Posted on 11/13/2008 10:19:41 AM PST by NCjim
The DC Examiner has a troubling editorial today on a new rule being proposed by Bush's FCC that would represent a threat to the unfettered marketplace of ideas on talk radio while in practice, giving power to anti-free speech elements to dictate what can be broadcast.
As free speech advocates gear up to oppose revival of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” another Orwellian-named government effort to dictate the content of radio and TV news and opinion has been hatched by the Bush administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC). So far, there’s been much less focus on the “localism rule” – even though it would have a similar chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Under the FCC’s proposed regulations, owners of radio and TV stations would become subject to permanent advisory boards whose members – aka “community organizers” - would be chosen according to politically correct multi-cultural nostrums requiring representation of all “stakeholders.” These boards would be empowered by the FCC to decide if stations were airing a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming”- with neither “sufficient” nor “responsive” defined. A negative advisory board finding could mean loss of a station owner’s broadcasting license.
The proposed regulations would also require broadcasters to maintain a 24/7 physical presence at broadcasting facilities, limit their use of celebrity “voice tracking” and network programming, require them to fund journalism schools, and give their music playlists to the FCC. Whatever else might be the FCC’s intention with this proposal, it is clear its application would vastly increase the cost of operating a station, while reducing the economic and editorial freedom of the owner. To what end? Experts warn that such rules will kill talk radio – one of the few mass media that favors conservatives. But more is at stake here than protecting the right of 12 million Americans to continue tuning in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
Indeed, the chances are very good that these "stakeholders" who would oversee the political content on radio stations could fairly easily call into question a broadcaster's commitment to a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming" by urging some of their allies to complain to Big Brother at the FCC. It is likely that some stations would drop talk radio altogether rather than risk the hassle of dealing with an FCC challenge to their programming content.
In the end, the effect would be exactly the same as the Fairness Doctrine; conservative talk radio would end up subsidizing liberal programming due to the left's inability to develop mass market appeal in the medium.
The FCC can read the election returns as well as anybody. No doubt some of those folks want to keep their jobs after Obama takes office. Is this rule an effort to pander to the new administration? If so, it doesn't bode well for the future of free speech under Obama.
WTH? Bush doesn’t think he has done enough harm to conservatives or what?
Not really. This is much more about stations broadcasting about the local community sufficiently. It wouldn’t weigh conservative v. liberal programming. This has been something that licensees have been required to do pretty much since the FCC came into existence. Looks like they are just creating a Board to enforce it as that would get a quicker response than petitioning the FCC.
Defund the FCC.
Bailout Liberals Doctrine?
President George W. Bush (D)
DON’T YOU DARE TRY TO LAY THIS AT BUSH’S FEET ...IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID ON FR THAT OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO ADD A FORMER FCC PERSON APPOINTMENT TO REIMPLEMENT something AKIN TO THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE...this communist propaganda to lay this at Bush’s feet is enough..enough already!
O.K., well the airwaves and the cable will be over, the only good news is they can’t make me look or listen, but..........I’d think that least for a while, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingram could “broadcast” or should I say, “podcast” independently over the Internet?
Gestapo time in Amerika.
The comments window has already closed on the rulemaking proposal.
http://www.keeprushontheair.com/FCCNPRM208_localism.htm
Bush had nothing to do with this, don’t you recognize communist propaganda when you see it? Another communist “disinformation specialist” is that Mike Savage of Savage Nation...he was a friend of Allen Gingsberg (communist SDS) as well as the group surrounding Bill Ayers in late 60’s...this is amazing that you’all buy this stuff every day. Communist propaganda is trashing your own group, except for the “brainwashing” you want to do..in this case against President Bush. They play to the crowd and insert the “disinformation” they want to destroy the target...
Kiss Christian Radio goodbye.
Dear Mr. Bushbot.
We that are affected with BDS are not trashing our own. Bush is not on our team.
Has anyone ever thought that this is Bush’s payback for all the crap Conservatives have given him over the last four years? We voted for him and then turned on him.
there are plenty of OTHER reasons as to why I’ve placed a D next to our President’s name...
this list is too long to post... and yes he has been a R on many other items too... but not enough for me, thanks.
Reminds me of my tour in Korea in the early 70s. There were about 18 bars just off post. Each night officers and NCOs would be assigned to Courtesy Patrol to these bars to maintain order. Each set of three bars would have one set of an Officer and an NCO. Each pair would rotate through their three bars. One of the things we were required to record and report upon was the playlist. The bars were supposed to play one rock/pop song, one hispanic, one country and western, and one black song. Then they had a free pick from any of these categories. IOW, no more than 40% of the songs played could be from one category. If the bar deviated, we were expected to intervene and direct the playing of songs to bring the play list into compliance.
The purpose of this was to ensure that all soldiers felt welcome in each bar. The bars were fairly compliant except for the two bars with a reputation for catering to black soldiers. These two bars would refuse to play anything but soul music. The owners were quite clear that if they adhered to the regular playlist, there would be a riot.
But it EASILY CAN be abused to demand enough local programming to bump national shows off the air.
don’t take my comments out of context please.
Isn’t Jesse Jackson’s son- in charge of the FCC?
Who am I trying to think of?
Atlas Shrugged.......
No “Bush the Socialist” doesn’t think he has done enough for his socialist comrades.
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a forum.
Exactly right. The FCC is an independent agency.
IMO, this is the real issue. Right now, the FCC doesn't regulate the internet or satellite radio. A new fairness doctrine would have the effect of pushing Rush over to XM and Sirius (Hannity and Laura Ingraham are already on satellite). AM radio would have to re-invent itself or go out of business. The libs would then have to push for FCC regulation of satellite radio.
Howard Stern barely registered a blip on the radar for Sirius' subscriber numbers, but Rush moving to Sirius would be HUGH!
On FR there are several democrats posing as conservatives to “divide” the party. Savage isn’t that radio announcers last name and he used be part of SDS people’s lives, and probably was one. He is a divisive person, because a third party would not hurt liberals, but would divide the conservatives thereby rendering them unable to win elections for many, many years.
Bush has gotten criticizm he doesn’t deserve on so many occasions. For example: A bunch on here wanted him to NOT ATTEND THE OPENING CEREMONY TO THE OLYMPICS....that would have been an insult to the Chinese...Why? Because his parents were Ambassaders or something to Chinese government, and lived there for some time. There is protocol to many things in Gov’t, and there are cultural issues that can create terrible misunderstandings and as I read some of this stuff it just amazes me how people think “they know it all” and have all the answers as to what a President should and should not do...or even if he could do it, as the Executive Branch is limited in power and much of what he does needs congress approval.
Right. Only views you approve of should have access to the channels of information.
Air America’s roll out PROVED that access to the airwaves for liberal views is not a problem.
Therefore there is no need for a Fairness Doctrine.
Thank you. If they are discussing this, it is on Obama’s information of his new appointment who will allow that vote to be in favor of some censorship like the UNFAIR “fairness doctrine”.
I’ sure HUGH would appreciate that...
I think this qualifies as “Friendly Fire”!!!
—my FR name is bushwon—now I starting to wish he hadn’t :(
How much more damage can this Administration do before they leave office?
From what I understand about the original Fairness Doctrine it would only affect talk or opinion oriented formats, not news or groups who are not discussion politics openly.
Where we get our information is more important than the information itself. If that information is scewed in a certain direction we end up “buying” into the attitude of the presenter, and not able to understand the truth of the matter. In the next few years we are going to be “tested” with propaganda that will be presented by those who are supposedly on our side, and if we are not careful, then they will be able to turn the conservatives against one anotherl. They are counting on it, in order to be able to win another election, for many will come to their senses while others fall under the deceptions of O.
I don't think it's that complicated.
Liberals are embarassed to be liberals. And they are sheep addicted to 'group think' and identify more with the group than their own principles.
Therefore, when they try and sell their BS to conservatives, they claim to be conservatives.
I believe it is Colin Powell’s son who is/was head of FCC.
Thank You!
No. No one is entitled to access the public airwaves. Any printing press or internet or cable broadcast that doesn’t depend on using a limited public resource is and should always remain unregulated. To use the radio spectrum, however, is fundamentally different. There is only a limited number of radio stations that can operate in any given market. The need for them to act for the public benefit is therefore higher.
Chirstian radio woukd need to give equal time to the other side!!!!!
What “team” are you on?
Cite, please.
He was at one time...not now.
Are you forgetting who is in charge now?
If they can censor and control political speech under the guise of multiculturalism and political correctness, they can control and censor religious speech. Religious talk shows, religious teaching programs, will all be subject to these regulations, as will stations that play only Christian music.
This is the death of Christian radio.
The Fairness Doctrine initially required that during the airing of controversial issues of public significance, if an:
“attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group,” then:
the station must give timely notice to the attacked person or group and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Additionally, it required that if a broadcast licensee endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate in a televised editorial, then that candidate must receive timely notice and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
However, the only laws still on the books associated w/the fairness doctrine are the political broadcasting provisions, §§ 312(a)(7) (reasonable access) and 315 (equal access, lowest unit pricing), and their implementing regulations.
Technically the Fairness Doctrine was only an advisory policy of FCC after 1980s research revealed that it had technically never been attached as part of the statute. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC; and to this day it has not been overruled.
However, in 1971 Congress made clear that § 315 applied to cable operators (§ 312(a)(7)) does NOT apply b/c revocation of license is punishment and cable operators are not licensed by the FCC, rather local franchising boards.
The Fairness Doctrine, if it were to apply at all, would only apply to the broadcast medium as the airwaves are owned by the public and licensed to broadcasters (i.e., CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.).
The Fairness Doctrine would have no effect on cable, magazines, newspapers, movies, etc. (other than equal access and pricing: if I sell ad space to Group A, then I also have to offer to sell ad space to Group B at the same rate).
The original purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that average citizens, like you and me, would have an opportunity to respond if a public figure, pundit, or other individual with greater access to the broadcast medium attacked us.
Notice the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine are very similar to that of defamation (i.e., character).
Do not forget the public airwaves belong to the people of the United States and the broadcasters are only licensees, they do not own them.
Interestingly, the Fairness Doctrine was designed for individuals like Joe the Plumber. It would have provided him an avenue to address, likely during the prime time news hour, the attacks leveled against him.
That being said, the current head of the FCC was appointed by Bush (as Obama will appoint the next head of the FCC). One of the difficulties of all administrative agencies is that almost all of the employees will eventually work for the companies they are regulating.
Here’s the bottom line: the mass media and the telecommunications giants have their interests consistently served by the FCC. Thus, if it doesn’t make money, it won’t get passed. If the Fairness Doctrine will cause a major loss in profits for these companies, then forget about it ever being implemented.
The rest is rhetoric from both sides.
Laura Ingraham says she has revamped her show to combat the Fairness Doctrine, but it is so stereotyped now it is comedy.
If this proposed regulation is adopted, political activists with ideological agendas on advisory boards will be able to dictate content by producing allies to complain that their interests are not being considered. Christian radio stations will be forced to air programs advocating abortion and gay marriage, which they oppose as a matter of religious conviction. Conservative talk radio stations will be forced to subsidize liberal programming that can’t attract commercial support. Failing to do so would mean loss of the broadcast license. This proposal is clearly antithetical to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and religion. It will undermine an uncensored, independent press in a free society as a tool for holding politicians and bureaucrats accountable, and make government the arbiter of acceptable religious doctrine.
This would be the end of Christian Broadcasting, you would have to allow other religions, Islam, Wiccan etc. as well as approved alternative doctrinal view points.
The problem is there are more who are easily deceived than not, and no loyalty...the minute one trashes a leader it seems everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. What annoys me about it is that our tongues are the guides of what we get, and what we say is usually what we get...so instead of negative everything we should be speaking positive things especially about our President, and praying about what we disagree with...unless it requires action.
Jude, I just knew I could count on you to give the wrong answer. You have become a knee jerk liberal.
The radio airwaves (right now) are part of the free market and the free exchange of ideas. Churches have just as much a right to purchase a radio station as godless media organizations. They compete on the open market for these licenses and those who purchase them have the right of free expression of ideas.
But it seems to me that you are in agreement that as long as the GOVERNMENT owns the airwaves, that the GOVERNMENT has a right to dictate what is broadcast and to limit as much as the GOVERNMENT decides who can broadcast and what they can broadcast.
But jude, the airwaves belong the the people. And under the constitution the GOVERNMENT does not have the right to prohibit the free exercise of religion or to abridge the freedom of speech.
But then who the hell cares about the constitution these days. It only means what your liberal buddies say that it means, and in this case it would mean that as far as the airwaves are concerned, only speech that meets the approval of the GOVERNMENT will be broadcast over the GOVERNMENT's airwaves.
Spit.
Owners of AM radio stations should know this means that the death of talk radio will mean the death of a lot of AM stations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.