So called "Fairness Doctrine" Might Be Dead for Good

[stebo0728]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... rule-books

I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead

This is great news. Perhaps this ridiculous measure will finally be dead for good.

[AppleBonker]

Maybe I don't fully understand the fairness doctrine, but what is the big deal with it?

As far as I can tell, it's a regulation that forces you to occasionally talk about (or present) a side of an argument that you don't agree with. Isn't this different than banning you from talking about something that you DO agree with (1A)? Or am I completely confused?

Also, the comments are glorious.

Once more we see how the facist Democrats want to control all media and stifle free speech, as they do not want the American people to be informed.

The mainstream media elected the wildly inexperienced and far left Obama, and now the liberals want to stifle talk radio.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Barack Obama has destroyed the economy and we will not be fooled by media propaganda.

Forcing broadcasts on BOTH sides of an issue leads to people not being informed? More so that allowing broadcasts to focus on ONLY one side? I dun geddit.

[stebo0728]

Heres the whole deal with it. Its another government intrusion on a free market industry. Here is how it played out in the past when it was implemented.

1) Anytime opinion programming is broadcast, equal time must be supplied to opposing viewpoints.
2) Opposing viewpoints do not get the same ratings as the original content, plus FINDING willing participants for the opposing viewpoints can prove difficult, thus creating an undue burden on station producers.
3) The result is opinion programming is usually just pulled altogether and replaced with sports talk or music.
4) Continuing this knowing the trend equates to subversive means of quieting the opinion programming that succeeds

Left opinion radio is free to exist, but it has to compete, it has to be interesting, and it has to get the ratings. Anything short of it being on the air by listener demand is unexceptable.

EDIT - To clarify number 4, continued support for the Fairness Doctrine by the left was merely, and even openly, means of shutting down right wing talk radio. The attitude of "we cant succeed with it, but we'll be sure they dont either" prevailed the day.

[AppleBonker]

Good point. Guess I didn't view it that way. However, if it is that difficult to find an opposing viewpoint, the viewpoint being presented must be outrageously popular, no? Even still, I think examining the opposing view is critical to understanding it. That could just be me though.

I'm reminded of a project I had to do in history in grade school. It was an in-class debate. Topics were assigned and groups were assigned to either agree or oppose the topic. My group's topic: the cotton gin directly caused a massive increase in the use of slaves. My group's position: opposed. I remember when I first received the assignment. I was pissed. I didn't think there was any way to argue that the cotton gin did NOT increase slavery. It felt like I was given an assignment I was destined to fail. Needless to say, after much research we were able to present an argument (that I didn't agree with) and "won" the debate. While I didn't agree at all with what I was presenting, it did a lot to increase my knowledge of the subject. Probably far more helpful than had a not considered that position. Just a thought...

[stebo0728]

True, and Im not trying to disparage opposing viewpoints. And callers VERY OFTEN bring opposing viewpoints to light, but they are not always "well informed" positions. The important thing to remember is we are talking about OPINION programming. Conservative opinion is more popular, at least with talk radio listenerships. We saw Air America attempt to compete, and fail. But just because liberal opinion programming is unsuccessful does not mean it should be forced into the marketplace. Afterall we are talking about entertainment providers, NOT news providers.

[IBCoupe]

The government owns the airwaves, and broadcasters lease the use of them. Stick that in your "free market" pipe and smoke it.

I'm not a fan of the Fairness Doctrine so long as there exists some kind of check on broadcasting lies as fact, but you're not going to help your cause by arguing from a faulty premise.

[stebo0728]

The government owns the airwaves, and broadcasters lease the use of them. Stick that in your "free market" pipe and smoke it.

I'm not a fan of the Fairness Doctrine so long as there exists some kind of check on broadcasting lies as fact, but you're not going to help your cause by arguing from a faulty premise.

So what? We lease our building here at work, the land lord doesnt tell us what products we can and cant sell. The only reason for government ownership was to have a central access point to get frequencies, to be sure that multiple broadcasters were not trumping each other on the same waves, and to have a means of keeping content deemed inappropriate from being broadcast. Micromanaging the content was not.

[srellim234]

To a certain extent the landlord can tell you and control what you sell. It's in the lease. Most of the time you are not allowed to deviate substantially from what you informed him you would sell. If you sign the lease to open a book shop, you can't suddenly decide you are going to be a pool supply business instead. Especially if the complex already has a pool supply business as a tenant. Landlords do this to look out for the welfare of their existing tenants and to supply diversity to their complexes.

[srellim234]

I never cared for the fairness doctrine, but that was when we had a free press. What we have now is a press designed by a free market, one whose content is dictated by a few major corporate boardrooms. Allowing control of the press (print, radio, tv) to be consolidated into the hands of a few corporations has led to the censorship of news reporting and the propaganda we see.

Although it is getting worse it's not as bad as it will be if we allow it to continue. There is already a struggle going on to keep the press as a watchdog for the people, and we as individual citizens are losing the battle. When we talk in forums like this, we tend to put extremist programming like Fox and MSNBC on an equal level with the network news that a ton more people watch. If we don't provide some checks and balances, though, that network news will become more and more censored to reflect the mandate of only a few boardrooms. No longer free.

[stebo0728]

When you are talking about actual NEWS, I agree with you, and there are clear indications of both sides of the coin you describe. But applying the Fairness Doctrine to opinion based, entertainment directed programming is not right in my opinion.

[IBCoupe]

So what? We lease our building here at work, the land lord doesnt tell us what products we can and cant sell.

That isn't to say that they can't or are in the wrong when they do.

You admit that there's a reason the government retains the ability to pull the plug on broadcasters. In that same vein, the fairness doctrine makes sense in certain conditions.

The press are supposed to act as a phantom fourth branch of the government, providing a public service as a check on the other three, and providing information for the benefit of the public. That's why the major broadcasters were required to set aside a certain portion of their airtime for news. It wasn't initially seen as profitable, and it was seen as what the government got inexchange for maintaining the pubic airwaves.

The fairness doctrine isn't evil, and it isn't wrong for a public good, sold by private entities, to be regulated as such.

[IBCoupe]

Opinion shows are what it's meant for, Stebo. For actual news, the fairness doctrine shouldn't be an issue.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

[srellim234]

When you are talking about actual NEWS, I agree with you, and there are clear indications of both sides of the coin you describe. But applying the Fairness Doctrine to opinion based, entertainment directed programming is not right in my opinion.

Unfortunately there is no line any more between opinion and news reporting. The entire content of the news is becoming opinion based rather than fact based. "Reporters" and anchors routinely interject personal opinion into stories. None of them just report facts. It's all entertainment and getting worse. It's all based on the fact that the news departments must turn a profit and answer to the corporation without being able to operate freely. It used to be that news was a loss leader and responsibility for companies to maintain. No more.

Yes, it does occur on both sides. As I pointed out, extreme examples are Fox and MSNBC. At least MSNBC uses news organizations to generate its actual news coverage. It routinely references its sources from Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, etc. Fox doesn't and has no such news network. It's entertainment based and censored 24/7 but it has people buffaloed into believing it is a news source and legitimate.

With our government now an oligarchy of powerful organizations it is consolidating its power by allowing those with that power to control the press. Do we allow that to continue?

[stebo0728]

The press are supposed to act as a phantom fourth branch of the government, providing a public service as a check on the other three, and providing information for the benefit of the public.

Is that news or opinion?

Yes there is a small array of reasons for FCC control of the airwaves. Their power should be limited to those enumerated reasons.

And yes I know the Fairness Doctrine was targeted toward entertainment programming. And my position is that it should not be in affect, clearly even the new FCC Chairman agrees.

[stebo0728]

Unfortunately there is no line any more between opinion and news reporting. The entire content of the news is becoming opinion based rather than fact based. "Reporters" and anchors routinely interject personal opinion into stories. None of them just report facts. It's all entertainment and getting worse. It's all based on the fact that the news departments must turn a profit and answer to the corporation without being able to operate freely. It used to be that news was a loss leader and responsibility for companies to maintain. No more.

Yes, it does occur on both sides. As I pointed out, extreme examples are Fox and MSNBC. At least MSNBC uses news organizations to generate it's actual news coverage. It routinely references its sources from Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, etc. Fox doesn't and has no such news network. It's entertainment based and censored 24/7 but it has people buffaloed into believing it is a news source and legitimate.

With our government now an oligarchy of powerful organizations it is consolidating its power by allowing those with that power to control the press. Do we allow that to continue?

And I would ask, how much of this is the fault of the people. And additionally, is it the responsibility of broadcasters to provide the news, or is it the responsibility of the people to seek the news? As in anything else, we get complacent in whats available, and neglect to question it. Its there, we believe it, and that works into our schedule.

[IBCoupe]

Should not currently be in effect, but not necessarily never be in effect. Here's what the statute says:

The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.

The FCC is not prohibited by the statute (or the Constitution, in my opinion) from imposing the Fairness Doctrine. I've explained to you why I think it might become necessary in some circumstances

[srellim234]

I agree with you, stebo. It IS the fault of the people and their complacency. I'm not sure how we actually wake people up to the issue before it's too late. Or is it too late already?

I think a start would be to return to not allowing a corporation to have a monopoly. Separating ownership of print, radio and TV outlets in a given market. On the flip side it is imperative that parents and schools instill in kids the critical thinking skills and the sense of responsibility to seek out the truth that is sorely lacking in today's society.

[stebo0728]

I agree on monopolies, they are painful for the market place. But, how do you truly get rid of them. Its nice to say "no monopoly allowed" but still, in the event that only one provider exists, and no one else steps up, what do you do? Do you forbid the sale of the good or service until someone competes? Or do you involve the government and subsidize someone else to get into the business and compete? Or do you nationalize the good or service, thereby creating yet another monopoly, but a government run monopoly, in hopes that the government will keep prices low?

But something else that I've been pondering lately, telco was very adamant about the single PAYER system for healthcare. Well isnt a single payer system just the other side of the single provider coin? Only this time, a single payer can drive prices too LOW by rigidly setting pay levels, and thumbing their noses at the providers since they are the only payer, essentially the only customer for that good or service.

There I've hijacked my own thread.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, we have anti-trust laws already. How do they deal with monopolies?

And, no. Single payer (government paying hospitals) is not the otherwise of single provider (government running hospitals). I don't know who told you that, but they're lying. One is Medicare/Canada, the other is (if I'm not mistaken) England.

[stebo0728]

Stebo, we have anti-trust laws already. How do they deal with monopolies?

I dont know, I'd like to know as well. Ive never been in the position of having a monopoly, so I've never been contacted by anti-trust agents. LOL

Still anti-trust, if I'm not mistaken, is a measure to limit merging of companies to prevent monopoly situations. i.e Donald Trump cant buy all the cellphone providers, and make one cell phone company. But how is a naturally occurring monopoly dealt with? Well first of all, patents protect monopolies, to an extent, so that the developer can make money for a period of time before the counterfeitters roll into town. Whats nice about the market, is it naturally gravitates toward competition. Once one person comes up with a solution to something, others will as well, even immediatly in alot of cases, in some way to avoid patent infringement.

And, no. Single payer (government paying hospitals) is not the otherwise of single provider (government running hospitals). I don't know who told you that, but they're lying. One is Medicare/Canada, the other is (if I'm not mistaken) England.

Thats not what I mean. I mean that if you have one payer, its conversely similar to having one provider. In other words, say one Company A makes widgets and sells them, and they are the only ones, and everyone HAS to have a widget to continue living. Company A can charge whatever they like for the widgets, they are the only source. In the same way, if Customer B is the only purchaser of widgets, they are the only company every buying widgets. Customer B can say, "gosh you know im only paying X for these, and i'm sorry it cost all you guys Y to make them, but well, thats how it is". Only what happens next? Companies start to shut their doors, and stop making widgets, because its suddenly become bad business.

Thats the danger with single payer health care, and in fact, some doctors have already made it clear, when faced with a decision to work at a loss based on low balled single payer rates, they'll just retire early and hit the beach.

[srellim234]

Stebo, you asked how to get rid of a news monopoly in a marketplace. Simply make as part of the airwaves lease a clause that prevents a corporation or its subsidiaries from owning more than one station, a station AND a print outlet, or such combinations in a given local market. It used to be that way. Too much consolidation has been allowed.

[stebo0728]

Stebo, you asked how to get rid of a news monopoly in a marketplace. Simply make as part of the airwaves lease a clause that prevents a corporation or its subsidiaries from owning more than one station, a station AND a print outlet, or such combinations in a given local market. It used to be that way. Too much consolidation has been allowed.

Interesting approach. Are you treating news outlets as a special resource, or would we be setting a precedent to allow the government to place limits on ownership in other areas as well. IB will turn blue in the face, but that sounds very "Atlas Shrugged'ish". Maybe its a necessary measure, when treating news outlets specifically, as long as we dont get our government in the business of try to treat other resources similarly.

[srellim234]

It's changing the lease signed with the government with the government as the "landlord." Not really setting a precedent for any other industries. What other areas do you see this setting a precedent for? Leases for things like oil exploration are substantially different in that the consumer has other companies to purchase from. In this case we're talking about freedom of information for the public, not freedom to purchase a commodity by the public.

[stebo0728]

What about the internet? The internet started as a government project, I think at least some grounds stand to swallow it back into government control.

[srellim234]

I'd have to give that a lot more thought. My initial thought is that I see the dangers in allowing private corporations, namely the ISPs, from controlling content and site access to subscribers. I also see a huge danger in allowing the government to control content and access. Many people now access their news (print and television) through the internet. The fact that companies have monopolies in areas regarding internet access has to play into it the same as we're talking about access to airwaves and print media. I can see the government restricting ISPs from censoring site access and leaving that in the hands of the consumer.

[IBCoupe]

Srellim's right, Stebo. There's no precedent set, because anywhere it would be set, the change can already happen. If you're in a position to sign a contract with the government, the government has the authority to decide what the contract says before you sign it. Government regulation of the airwaves doesn't come with any hidden dangers to anything else where there isn't already that very danger. If you're worried about the government telling you what you can and can't do, don't be in a position where you need the government's acquiescence to do it.

I can see the government restricting ISPs from censoring site access and leaving that in the hands of the consumer.

Yeah, that's called "Net Neutrality."

[C-Kwik]

Thats not what I mean. I mean that if you have one payer, its conversely similar to having one provider. In other words, say one Company A makes widgets and sells them, and they are the only ones, and everyone HAS to have a widget to continue living. Company A can charge whatever they like for the widgets, they are the only source. In the same way, if Customer B is the only purchaser of widgets, they are the only company every buying widgets. Customer B can say, "gosh you know im only paying X for these, and i'm sorry it cost all you guys Y to make them, but well, thats how it is". Only what happens next? Companies start to shut their doors, and stop making widgets, because its suddenly become bad business.

Thats the danger with single payer health care, and in fact, some doctors have already made it clear, when faced with a decision to work at a loss based on low balled single payer rates, they'll just retire early and hit the beach.

The reality is that the government would need to be mindful of making sure enough doctors are available to treat the insureds. It is in a way, its own check and balance. I'll use an example that I'm more familiar with. Direct repair facilities for auto insurance companies. They have a similar structure in that the insurance companies basically determine what the cost of the repairs will be. But they can't arbitrarily low ball them. They need the shops to stay in business. So they will pay a reasonable amount to make sure it is possible for the shops to remain in business. And just so you know, most of the shops that shut down when direct repair programs started to catch on were the shops that weren't getting on board with DRP programs. Basically, pricing out the businesses one needs to use the service they provide would be catastrophic. Your scenario is a doom and gloom scenario that just isn't in the realm of reality.

[telcoman]

I agree on monopolies, they are painful for the market place.

You are too young to remember The Bell System or when flying was a pleasant experience.

But something else that I've been pondering lately, telco was very adamant about the single PAYER system for healthcare. Well isnt a single payer system just the other side of the single provider coin? Only this time, a single payer can drive prices too LOW by rigidly setting pay levels, and thumbing their noses at the providers since they are the only payer, essentially the only customer for that good or service.
There I've hijacked my own thread.

My support for a choice of a single payer healthcare option is for consumers who become dissatisfied with choices in the free market such as United Healthcare, Aetna, etc. Medicare is a system that works. Perfect No.
Instead of all our politicians working together to fix what is wrong with medicare and improve it the right wants to get rid of it and give vouchers .A kind of gift card. I think Americans are waking up to that BS idea and Paul Ryans plan is not going to fly.
For once Newt was right when he stated it was right wing social engineering.
Instead of the right wing politicians trying so hard to make Obama a one term president if they would do the job they were elected to do and concentrate on jobs, improving the economy and healthcare they might have a chance one day in regaining power. Until they do the right is doomed in my opinion

As for the fairness doctrine multiple ownership of newspapers and broadcast media in a single market used to be prohibited. It was a good rule. Now two our local all news radio stations in the NY market are owned by the same corporation. Fox controls The NY Post, The Wall Street Journal, as well as its broadcast outlets.
The Wall Street Journal was a decent paper when it was owned by Dow Jones. I would never subscribe to any paper owned by Fox because they are not a real news organization.
They are good at hiring women with big boobs and putting them on TV

Telcoman

[srellim234]

I would never subscribe to any paper owned by Fox because they are not a real news organization.
They are good at hiring women with big boobs and putting them on TV

Telcoman

Fox is just good at hiring big boobs and putting them on TV. Gender has nothing to do with it.