Course: Says Fairness Doctrine Open to Discussion In a major policy switch, President Obama's top political adviser now says the administration will "discuss" a new Fairness Doctrine for talk radio. During the campaign Obama said he opposed a new Fairness Doctrine.
Read the Full Story -- Go Here Now
http://newsmax.sparklist.com/t/8687436/30098027/1906/0/

Important: Newsmax Special Report "Talk Radio's Last Stand" was among the first to warn of new regulations to stifle Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Boortz and other talk radio hosts.

Read this important report now -- Go Here Now http://newsmax.sparklist.com/t/8687436/30098027/1907/0/

[American Patriot]

Axelrod Says Obama to Discuss Fairness Doctrine

Monday, February 16, 2009 3:54 PM

By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size

An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.

The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.

Asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”

This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:

“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.

The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.

Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.

“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”

Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.

[vector7]

[vector7]

Onkar Ghate on Glenn Beck "War Game"

[Ryan Ruck]

Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?

February 18, 2014

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of “critical information” “that it believes local newscasters should cover.”

That’s right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions.

This poses a monumental danger to constitutionally protected free speech and freedom of the press.

Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, "our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.

It’s an unconscionable assault on our free society.

Imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories in the same way as MSNBC or Al Jazeera. Imagine an Obama Administration official walking in to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and telling it that the American public would be better served if it is stopped reporting on the IRS scandal or maybe that reporting on ObamaCare “glitches” is driving down enrollment.

It’s hard to imagine anything more brazenly Orwellian than government monitors in newsrooms.

Is it any wonder that the U.S. now ranks 46th in the world for freedom of the press? Reporters Without Boarders called America’s precipitous drop of 13 places in its recent global rankings “one of the most significant declines” in freedom of the press in the world.

Freedom of the press is proudly extolled in the First Amendment, yet our nation now barely makes the top fifty for media freedom.

We cannot allow the unfathomable encroachment on our free speech and freedom of the press to continue.

We’ve seen, and defeated, this kind of attempt to squelch free speech before in the likes of the Fairness Doctrine and the Grassroots Lobbying Bill (incidentally one of my first projects at the ACLJ). Each one of these euphemistically named government programs is nothing more than an underhanded attempt to circumvent the Constitution and limit free speech – speech that the government finds inconvenient. They’re equally unconstitutional, and they each must be defeated.

Join the ACLJ as we take a stand. Sign the ACLJ’s Petition to Stop the Obama FCC’s Free Speech Monitors.

This article is crossposted on Red State.

[Malsua]

Why is it that every government agency is always attempting to expand it's area of control? Someone needs to tell the FCC they are forbidden to enter the property, lethal force is authorized.

[American Patriot]

They aren't even an "agency". They are a "commission", a board of directors of sorts. They have no authority to do that