Fairness Doctrine Bail-Out - Just Say NO!!!

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Fairness Doctrine and Illegal Immigration

"All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." Harrison Bergeron – Kurt Vonnegut Jr, 1961

Any news or daily information of worth loses the interest of the media by day two, hence the need to reach for documents from ancient history which reveal from the archive of The Heritage Foundation, October 29, 1993, “Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair.”

FAIR on the other hand Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has an article, er opinion piece “The Fairness Doctrine, How we lost it and why we need it back,” from early 2005 arguing the opposite of The Heritage Foundation. In an official and very legal opening FAIR quotes from the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision:

“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.”

Read the rest here if interested…

Heritage speaks to the decision as well:

“The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.”

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial."

Ultimately, it would be government regulating what we should hear, whether just for a couple of shows during the course of a day or not. One group of people would tune out as another would tune it. If Liberal talk radio fails it is not because of Conservative talk radio; yet because of its failure and because of Conservative talk radios success regulators from the federal government would decide how to even things up or dumb it down so to speak.

The American people, the majority of which can as of this morning breathe a sigh of relief with the vote against cloture on the one-stop-shop-fix-all-comprehensive immigration bill; albeit for different reason. What the American people can not rest easy upon is the new rise from both sides of the aisle, although mostly from the Left of political renewed interest in seeing the “doctrine” put back into play.

From reactions and statements by the Senators involved it truly appeared to gall them that the American people were really getting into their craw. We can expect to hear more of the same clap trap rhetoric that we heard during the “rush to pass” that which they hadn’t felt a rush to pass up until recently.

The politicos are more interested in regulating what we hear, now more than ever…”hell hath no fury like a blue blood scorned…”

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5085538401880847232

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Big Dog's Weblog, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Cat, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Fairness Doctrine Isn't Fair Enough

The Fairness Doctrine is receiving new life these days even from the likes of a Trent Lott who recently said that Talk Radio needs to be looked into.

The Fairness Doctrine is a political doctrine with the usual emotional name that implies something in the realm of Talk Radio is not fair. Emotion does not belong in the debate but makes its way into it when one needs to fight logic.

Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and others are railing against the “doctrine” as a tool to silence debate and the free marketplace, which it is when one stops to think about it and one does not have to stop and think about it long to come to that conclusion. Radio stations are in the business for money and it falls that if something doesn’t make money through ad revenue that something won’t remain on the air long.

Yesterday Hannity made remarks about being called a “shill for the Republican party,” and pointed out that when he doesn’t agree or think something is bad for Conservatism he speaks out; true.

Liberal radio doesn’t do so well and it has been said that is because in general the media tilts leftward; agreed. But it can also be said that Liberal radio tends to be a shill for the Democrat party. Ever listen to Air America? I have during commercial breaks while listening to Hannity or others and it’s nothing but a propaganda machine that blames Bush for everything, including a hurricane.

The listeners have choices; tune into this station or that one. I personally don’t want to hear some will Leftist ideas on the program I am listening to especially if in rebuttal like the media used to have to do. Oftentimes some Leftist will be interviewed and they often don’t have a leg to stand on; might this be reason Liberal radio doesn’t do well too.

In the interest of “fairness” and in this time that immigration “reform” is all the rage I would like to suggest this:

Rebut Conservative ideas with Liberal ones on radio; then be sure to rebut either or both with anything else that exists regardless of how unpopular or small. Then ensure that each of these views is repeated from a black, Latino, Chinese, Japanese etc. perspective. Follow this with or include as it is rebuts in the appropriate language of the slice of the population it represents. Let’s not forget the transgender and all the rest either. If Talk Radio follows through with this “doctrine” as just elaborated on a three hour slice of the day can then cover just one topic (if that much) rather than many. The effect will be to make Talk Radio as effective as our politicians in Washington.

I think folks like Lott enjoyed the boost gained from radio that spoke from a point of view with which he agreed. However, like most politicians he believes it should have its limits; those limits are reached when the American people begin to speak too loudly; those limits are reached when the political elite begin to lose some of their rule because the obvious rabble doesn’t really know the issue(s) or what it takes to rule lead.

To the politicians Talk Radio loses its luster when it becomes apparent the American people are catching on to their game of doing something that is actually nothing.

Maggie's Notebook has a great post on the "doctrine," with some good links and a mention by Michelle Malkin (that's not nothing!) this morning about how she's been "keeping tabs" on its movement - Give it a read and follow the links.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1430521511553394285

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Celebrity, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Fred Thompson, Hugo Chavez and the Democrats Fairness Doctrine

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez doesn't like his country's media coverage on him, so he has put rules into affect that he feels are fair.

Fred Thompson, the presidential non-candidate upon the fence, takes a moment to compare the business as usual actions of a tyrant with that of the Democrat party and its resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine.

From National Review Online, Fred Thompson's "Radio Free Congress:"

"I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn’t like the way his media is covering him, so he’s doing away with the free press. He’s established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don’t play by government rules.

I can’t criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they’re pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.

The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area — so equal time rules were put in place.

As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates’ airtime.

Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of — the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it’s absurd.

The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn’t admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.

Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too — meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?"

Fred Thompson, President 2008
Fred2008

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -