 |
Posted on 04/19/2005 1:14:28 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
In an attempt to lessen the impact of so-called conservative talk radio, a New York congresswoman is leading an effort to re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" for radio and television broadcasters in the United States.
It's been nearly 20 years since the Fairness Doctrine – which said broadcasters had to provide "equal time" to opponents of political views expressed on the public airwaves – ruled the radio and TV industries.
Imposed originally by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1986. The court found the rule was not a law but only a regulation, so it could be rescinded by the FCC – which it was. President Reagan vetoed a 1987 attempt by Congress to make the policy law.
In 1993, Congress unsuccessfully attempted to re-institute the rule. At the time, talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh rallied his supporters to help defeat the effort, which he dubbed the "Hush Rush" bill.
Despite the failed campaign in '93, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., is confident she can shepherd the Fairness Doctrine through Congress this year, once again requiring broadcasters to provide "equal time."
A website dedicated to resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is collecting signatures from Americans who support Slaughter's bill, H.R. 501, or the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, which was introduced Feb. 1 and has 12 co-sponsors.
"Since [1987], the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage," says a statement on the site. "Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making."
Complains the petition: "News consumers, particularly those of talk radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view. A survey conducted by Democracy Radio this year revealed that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio are fairly characterized as conservative."
That preponderance of right-wing voices has motivated Slaughter and others to call for the Fairness Doctrine to be put into place again, hoping it will give government-mandated time to more left-wing broadcasters.
Even so, the website claims it is not an ideological fight, but a process "by which the public is returned to the table of media policymaking."
States the site: "The Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally about making sure broadcasters uphold the social contract they have made in exchange for the free use of billions of dollars worth of the public airwaves. The first provision in the doctrine requires broadcasters to cover important issues. The second provision calls for balance. It's hard to argue against the people's right to be informed about important debates and to hear all points of view. …
"It's not a pre-emptive tool for censorship. It's not a tool that favors one political perspective over another. Historically, it was applied sparingly – not to punish broadcasters, but to promote better public service media."
Slaughter's bill requires broadcast licensees to hold two "public hearings" every year to "ascertain the needs and interests of the communities they are licensed to serve."
Also, the bill states, "All broadcast licensees must document and report in writing on a biannual basis to the FCC how they have covered the ascertained issues of public importance, and how their coverage reflects the diverse interests and viewpoints in their community."
A station that fails to live up to the regulation is subject to sanctions and fines by the FCC, including possible revocation of the broadcaster's license.
Any "interested party" can file a request for the revocation of a specific license on the grounds that the broadcaster failed to "afford reasonable opportunities for presentation of opposing points of view on issues of public importance in its overall programming. …"
Fairness Doctrine proponents are decidedly anti-broadcaster, saying the media have betrayed the public trust.
"When broadcasters are left to their own devices, the public loses," says a statement on the pro-Fairness Doctrine website. "Although media outlets have proliferated with the growth of cable and the Internet, the fact is that most are owned by the same handful of media giants that also own most of the mainstream radio and television stations. This massive consolidation within media over the past two decades has severely damaged the quality of news coverage in this country."
The bill cites a study done by a group that is joining the effort to bring back the regulation, Democracy Radio:
"[A] 2004 survey, done by Democracy Radio, found that there were 2,349 hours of local conservative programs broadcast every week versus 555 hours of local progressive programs, and 39,382 hours of national conservative programs broadcast every week versus 2,487 hours of national progressive programs."
Christian broadcasters are concerned about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine again going into effect.
National Religious Broadcasters President Frank Wright told a convention of the organization last month that if equal time had to be given to opponents of Christianity, "it could be the end of Christian broadcasting as we know it," CBN News reported.
When the House of Representatives debated and passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in February, Slaughter and some other Democrats took the opportunity to push for the Fairness Doctrine.
Said Slaughter on the House floor: "When newspeople present political opinion as hard news with no accountability or fact for truth, I call that indecent. When it becomes common practice to pay members of the media to deceptively advocate a political agenda on public airwaves without disclosure to the public, I call that indecent."
Slaughter's staff failed to return multiple calls seeking comment.
Along with the extension of McCain-Feingold onto the Internet, it's a 2-pronged attack.
Not a snowballs chance in Hell...
Where is the "fairness doctrine" when it comes to MSM?
This is a great example of the lefts agenda to stip away our freedom of speech. They only want you to hear what they think you need to hear, nothing else. Thanks for making your agenda a little more clear, Louise Slaughter.
So will the "Fairness" Doctrine also apply to Air America, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, BET, Comedy Central, Lifetime, Oh!, MTV, WE, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Univision, Court TV, Disney and all the other media outlets that promote the liberal/Democrat agenda? How about Al Gore's new network? How about almost all local TV news?
No, I'm sure the Democrats wouldn't allow conservative/Republican ideas to be promoted on their networks.
Those who sepcialize in talk radio don't pretend to be news readers. They are admittedly editorialists.
And if this effort succeeds, along with the McCain-Feingold fiasco, how long before private enterprises like FR become subject to speech regulation?
The broadcast, print, and now the internet communications are equal opportunity media.
Come on in, the water's fine!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
|
Now, let's see: who exactly was in charge of the House and the Senate when this "doctrine" was recinded?
(BTW, Boston Legal back NEXT fall......damnit.)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Orwellian double-speak misnamed the "Fairness Doctrine", which is a clear attempt to muzzle free speech. If the doctrine were actually applied equally, it wouldn't just require every viewpoint to be opposed with equal time to the opposite viewpoint, limiting it to Republican and Democrat, it would require *equal time* for every single *alternative viewpoint*.
Every political movement from Wahabism to Neo-Nazis would claim the right to give their "political" perspective, otherwise they'll sue on the basis of discrimination.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is totalitarian in intent and effect. The Socialists know they can't compete in the free market of ideas (witness the drowning "Air America" Socialist station), so they want to burn the market down.
The free market is the best measure of what the community's interests are. Americans know how to change the channel and get information elsewhere if their interests aren't being represented, and broadcasters know their success depends on keeping in step with the interests of their communities.
In my opinion, Freepers need to get better organized to vote these National Socialists out of state and federal office. It's all very nice to chat about the issues, but there's serious work to be done.
A very clever publicity stunt. These people are so good at this kind of thing.
If we did it though, the MSM would be calling it just that and treating it with complete derision.
That's what I thought about Campaign Finance Reform...
Amendment I
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
Now, what part of the first amendment don't they understand?
Well, we are NOT happy about having to wait until the fall to see it again.
I'd love to have videos of the first episodes!
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.