Don't Restore the Fairness Doctrine

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There has been discussion on this site lately about how the Democrats should bring the "Fairness Doctrine" back into play.

I have to emphatically disagree, and I hope that my fellow Kossacks in the same camp show some support.

Read More about the Fairness Doctrine

The issue of access to media is complex, but the real question comes down to: do you believe in the First Amendment, or don't you?

I had hoped that when the Democrats, who I have worked my ass off to get elected, would not resurrect this sorry ghost from the past, but it has reared its head.

So I hope that those Democrats who still believe in the Constitution join me and denounce any attempt to restore the "Fairness Doctrine".
Update
No one has been able to refute any of my statements. Seriously, I'm looking for any kind of opposition...

•  No tips

  I expect to lose all my mojo on this one...

  by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:00:03 PM PDT

  •  OK, hartboy, I'll take you one step further.

    Maximize access to the airwaves so "everyone" can have their very own radio station:

    No broadcasting stations of over 100 watts, AM or FM radio, or VHF or UHF TV.  No more than one station per owner or substantive owner.  Redefine "fringe reception area" to enable overlap of stations that are geographically separated (so, for example, you could re-orient your antenna to choose which of two overlapping signals to receive).  

    Then you can repeal the Fairness Doctrine, or enact a Foulness Doctrine for all I care.  

    All Libertarians believe that the power of institutions over individuals must be subjected to checks and balances.  Libertarian Democrats believe that corporations as well as government entities can exercise de-facto coercive power over individuals and thus must be subjected to limits.  Rightie Libertarians believe that only government need be limited, and corporate power need not be.  

    Are you sure you want to hang out with the righties?  

    by G2geek on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:52:12 PM PDT

    •  I've hung out with the Righties since 1987

      When the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed by the Supreme Court. Last time I checked, the Democrats just one a majority of the House, Senate, Gubernatorial seats, and State Chambers.

      I also believe that, since then, cable TV, satellite radio, and the Internet became a lot more prominent since then.

      by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:04:02 PM PDT

      •  my God are you clueless!

        Compare & contrast: what are the two fundamental differences between the items in category (1) below, and the items in category (2) below?

        1.  Broadcast radio, and broadcast television.

        2.  Cable TV, satellite radio, and the Internet.

        Answer: There are two fundamental differences:

        One:  The number of possible points-of-origination, in any geographic locale, for any of the items in category (1) is far smaller than for any of those in category (2).

        Two:  The items in category (1) require only the ownership of a receiving device, at a one-time cost, and does not require the ongoing payment of service fees.  In contrast, the items in category (2) require the payment of recurring service fees.

        The fact that the items in (1) are free of recurring service charges means that those items are a) highly desirable, and b) universally accessible.  The fact that the available bandwidth in any given area is strictly limited, requires regulatory mechanisms for assuring preservation of the right of the entire public to the "free speech by proxy" of media representation of its views.  

        The Unfairness Doctrine allows the owners of those resources to exercise unchecked power in their ablity to regulate the expression of public opinion on the airwaves.   The Fairness Doctrine acts as a check and balance to the power of the owners of the resources.  

        You have still not responded to my substantive points, which would appear to indicate that you've conceded.  

        by G2geek on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:14:01 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps that's because.....

    ...it's such a spectacularly bad idea.  I say this as a lawyer with 17 years of experience in the broadcasting industry. The Fairness Doctrine was predicated on the notion that the airwaves belong to the people. The broadcast spectrum is a public resource to no less a degree than the National Park system.  And your First Amendment argument is bass-ackwards as well.  When Congress grants a broadcaster a license to use the public airwaves, without any enforceable provision for public access, they have, in fact, abridged freedom of speech.  Specifically, my freedom of speech, and yours as well.

    Back in the day, an individual or company could own no more than 5 Am stations, 5 FM stations and 5 Television stations.  There was a multiplicity of viewpoints inherent in that rule. Today, Clear Channel owns nearly 1,000 stations.  They can choose to put Rush Limbaugh on every one of them, and they can choose to deny you (and your viewpoint) access to every one of them.

    Abridge free speech?  Oh, yeah.

    by roxtar on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:31:11 AM PDT

    •  I still agree

      That media consolidation should be reversed...

      Surely there should be more restrictive limits on the radio stations, newspapers, and other outlets that corporations should own, this is a very strong standard that the FCC should uphold.

      I still have not heard a single argument that convinces me of the constitutionality of the "Fairness Doctrine".

      by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:39:14 AM PDT

      •  it has to be "constitutional"? NOT!

        many law and regulations are passed are not necessarily constitutional at all. it is called common good. duh! to be quite frank, that sounds like a repub on uppers.

        by stodghie on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:16:12 AM PDT

•  Do you want to give reasons?

  I'd take this more seriously if you were to delineate what you see as the reasons we should not reinstate...

  by Rico on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:01:28 PM PDT

  •  No

    shit.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:53:46 PM PDT

    •  Here's one reason

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:59:52 PM PDT

      •  How does the Fairness Doctrine abridge?

        You still haven't answered that.  Congress hasn't made a law that abridges free speech.  There are no sanctions on what is said.

        by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:09:36 AM PDT

        •  Yes there are

          Failure to comply with a Fairness Doctrine would result in yanking of a license.

          by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:18:44 AM PDT

          •  So making people debate an issue, be accountable

            ...for what they say - is a bad thing?

            by Rico on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:37:09 AM PDT

          •  Yanking of the license would abridge

            commerce..... not speech.  

            by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:45:45 AM PDT

•  Yes, where's MY radio station?

  It is my constitutional right to have my voice broadcast far and near. And congress shall make no law abridging that right. I want both an AM and an FM frequency to myself, or I'll sue. You're ALL on notice!

  by MarkC on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:02:24 PM PDT

  •  Precicely

    by TocqueDeville on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:21:19 PM PDT

•  that link

  doesn't have to do with the Fairness Doctrine, as far as I can tell.

  It would be nice if you put forward some kind of argument against the Fairness Doctrine...  I don't see that it conflicts with the First Amendment, but I'm all ears.

  by Lee on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:03:25 PM PDT

  •  It's not a definitive source

    And I am certainly not a definitive source, but as far as I can see, the page I linked to traces a link between the governments inability to regulate the views of press media into the realm of broadcast media and cable media.

    One conclusion often expressed by opponents of the Fairness Doctrine comes from Associated Press v. United States, which states that "the constitutional principle that diversity comes from the unfettered marketplace of ideas and not "through any kind of authoritative selection".

    I would argue furthur by quoting from that same case:

    "That Amendment [the first] rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guarantted by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not."

    I apologize if my legal reasoning is not up to date, like I said I am not a legal scholar and I eagerly appreciate any up to date legal reasoning. But for now, as far as I can see, the Fairness Doctrine has in the past and continues to conflict with the First Amendment.

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:33:36 PM PDT

    •  Since you haven't given this much thought

      Consider how my rights to free speech are infringed when I attempt to voice my views on the Rush Limbaugh show only to be cut off the air when I make a point he finds disagreeable.

      Hell, most leftists ca't even get on the air.

      Point one you seem to miss: The radio airwaves and the bandwidth spectrum used by major media outlets is the property of the American people.

      The fairness clause doesn't limit what you can say. It limits your ability to monopolise the public's property.

      It was initiated in 1938. The same year Hitler scared the shit out of everyone with his broadcast from the Olympics. Think that's a coincidence? It's not.

      You are confusing speech with access.

      Over the last month, the Republicans have had 800 stations broadcasting at least 12 hours a day their right wing propaganda against Democrats in a political campaign.

      Meanwhile, for a fraction of that kind of exposure, the democrats had to spend close to a billion dollars this year.

      Please don't confuse free speech with who gets to hold the microphone.

      by TocqueDeville on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:35:01 PM PDT

      •  Ok

        I'm not a historian, so as far as I can tell, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't put into place until 1949, long after Hitler was dead.

        The question to ask is, if the tables were turned, would you still support this law?

        by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:06:20 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          http://72.14.209.104/...

          by TocqueDeville on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:12:10 AM PDT

          •  Ok Johnny Nobody

            I don't know what your purpose of linking to a page about censorship written by yourself was. Perhaps it was a boost to your own ego, in which case, congratulations, I give you +1 charisma.

            If it's because of threats, abuse, or racial epitaths, then you're completely insane, as I have done none of the above.

            If you're trying to kick me out of the Democratic party, fat chance. I'm not in a contest to see who did the most this election.

            by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:28:56 AM PDT

•  How does the "Fairness Doctrine"....

  ...abridge freedom of speech?

  by Rex Manning on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:05:01 PM PDT

  •  Because

    The government is abridging the freedom of speech.

    If it was singular radio companies or broadcast corporations making this policy, that would be fine.

    But because the government would be saying "you can say 'x' unless we let someone say 'y', that means the government has made a law abridging the freedom of speech."

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:37:02 PM PDT

    •  no since it still allowing the speech it just

      gives both sides of the issue a chance to be heard.

      Without it you see a true abridgment of freedom of speech since only one view is heard and considering that there are only 7 major media companies and if you have not noticed the last few years they all seem to be saying about the same damn thing... they don't have to give access to a dissenting voice.

      by skippythebox on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:50:24 PM PDT

    •  Ummm.....

      ....more like "you said something over our airwaves now someone else wants to say something else in rebuttal so make some time for them to say it."

      There is no rule that specifies what can be said.

      Freedom of speech has not been abridged.

      by Rex Manning on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:57:47 PM PDT

•  I absolutely believe in the first amendment

  that's why I want to see the return of the fairness doctrine.  I don't believe that dollars equal speech.  I am aware that the airwaves are a public trust and that licencees have an obligation to all citizens, not just the right wing.  I do believe that I have as much right to have my voice heard as Limbaugh's pre-screened dittoheads or the chairman of a megacorp.  Is you crazy?

  by UneasyOne on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:07:09 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    Free speech is irrelevant if only the people who can afford to speak can be heard. When the market creates a problem and not a solution, it's incumbent upon good government to step in an rectify that problem.

    by metal prophet on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:12:29 PM PDT

  •  And Global Media Corps Do Not Equal "People" nt

    by Gooserock on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:16:59 PM PDT

    •  big problem when corporations have more rights

      than citizens.

      by stodghie on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:19:44 AM PDT

  •  Only natural persons can vote

    Corporations can't vote, nor should they be allowed to limit discourse in contravention of the First Amendment. That amendment is about political speech, not advertising budgets.

    Equally in contravention of the first amendment is the obscene conflation of money for media ads with freedom of speech. Dominating discourse by dint of unequal broadcast media resources is precisely counter to the intent of the notion of freedom of speech. Otherwise speech is only free for the wealthy and powerful.

    Troll topic.

    by quixote on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:55:28 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps you missed

      The role that the "blogosphere" played in this last election, or the number of Americans that get their news from cable TV and the Internet. I agree that media consolidation needs to be regulated; the lax restrictions on media ownership in the Bush administration need to be reversed.

      But perhaps you missed my opening paragraph about how Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It's from the Constitution.

      As for 'troll topic', I'm too tired from working the last 8 months to get Democratic candidates elected, so all I can muster is a weak "Fuck You."

      by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:15:43 PM PDT

•  Freedom of speech is not defended

    When the public air is appropriated by powerful interests that suppress speech they do not like.

    Let us be perfectly clear: nobody is talking about suppressing the ultra-conservative television and radio personalities.  We will always defend their right to speak, no matter how repugnant their ideas are to us.
    But we do not and cannot defend their right to suppress other ideas: to hang up the phone on the caller who disagrees, to restrict guests to one party and one position.
    Freedom suffers when only one side is represented in the media, when a monopoly on the airwaves belongs to one party.
    We don't want an improved fairness doctrine because it will help us politically; we want it because we believe that a politically healthy nation is exposed to, and can choose from, a full range of possible views, without any being suppressed.
    The nation's political health is imperiled as long as there is a chokehold on the kinds of political discourse that get heard.  Adding more voices doesn't necessarily make politics more liberal; but it does make it less likely that people will vote against liberals because the only thing they know about liberalism is a distorted caricature of it distributed by the media, and not by actual liberals.
     The real question is: why are conservatives so in doubt about the strength of their views that they have to shut all others out?  I think that's a question that finds answers both in the conservatives' own authoritarian tendencies, and their doubts about the ability of their ideas to sway large numbers of people in a truly free marketplace of ideas.  Without a captive audience, who would follow them?

  by WIds on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:12:22 PM PDT

  •  that's complete bull-flockey

    But we do not and cannot defend their right to suppress other ideas: to hang up the phone on the caller who disagrees, to restrict guests to one party and one position.

    this site does it all the time. it's not frowned upone, in fact it's encouraged: we're hear to get democrats elected.

    why should we expect oprah, since she's on broadcast media, to have to include guests that have no goals and just want to play video games all day?

    The real question is: why are conservatives so in doubt about the strength of their views that they have to shut all others out?

    The real question is, why in the absense of the fairness doctrine, have progressives not been able to capture as large an audience as conservatives on radio?

    Remember, corporations don't give a shit about what you're saying, as long as you bring in listeners, which is what sells advertising.

    I think for most progressives, that this is too tough a question to face, so they resort to calling for an unconstitutional "Fairness Doctrine".

    I, for one, work my ass off on campaigns and in the media for the day when progressive ideals stand on their own and don't need gov't influence to survive.

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:45:19 PM PDT

    •  Speaking of bull-flockey

      a) There is an ongoing boycott of Air America's advertisers by the wingnuts.  b) Megacorps already have a mouthpeice in Clearchannel and it's like. And you suggest they're gonna support it's populist, anticorp competition?  c) There were plenty of popular left-leaning personalities before the advent of one party radio.  Numerous examples of popular but leftward personalities being fired.  Jim Hightower - when he said he was working for a rodent. (Mickey Mouse aka ABC) The Smothers Brothers, when they were the most popular show on tv.  I could go on.  Not easy to develop a fan base until you get a job.

      by UneasyOne on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:21:28 PM PDT

      •  I'm sorry

        I can't find in one of your examples where the gov't is abridging your right to speech.

        by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:07:34 AM PDT

        •  You asked a question

          I answered it.  You obviously believe that speech should only be "free" for billionares and their lackeys.  Read your own comment next time, why don't you, before you respond to me.

          by UneasyOne on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:21:00 AM PDT

    •  Wrong

      Remember, corporations don't give a shit about what you're saying, as long as you bring in listeners, which is what sells advertising.

      Absolutely untrue.  Corporations increasingly respect ideology over money -- not least because they expect that a defense of right-wing ideology will result in them having fatter wallets in the long run than the short-term profit they could get by having more liberal viewers or listeners.  Why bother selling liberal opinion to the liberal segment of the population, when you can -- for trivial sums and a strict adherence to right-wing propaganda -- bribe the government to just give you far more money (in the form of tax breaks, deregulation, and other giveaway legislation)?

      by WIds on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:46:50 PM PDT

      •  Sources please

        Otherwise you sound like a looney-insane-conspiracy-theorist.

        by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:08:46 AM PDT

•  Do You Believe The 2nd Ammendment Grants Right to

  "arms" or don't you?

  Check your calendar. It's the 21st century. The 5 global corporations that control almost all our mainstream media are no more "citizens" deserving the full protection you get of "speech" and "press" for their 24/365 virtual worlds of commerce, news, entertainment, education and societal gathering space than you deserve 2nd ammendment right to own nukes and anthrax bombs.

  We're a century out of date updating the Constitutional concepts of information and as a result it is an insane system where the most complex powerful nation in history cannot conduct meaningful adult debate on any topic whatsoever.

  Modern media are dimensions more than 'speech' and 'press' and we need those parchment era rights appropriately dimensioned and nuanced to suit.

  I have little clue how that might be done, but right now nobody does because everybody thinks that our insane sytem is perfect, and that the problem is that all the people, all our leaders and all our institutions are all misbehaving and failing to do their duties.

  by Gooserock on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:15:27 PM PDT

  •  As other diarists have mentioned

    And which I strongly champion, the key is in reducing the limits on media consolidation. Studies show that as media consolidation grows, independent voices decline, and (more importantly to mainstream America), indecent content increases.

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:08:08 PM PDT

  •  I don't

    I belive in the 2nd Amendment's Right for a well-regulated militia to bear arms.

    Your second paragraph is emotive but draws no logical conclusions.

    Your third paragraph starts to point to some truth but ends up still with no logical conclusions. In fact, it points to your ignorancy of Supreme Court decisions. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, cause if you want to argue that Supreme Court decisions aren't part of the fabric of US law, then I'll just lump you in with tax scammers and Right-wing extremists.

    Your third paragraph points to the fact that we need Federal Court oversight over US Code, which we have.

    Your last paragraph is just blah blah blah. The Federal and Supreme Courts so far have decided how it's done.

    So logically, you haven't made any connection between your initial arguement having something to do with the 2nd amendment, and your final argument, which you summed up as "I have little clue..."

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:26:24 PM PDT

•  We the people...

  own the spectrum.  Do those who lease it from us have the right to more freedom of speech than I/we do?  

  Can I get on a 50,000 watt station tomorrow morning and say what I want?  No.  There's a problem here.  We've given everything to these elitist bastards who were born with every advantage to begin with; it's time we start evening the playing field again.  There was nothing like today's radio and television back when the Constitution was written; we have to look at today's issues in the context of the times.  I'm sure the founding fathers did not intend to provide special privileges to the likes of Fox News (or Father Coughlin) at the expense of the people.

  by Hardhat Democrat on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:16:05 PM PDT

  •  I would accept your argument more

    If you didn't mix radio and broadcast television with cable television (Fox News)

    Welcome to the modern world!

    by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:10:33 AM PDT

    •  okay...

      Fox 'network' News...they got one of those, too; it's owned by the same 'people', and I can't get on there either, hartboy.

      by Hardhat Democrat on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:20:16 AM PDT

      •  Jesus, yes you can

        Read the New Policy Institute by Kos. We did it for less than $5 a spot.

        by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:31:55 AM PDT

•  how ironic - perhaps this diarist is doing a

  deliberate negative... i hope so.

  the fairness doctrine is about being fair - NOT about suppressing speech!

  i spent election day on the phone to the ombudsman for msnbc and nbc corporate BECAUSE that network was blatantly campaigning for republican candidates by giving them unpaid uninterrupted airtime to press their political positions WITHOUT INTERRUPTION and WITHOUT OPPOSITION CANDIDATES!

  that msnbc (tucker carlson interviewing rick santorum at approx. 12:15 pst) would give only ONE candidate extended airtime to push his campaign rhetoric uninterrupted and straight from the talking points memo was unconscionable, if not illegal!

  i called msnbc and asked for the ombudsman to protest and was connected to a linda? roberts, legal representative and ombudsman who was concerned when i told her of the open partisanship of carlson and of scarborough (who pushed voting for foley so the republican stand-in would benefit) and the largely republican parade of "guests".

  this is OUR airtime - NOT that of a corporate entity - we, the PEOPLE own the airways - when the corporations overstep the bounds defined BY the people, they are fined (witness the boob job fines for cbs affiliates) - yet, when a network blatantly and with bias uses the airways that WE own to present only one side of the political spectrum, this nation loses.

  as a child of the fairness doctrine era - you better BELIEVE that this would never have happened then!  when one side of the political spectrum is presented, the doctrine DEMANDED that the opposition side was given equal airtime!

  the reason that the doctrine was supposedly eliminated was the emergence of multiple third party candidates - and the demands for valuable airtime would have to be equally shared between all these viewpoints... however, the real reason was that by having to present an HONEST "fair and balanced" coverage, the american people would be more likely to form educated opinions - and with those opinions, the american public could not be easily manipulated.

  imho, the reason for the disastrous emergence of the fanatical right was exactly the reversal of the fairness doctrine... this is what allows a fox news or a rush limbaugh or a michael savage the "freedom" to lie and distort fact and do it without accountability.

  i regret the misguided views of this diarist and i really and truly hope the diarist is very young and has no real idea what the fairness doctrine really stood for - because if the diarist really DOES know what this doctrine means and what purpose it served, then i weep for him/her - for the choice of blind ignorance and folly.

  by edrie on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:29:35 PM PDT

  •  how ironic, perhaps this diarist

    doesn't understand a thing about the fairness doctrine.

    the original fairness doctrine applied to radio. perhaps that could be expanded to broadcast television, i don't know. but certainly it couldn't expand to cable tv, as the fcc indecency rules couldn't.

    therefore, everything you say about tucker carlson, who appears on cable tv, is moot.

    if you wish for the fairness doctrine to expand beyond broadcast media, that would imply a seprately new supreme court case to decide, and i would imagine the majority of americans and corporate media to be vehemently opposed to, as would i.

    while you CAN argue that the broadcast spectrum is the public's property, it is simply ludicrous to argue that cable and satellite space is limited.

    this diarist grew up in the post-broadcast world.

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:00:25 PM PDT

    •  the fairness doctrine ALSO encompassed

      the television broadcast media... and i am of the opinion that it should encompass the "all news" stations on cable and satellite.  if they profess to be "news" - the fine, if they want to be "commentary" stations, fine - but accuracy in labeling should come with the twentyfirst century.

      IF the fairness doctrine is to be re-enacted - i am ALL for encompassing "news" sources such as msnbc - which is under the unbrella of the corporate nbc network.  JUST because "news" is on cable or satellite should not be a free pass to deny freedom of speech.

      entertainment gets a pass - but label it as such.  i don't expect entertainment tonite to give me political accuracy - nor do i expect south park or the daily show to be non-partisan.

      as for the "supreme court" deciding - nope - write it into law.  that i would support in a heartbeat!

      as for broadcast media - it is over the PUBLIC airways - free for all - not a fee based medium.  the networks pay a pittance for the "privilege" to use the bandwidth.

      cable and satellite?  why single out the news?  because it is involved in "informing the public" and performing a "public service" - the good of the community should oversee the profit of the profiteers.  unbiased coverage should be a no-brainer - it SHOULD be something that EVERY thinking person would want.  unbiased coverage occurs WHEN there is freedom of speech - for ALL sides - not just propagandizing by one corporatized viewpoint.

      i'm tired... good nite.

      by edrie on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:51:40 PM PDT

      •  Again I ask

        If you're for encompassing all broadcast, cable, and satellite stations...

        What would encompass all points of view?

        If Sean Hannity says we should invade Iran, should the government demand we give equal time to someone who would argue that we should nuke the entire middle east?

        by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:35:44 AM PDT

        •  are you deliberately misrepresenting this or is

          this just a troll action?

          sean hannity does NOT get "equal time" - he is a COMMENTATOR!!!!!

          if sean hannity gives rick santorum ten minutes to politicize the day of an election, then the fairness doctrine demands that the opposition candidate ALSO has an opportunity to present opposing views.

          this is about POLITICAL CANDIDATES who are RUNNING FOR OFFICE or who are espousing political points of view - it is about.  sigh.... i give up - you can believe what you wish - i'm too tired to give a flying f*ck right now.  it's late and i'm done.

          by edrie on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:51:31 AM PDT

        •  why not read the damned thing!

          Fairness Doctrine

          by edrie on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:53:16 AM PDT

        •  Sheesh!

          The Fairness Doctrine can't be applied to cable/satellite programming.  It applied to over-the-airwaves broadcasting only. Now you're making (or defending) an entirely different argument.

          by roxtar on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:43:43 AM PDT

    •  oh, not necessarily moot re carlson...

      at least the lawyer/ombudsman was sufficiently concerned about the one sided political coverage - wonder what HER final determination was...  

      by edrie on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:53:00 PM PDT

    •  Ironic or just ignorant?

      how ironic, perhaps this diarist  
      doesn't understand a thing about the fairness doctrine.

      VERY Ironic - We are posters, YOU are the diarist.

      by Rico on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:43:33 AM PDT

•  The First Amendment doesn't settle the question

  of ownership.  The airwaves are owned by the American people, and the American People have a right to expect they are represented well by the people who rent their property.

  It's exactly like the fact you have every right to speak your mind, but you don't have the right to come into my apartment and speak your mind on my dime.

  It's as simple as that, really.

  by AndyS In Colorado on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:09:02 PM PDT

  •  Ok

    Cable TV is accessed by 59% of Americans while Satellite TV is accessed by 29%. 75% of Americans have had access to the internet, and that fact is over 3 years old.

    The original intent of broadcast regulation was on scarcity of resources. Clearly that has no place in digital media.

    It's as simple as that.

    Really.

    by hartboy on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:56:59 PM PDT

    •  You are changing the subject, which means

      by default, with your illogical and obtuse riposte, you grant my point.

      Where ownership exists, the right to set the terms of debate exists.  That is a given, supported by more than two centuries of American law.

      The fact is, the corporations that broadcast (and the cable televisions that deliver cable, if they use government resources) have no more right to be free of fetterment on their speech than I have to badmouth my employer and necessarily expect to keep my job by divine right.

      Fox News has, for example, every right to cowtow to Republicans and not be fair, what they do not have is the right to a broadcast license to do it.

      You can argue the Fairness Doctrine's wisdom all you want -- it just so happens I disagree with you, and that's fine.  

      But don't hide behind the First Amendment.  You are just wrong to try that, on all counts.

      by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:21:12 AM PDT

•  Way I see it

  all speech should be legal

  But public-interest speech should not be deceitful.

  I say, let news outlets be as partisan as they want, but make them declare they're partisanship openly. Just one of those voices like at the end of medicine ads saying "Fox is news is a partisan republican outlet".

  Now, if  a channel does not want to declare partisanship, THEN make them be neutral.

  by Mr Bula on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:36:35 PM PDT

  •  I like that but...

    ...I think "Fox is news is a partisan republican outlet" should be on the 'crawl' at the bottom of the screen.

    by Rex Manning on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:48:20 PM PDT

    •  One bit of news, that sentence, one bit of news

      that would be fair

      by Mr Bula on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:52:10 PM PDT

  •  What does "deceitful" mean?

    There are laws against libel and slander.

    by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:33:18 AM PDT

•  Explain to me exactly how it is that the

  Fairness Doctrine abridges free speech?  What sanction is there on what is said?

  by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:06:51 AM PDT

  •  It says:

    "a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so."

    Sanction? Air time.

    It's stupid, and remnants of it today have hurt Democratic candidates I've worked for.

    Fighting to restore it will hurt many more Democrats in the future.

    by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:14:16 AM PDT

•  Democratic representatives that support the FD:

  Please name:

  by hartboy on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:51:14 AM PDT

  •  Just off the top of my Google...

    H.R.501
    Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act – To enforce the public interest obligations of broadcast station licensees to their local communities.
    Introduced: 02/01/05
    Sponsor: Rep. Slaughter; Co-Sponsor (18)

    So there's 19, for starters.

    by roxtar on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:15:22 AM PDT

    •  And for your convenience, a list...

      Rep. Ed Case [D-HI]
      Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
      Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
      Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
      Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
      Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
      Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
      Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
      Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
      Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
      Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
      Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
      Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
      Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
      Rep. Major Owens [D-NY]
      Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
      Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
      Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
      Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH]
      Rep. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]
      Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
      Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
      Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]

      by roxtar on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:23:23 AM PDT

•  OK, now you're just being ignorant.

  Update
  No one has been able to refute any of my statements. Seriously, I'm looking for any kind of opposition...

  Fairness Doctrine: Requires broadcasters to air multiple points of view.

  No Fairness Doctrine:  Allows broadcasters to present only one point of view.

  Multiple points of view = more freedom of speech.

  One point of view - less freedom of speech (or, abridged freedom of speech).

  First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.

  Who owns the airwaves?  The people own the airwaves.  Broadcasters lease space on the broadcast spectrum from the people (via the FCC).  

  Am I entitled to have my point of view presented in my local newspaper?  No, because my local newspaper is not owned by the people. Can Congress require my local newspaper to print my letter?  No, because my local newspaper is not owned by the people.

  Can Congress require broadcasters to present my point of view?  Yes, because the broadcast spectrum is owned by the people.

  But don't take my word for it.  Here's Supreme Court Justice (and former Pittsburgh Steeler) Byron (Whizzer) White, from his majority opinion in RED LION BROADCASTING CO., INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 367

  "This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in § 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. 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."

  Seriously, I think you need to think this through a little bit more.

  by roxtar on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:40:03 AM PDT

•  Sorry hartboy

  I kind of don't agree with you. Some of the important things seem to be getting lost as this debate heats up.

  First of all, the Fairness Doctrine only applies to broadcast media: radio and the TV you can pick up with the rabbit ears. You can argue that it's no longer needed in today's world because we have the internets, but when the Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949, there were tons of newspapers and magazines to which it did not apply. Whether radiowaves are the dominant form of media or not is a moot point; they are still limited and a public trust, and can still be regulated by the public.

  Freedom of speech and a right to access are two very different things. I can say whatever I want, but that does not mean someone else has to print it. If I have a license to use a portion of a limited public property, that does not give me the right to keep other voices out. In a way, this is similar to Christmas decorations at City Hall; City Hall can either keep everyone off the lawn, or they have to give everyone access. They are not allowed to only display Christian decorations. Hartboy, your arguments sound close to these "War on Christmas" people; sharing access with other viewpoints does not diminish your own right to speech.

  Sorry, Hartboy, I know where you're coming from. Media consolidation is a far more grevious crime against media access, and broadcast media is too limited to focus your energy on, but that doesn't negate the justifications for the Fairness Doctrine. I think shows like Rush Limbaugh were given free reign precisely because of its collapse. You say progressive shows haven't fared as well as Rush, but that's pretty much a moot point. The public airwaves are a public trust and should allow equal access, popularity be damned. There are plenty of other media to be controversial and entertaining in, but the public airwaves should be balanced and boring. Some may consider National Parks to be boring, but you can't stick a rollercoaster in there. Yes, it may bring more visitors, but you've broken the public trust in the use of a limited resource.

  by Eqqman on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:57:44 AM PDT

•  Also

  This idea of troll rating or what have you is absurd. This diary presents an idea many of you disagree with. You may not like the style he argues with. That does not make this a troll article. Honestly, I learned more about the Fairness Doctrine from the comments to this diary then one where everyone just agrees.

  by Eqqman on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:02:10 AM PDT

•  However

  I know hartboy is at work right now and won't be able to respond until tonight, but I will give an argument in favor of what he is trying to get at.

  When it comes to controversial issues, the Fairness Doctrine is ill-defined to level the playing field. With consolidated ownership of media outlets, the big media response to "fair and balanced" takes the form of shows like Hannity and Colmes, which is anything but fair and balanced. Most issues do not have two well-defined sides; take immigration for example. Can anyone distill the immigration debate into two single viewpoints? It is this simplistic view of debate that contributed to the downfall of the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, where broadcasters could not reasonably follow it, or were so scared of violating it that they simply refused to present any material of controversy or public interest.

  However, there are aspects of the Fairness Doctrine that are much more well-defined and necessary for the public interest that it demands revisiting. For example, giving equal time to legal candidates running for public office. If a radio station allows a candidate half an hour to express his/her views, then it should be required to allow the other candidate(s) for the same office their own half-hour to do the same.

  Also, the two corrolaries to the Fairness Doctrine, which remained in practice thirteen years after the Doctrine itself was repealed:

  The personal attack rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air.

  by Eqqman on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:21:10 AM PDT