The Fairness Doctrine Takedown
On a Wednesday, a progressive think tank and non-profit together release a report. For about a week, conservative commentators on-air and online make the most of a fresh chance to tear apart a public policy approach they generally despise. Then on the following Thursday, the House of Representatives votes overwhelmingly to block all federal funding for any implementation of any flavor of said policy. Game, set, match, and not bad for a week's work.
You'll remember that the Center for American Progress and Free Press released a report last week that once again raised the idea of the Fairness Doctrine, the telecom principle that in effect until the Reagan Administration that said that the public airwaves had to be used to promote a diversity of opinions. To dig into the details of the policy, that meant that radio spectrum licensees were required to address controversial issues and broadcast contrasting viewpoints. Also, anyone who was the target of an on-air personal attack had to be given the chance to clear his or her good name on-air.
Conservatives tend to hate the Fairness Doctrine, preferring an approach that says that in the free market of ideas, the thinking most appealing to the public would and should win out. To be fair, there are a great many liberal/progressives/lefties/whatever who dislike the Fairness Doctrine too, generally arguing on free speech grounds.
What began last week as a healthy discussion about the lack of diversity on political talk radio quickly devolved into round 3,482 of the great Fairness Doctrine debate. The conservative blogosphere went full bore on it, having a great time raising the Fairness Doctrine balloon and shooting it down, over and over again. And then yesterday the House of Representatives rushed en masse to vote for an amendment to an appropriations bill offered by Indiana's Mike Pence (himself a former radio guy) that would prevent the FCC from using one federal cent to implement the Fairness Doctrine or anything that smells like the Fairness Doctrine. The final vote was 309-115. Again, not too shabby for a week's work.
- FILED UNDER: Editor Posts
- June 29, 2007
Check out Time Magazine
The headline of their article on the topic: GOP Rallies Behind Talk Radio. The article is more balanced, but that's a heck of an opener.
- Email this page
By Nancy ScolaJune 29, 2007 - 12:21pmEnforce the Sherman Anti-trust Act
Now....Enforce the Sherman Anti-trust act.
The FCC's Fairness Doctrine was not law, it was simply FCC policy.
The Sherman Act is law and gives us all the tools we need to break these neo-con monoplies.
Thom Hartmann has written much about this.
- Email this page
By pb_trueJune 29, 2007 - 12:34pmFairness . . .
arjala
Why have we allowed ourselves to become victims?
Are we a nation unable to govern ourselves?
I hope to live to see the day . . .
- Email this page
By arjalaJune 29, 2007 - 12:54pmWay to go, fearmongers
You've managed to find a receptive audience and further your agenda. The Almighty Dollar proves that it speaks louder than the majority of Americans. Gotta love that Golden Rule: "Whoever has the Gold, makes the Rules."
I think a few incumbents need replacing next year.
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. ~~~Robert A. Heinlein
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2007 - 1:26pmI guess congress isn't into
I guess congress isn't into censorship like most of you are.
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashJune 29, 2007 - 1:51pmThank you
You've just done a marvelous job of proving my point. I don't know of anyone else who could have done it as well. My hat's off to you.
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. ~~~Robert A. Heinlein
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2007 - 2:01pmWhat that you support
What that you support censorship?
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashJune 29, 2007 - 2:08pmNice job of baiting
Keep trying. Someday someone might promote you. Then you can be known as a Master baiter.
You neo-c0ns are all for letting the market decide, as long as you OWN the market. The rest of the world -- which happens to also be the MAJORITY of the world -- knows better.
Now go back to Uncle Karl and tell him you couldn't sell any of the Kook-Aid again today.
Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do. ~~~Will Rogers
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2007 - 2:40pmProved you just don't get it jackoff. Never will either. Sad.
"Republicans should never skip their meds." P.J. O'Rourke, May 25, 2007, RTWBM
- Email this page
By Pookie2112June 29, 2007 - 2:41pmGet what?
That you and your like want to silence conservative speech?
So you support Hugo Chavez I assume. If you don;t like the speech, shut it down.
- Email this page
By Jim2244June 29, 2007 - 3:36pmYes, Jimmy...anything that will shut you up, is fine with me
"Invest In America Buy A Congressman"--evolvefish
One election at a time......
- Email this page
By pb_trueJune 29, 2007 - 3:38pmOh Jimbolina ... you read things that aren't there. Tsk, tsk.
Chavez? Who the fuck is talking about Chavez? And, didn't your Mama teach you to NEVER ASS-U-me? Another tsk, tsk for you.
"Republicans should never skip their meds." P.J. O'Rourke, May 25, 2007, RTWBM
- Email this page
By Pookie2112June 29, 2007 - 4:07pmPookie, the great defender
Pookie, the great defender of free speech (as long as it's liberal)
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashJune 29, 2007 - 4:42pmNo we want fair and diverse
No we want fair and diverse ownership of the media.
The current corporate monopoly of media has harmed the US - both conservative and liberals. MSM helped get us in our current quagmire.
The "free" speech and "free" market arguments on these boards are distractions from the real issues. More reich talking points.
The spin never stops...
- Email this page
By art42June 29, 2007 - 3:46pm"No we want fair and diverse
"No we want fair and diverse ownership of the media."
What does that mean? You want less conservative talk and more liberal talk. Don't give me crap about diverse ownership.
What do you think is more important to the owner of a radio station - airing programs that people listen to so he can charge more for advertising or decreasing his audience by airing diverse programs for the sake of fairness?
And don't tell me there is a huge audience waiting for Liberal talk. If there was AAR1 would not have folded and AAR2 would be in more cities. But of course by forcing stations to air liberal talk, well at least there will be less air time for conservative talk.
- Email this page
By Jim2244June 29, 2007 - 4:09pmFair Doctrine should not be the issue.
In The Progress Report which came out shortly after the report was released they stated that:
" Progressives, including several members of Congress, have unfortunately allowed the right wing to control the debate on this issue, focusing their legislative attempts at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that was repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. Reinstating that doctrine is not the answer. With talk radio being one of the most widely used media formats in the country and reaching an estimated 50 million listeners each week, it is imperative that progressives reclaim the debate from the right wing and instead address the increased concentration of talk radio ownership that has occurred over the past decade. As report co-author John Halpin stated, "If we break up concentrated ownership, and encourage greater local accountability over radio licensing, and still end up with lots of conservative talk, then so be it. We don't think this will happen but at least the playing field would have been made more level."
It looks as thought we are still concentrating on the wrong issue, just as the right wishes.
- Email this page
By gbreezJune 29, 2007 - 3:01pmSubmitted by gbreez on June 29, 2007 - 3:01pm
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html
It's law already on the books.
Enforce it.
Between the RICO laws and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Bushco and Cheney-burton would go broke paying lawyers to defend them.
Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
(stacking the SCOTUS and US court system was a ass-covering move)
Section 4. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure
The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
"Invest In America Buy A Congressman"--evolvefish
One election at a time......
- Email this page
By pb_trueJune 29, 2007 - 3:12pmFairness
I have no problem with letting Limbaugh, Hannity, et.al. say what they want.
I only ask that there be some talk radio of the other kind (e.g. Air America)in every market.
Three of the top 10 markets (Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia) have no left-of-center talk radio at all. In some of the others, the amount is negligible; nowhere does liberal talk prevail. Only in NYC does it even come close.
- Email this page
By AK47June 29, 2007 - 2:47pmair america
the AAR was taken from my city and replaced with espn sports.Now espn is paid for by anybody that has cable thats how they make enough money to have radio shows that in no way be self supporting, AAR was taking away listeners away from the right wing radio shows.That where espn comes in.
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 4:29pmAAR was taken from my city?
The fact is AAR was not bringing in enough listeners for the radio station. Less listeners means less advertising revenue. It is a business not a charity.
Not sure about your ESPN issue.
- Email this page
By Jim2244June 29, 2007 - 4:13pmfact
the cons i was talking to liked to hear from aar know what the ememy is thinking but the problem was AAR cut so many holes on what they were use to hearing they had stoped listening to chicken little the sky is falling.
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 4:28pmjust a thoought
I based that espn issue by reading other comments from loggers saying that when AAR was taken from their towns .So far it was espn that filled that slot.Over here over there.
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 5:05pmJimmy, Going conservative doesn't necessarily pay.
Format flip-flopping fails to help WYTS gain ground
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:45 AM
By Tim Feran
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Going conservative doesn't necessarily pay.
WYTS (1230 AM) found out the hard way after it switched from a liberal/progressive format to a mainly conservative one in December.
Ratings for the station dropped according to the latest Arbitron radio survey, which polled central Ohio listeners from Jan. 11 to April 14: The station's ranking in the market, always near the bottom, fell to dead last.
Still, WYTS has no plans to return to a progressive-talk format. The reason: The station now ties up talk-show hosts such as Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage in case another station in town wants to flip an FM station to talk.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/life/stories/2007/05/09...
NEXT.....this is too easy.
"Invest In America Buy A Congressman"--evolvefish
One election at a time......
- Email this page
By pb_trueJune 29, 2007 - 8:50pmESPN
Perhaps they could air a liberal version of ESPN radio for you. everygame would end in a tie so no one feels bad.
- Email this page
By Jim2244June 29, 2007 - 4:13pmwhat a laugh
1000 comedians out of a job and you are trying to break into the business.
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 4:49pmEven better, everyone "wins"!
Even better, everyone "wins"!
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashJune 29, 2007 - 5:17pmTalk Radio Listeners Lean Right
I wonder what the argument would be if talk radio was dominated by Leftist shows?
I also find it hi-larius that Libs claim big business will sell out their values for the Almighty Dollar in every arena EXCEPT talk radio.
Posters on AAR say big businesses caused a war in Iraq for money, screw the downtrodden for money, cheat on taxes for money, rip off people in need of healthcare for money, etc.,etc.,etc.,ad nauseum, yet they want America to believe that big businesses won't offer Liberal Radio for money.
If Liberal Talk made money (which is achieved by having an actual audience), communications owners would be all over it.
The Free Market provides the people with what they want.
Siss. Boom. Bah.
- Email this page
By harrisbJune 29, 2007 - 5:33pmWhat Libs Don't understand
Is that until Liberals have something actually useful to say, no one wants to listen to them.
How many hours of radio do people want to hear, “Bush is Stupid
- Email this page
By Jim2244June 29, 2007 - 5:45pmSo you're saying
...you were in favor of "No War for Monica" when Clinton originally set out to get Osama bin Laden?
Where IS Osama, anyway?
Perhaps a bit of a reminder is in order here.
Don't talk to us about hypocracy. The g0p is the past and reigning MASTER of it.
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. ~~~Robert A. Heinlein
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2007 - 5:22pmDid he go after Bin Laden
Did he go after Bin Laden before or after he turned down the offer to have him turned over to the US?
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashJune 29, 2007 - 5:33pmFree Market?
The only "free market" the neo-c0ns are in favor of is the one they own. Witness the immediate, vitrolic and fearmongering attack on the proposed codification of the Fairness Doctrine and its subsequent demise in Congress.
Add to that the creative legislation that upped the ownership limits on broadcasting stations in a single market from 35% to 39% just so Comrade Murdoch wouldn't have to sell any of his hard-won properties, and it becomes readily and increasingly apparent where the g0p's priorities lay and how they intend to actualize them.
"A little restriction" on the free press is factually and semantically the equivalent of a woman being "a little pregnant."
GWB43: the reign of error.
- Email this page
By nonexistent manJune 29, 2007 - 5:46pmFree Market
I know you guys can't understand how the free market works, even though it is a relatively simple concept, but you don't understand much of anything anyway.
Here, take this test to see how ridiculous your positions are. Just choose one of the following sentences. Anyone can play, so feel free to respond.
1.Big businesses sell out their values for money.
2.Big businesses DO NOT sell out their values for money.
- Email this page
By harrisbJune 29, 2007 - 6:13pmwhat do you think.If you still know how.
1.Do you sell out your moral value for money. 2.you do not sell your moral value for money.
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 6:38pmI see
All we have to do is look the other way and everything will be ok.Because Rush filed for bankrupsy and he's still there.How many items have you bought from his advertisers.
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 5:20pmhey jim
I take the answer is none
- Email this page
By getmad54June 29, 2007 - 5:31pmAAR Can't Compete Because Left-Wing Views...
Make No Sense!
Behold, AAR's dismal ratings, which are worse now than when they started. The number after each radio station is the rating. In parenthesis is the station's ranking in each listed radio market. As a point of reference, the ratings of the well known conservative talk shows are usually around 3 to 5 and their rankings are often in the top 5 or 10.
Miami, FL. (20 out of 34 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=164&RY=200...
WINZ-AM Clear Channel Talk 1.6
Detroit, MI (29 out of 34 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=74&RY=2007...
WDTW-AM Clear Channel Talk 0.6
New York, NY (33 of 40 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=184&RY=200...
WWRL-AM Access.1 Communications News/Talk 0.6
Chicago, Ill. (36 of 39 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=53&RY=2007...
WCPT-AM NewsWeb Talk 0.5
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (16 of 20 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=167&RY=200...
KTNF-AM JR Broadcasting Talk 1.1
Austin, TX
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=18&RY=2007...
KOKE-AM Border Media Partners News/Talk 0.9
Los Angeles, CA (36 of 45 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=148&RY=200...
KTLK-AM Clear Channel Talk 0.7
San Francisco, CA (28 of 40 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=228&RY=200...
KQKE-AM Clear Channel Talk 1.1
Seattle, WA (21 of 30 stations)
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=237&RY=200...
KPTK-AM CBS Radio Talk 2.2
skeetjr
- Email this page
By skeetjrJune 29, 2007 - 11:49pmcrime called journalism
Air America’s ABC Blacklist: The Real Story
by Josh Silver and Robert W. McChesney
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1103-24.htm
This week we learned that some 90 major corporations demanded that their ads be pulled from radio stations that run Air America programming, demonstrating the fundamental challenge facing everyone working to promote critical journalism and a vibrant free press.
First off, let's clarify why this is taking place: The crime isn’t that Air America is partisan. All or most of these firms advertise on politically conservative talk radio programs and/or stations. And the crime isn’t even being “liberal.
- Email this page
By pb_trueJune 30, 2007 - 12:12am