The "Fairness Doctrine"

[Phoenix44]

How about we get rid of the FCC instead of reinstituting the "fairness" doctrine? Let anybody with a handset and some amps broadcast and lets get a real competition of ideas going. Under the current system, all the "fairness" doctrine is going to do is let both heads of the hydra speak at once.

Interesting concept. I think, though, that the stronger signals would completely blot out the weaker signals. And who'd have the stronger signals? Probably Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney--the usual suspects. So you'd still have large corporations broadcasting mainly in their own self interest.

However, in areas where there are more small, locally owned stations, there IS more "fairness"--more diversity of ideas.

michaeledward is correct: there is no media free market.

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting concept. I think, though, that the stronger signals would completely blot out the weaker signals. And who'd have the stronger signals? Probably Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney--the usual suspects. So you'd still have large corporations broadcasting mainly in their own self interest.

However, in areas where there are more small, locally owned stations, there IS more "fairness"--more diversity of ideas.

michaeledward is correct: there is no media free market.

When people realize how easy it is to build a hand radio, then they will truly understand that anyone, if they want to, can grab a bit of the airway if they have the amperage. Right now, the FCC cracks down on anyone who doesn't have a license and is not spouting the official government line. There are a lot of expatriot radio operators that operate just outside of our borders. If you had a hand set, you might be able to tune into what they are saying...

If anyone was able to build a set and transmit, the large conglomerations could never compete. They only exist because the government shuts the competition down.

 

[michaeledward]

There is a difference between broadcast and print.

Broadcast spectrum is limited, where as print media is not. If I wish to set up a newspaper, I can contract the local printing company and start writing. If I wish to set up a broadcast signal, I must make a decision as to which frequency to use.

Let's say, I want to use a band that is currently used by the fire department. And I build a transmitter that puts out so much power, that the fire department's radios can no longer communicate, but they can listen to my political leanings and 80's corporate rock.


Incidentally, Mr. E, in the past ten years, the FCC has not given out any new FM band broadcasting licenses. That is a significant barrier to entry. It is in no way analogous to starting paper.

http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/FullPowerfactsheet07.cfm

According to this web site, the grant of frequencies the FCC will undertake this fall is irrelevant to me because there are no availalbe frequencies in my area.

http://www.getradio.org/frequency_finder

 

[Phoenix44]

I guess that's why I pay for satellite radio.

 

[michaeledward]

~ ~ Invisible airwaves crackle with life ~ ~
~ ~ Bright antennae bristle with the energy ~ ~
~ ~ Emotional feedback on timeless wavelength ~ ~
~ ~ Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free ~ ~

 

[Mr. E]

Incidentally, Mr. E, in the past ten years, the FCC has not given out any new FM band broadcasting licenses. That is a significant barrier to entry. It is in no way analogous to starting paper.

So if the government will not give out any more licenses that gives the government the right to tell broadcasters what they must report?

It seems a strange sort of logic to me.

Would it not be better to get the FCC to issue new licenses? I am of the understanding that even in major areas there is still some bands on both the TV and FM bands where there is nothing, so there must be more space to give out. These do not intrude on police, fire or other bands being used. They are only on the FM bands devoted to music.

And again, I urge everyone to look at the way the voices of political opposition has been silenced in places like Russia, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe. In all cases, the laws meant to legislate the media and make them fair has been abused and twisted to shut down those the government does not like. If the government can shut down a station for not being "fair" and at the same time it is the government that can judge what moves are fair or not, then there is a huge potential for abuse. The government can just decide that nothing a station does qualifies as being fair in their view.

 

[michaeledward]

Mr. E ... you keep referencing other countries, that have little to do with this conversation. Your request to analyze state-operated media is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Regulating broadcast is not the same as controlling the broadcast.

The 'Fairness Doctrine' is not about silencing anyone's point of view. It is about giving voice to points of view that do not currently have an outlet. You have argued that 'free market' and we have demonstrated that because of the limited bandwidth there is not a free market.

Where there is limited resources, it is acceptable to have regulation. It can be appropriate to discuss the breadth and depth of regulation. And thinking people can have differing opinions on that regulation.

Your position, however, seems to be that all regulation is bad. That government is the problem, and can not be part of the solution.

There was a time when the airplanes operated under the 'big sky' paradigm; the sky was so big, that no regulation was needed. After a mid-air collision between United and TWA over the Grand Canyon, our congress legilstated the airspace over our heads, with the creation of the FAA. Why isn't/wasn't this a bad idea?

 

[Monadnock]

This is ALL about getting the conservatives off the air. Regardless of what the MichaelEdward's of the world would have you believe.

There is no shortage of air time. It is consumer driven.

Want somthing to ***** about? Try NPR and how their political left-wing sewage is supported by OUR tax dollars.

 

[Mr. E]

Mr. E ... you keep referencing other countries, that have little to do with this conversation. Your request to analyze state-operated media is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Regulating broadcast is not the same as controlling the broadcast.

No, the situation in Russia and elsewhere is not about state-operated media. Please look at the situation as I said.

In all three countries, independent media sources have been shut down by the government. The methods used by the government have been perversions of the laws meant to regulate the media.

So are you saying that American politicians are incapable of bending or abusing a law like the countries I mentioned? Are you of the opinion that we should trust the government not to use this to go against stations they don't like? There is a great potential for abuse.

The 'Fairness Doctrine' is not about silencing anyone's point of view. It is about giving voice to points of view that do not currently have an outlet. You have argued that 'free market' and we have demonstrated that because of the limited bandwidth there is not a free market.

Actually, you pointed to the fact that the FCC has not issued a new liscense in ten years as the reason for the limited bandwidth. As I pointed out, there does seem to be quite a bit of both television and radio frequencies yet to be used.

As for giving voice to points of view that do not have an outlet- who decides what voices other than the government? If you hate Bush think of him calling the shots on who gets to put their views on the air. If you hate Clinton think of the same.

In most elections there are more than just two candidates on the ballot. Is the government going to force stations to give every candidate the same amount of time? What if there are 50 candidates?

You think I am kidding? Do you recall that election that put Arnie in the California govenor's mansion? How many people signed up just to put their name on the ballot? I know there was a porn star trying to gain some fame.

If stations are going to be forced to give equal time to anyone who gets enough signatures to get on a ballot, just how many people will try to cash in on that publicity?

And if you are not going to force the stations to take everyone, who decides who is worthy and what happens to the idea of giving a voice to the minority? Again, if there is a special on Darwin's theories do we require that the creatonists get equal time? If not, then why are some minority voices to be ignored while others deemed worthy?

I see that the fairness doctrine used to be law. Was the green party candidate ever given equal time on the air with the Republicans and Democrats? If not, how fair is that? But if everyone is allowed to get their stuff broadcast free in equal time to the big parties, there will be people crawling out of the woodwork to lap up that media time.

I am not against the government regulating things. We need traffic regulations and laws against murder and all that good stuff. But the idea of the government getting to decide that something is fair or not and being able to force what they say is fair on others is not a good one.

And as Monadock says, the real complaint perhaps should be against tax supported media. Why should the government use money taken from the taxpayers to fund any sort of media? Is there a reason we need another station on the air? There are already things like the emergency broadcast network. I am talking about funding entertainment channels. It is nice that there is opera on the radio, but does it have to be funded by the government? Why isn't Japanese ancient court music given a radio station by the government instead? Not enough people? Well then, what ever happened to the idea of giving the minority access?

If I see the government has taken my tax money to fund programs about how creationism is just as valid a point of view as evolution you can bet I would get mad. And who is to say that the local politicians would not require that sort of programming? Or they can give out money to people without any sort of oversight, and that would mean that Nazis can line up to make documentaries on the lie of the holocaust with your tax dollars. Who gets to decide what is a valid viewpoint to be funded and which is to be ignored? Under a democracy, all points are supposed to be allowed to speak their voice. But with state funded media, certain viewpoints are given an advantage by the government.

 

[michaeledward]

This is ALL about getting the conservatives off the air. Regardless of what the MichaelEdward's of the world would have you believe.

There is no shortage of air time. It is consumer driven.

Want somthing to ***** about? Try NPR and how their political left-wing sewage is supported by OUR tax dollars.

So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.

By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.

And, we have discussed that NPR is not left wing. As for whether it is sewage or not, compare and contrast with Coulter, Limbaugh, Severin, O'Reilly, Ingraham. Please.

There is no comparison.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.

By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.

And, we have discussed that NPR is not left wing. As for whether it is sewage or not, compare and contrast with Coulter, Limbaugh, Severin, O'Reilly, Ingraham. Please.

There is no comparison.

But they are successful because people WANT to listen to their message. Or are outraged by it but still watch/listen/read them. Either way, sponsors back popularity, sponsors mean money, money means more air time. Al Franken was a flop, admit it. Unlike NPR, MY tax dollars arent being used to express their views. Perhaps the left should be more concerned that their views are apparently not a crowd pleaser on the radio...instead of blaming the "vast right wing conspiracy" yet another time.

 

[ChadWarner]

What if 'the marketplace' demonstrates a reluctance to present choices for consumers.

Remember, when you could have any color phone you wanted, as long as it was black?

How many people have a radio station on their dial called "The River" ? I bet all of us do. Because one company owns all those stations.

When companies have the legal ability to own dozens of radio stations across the country, the marketplace requirement to drive down costs will dictate making setting up a 'national brand' in broadcast. Local flavor is completely removed. The morning DJ you listen too may be broadcasting from a different time zone.

In that world, the marketplace, exists only as a concept. It is not a competative environment where mutliple ideas can flourish or fail based on the merits.

In order for the 'marketplace' to decide, first such a place needs to exist.

Well nothing is perfect, otherwise we would all be happy all of the time. And there are monopoly laws and oligopoly laws as well. Seems to me there is not enough enforcement of said laws--- or any laws for that matter.

!2,000 pages to the tax code= that is corruption and a bunch of egomaniacal old men poisoning the well from which we all drink. I honestly can not think of another law that needs to be written. Or another big fat spending bill that further increases US dependence on foriegn energy and food--- How many more dogs need to die before poison is in the human food supply?

What does this have to do with the price of coke? Depends on if it is manufactured in mexico and smuggled across the border non taxed and sold to americans in at a taco stand somewhere. How fair is that to people who follow the rules, pay the taxes and so on? This country is not fair- never was, oppertunity exists for those who will take it. If people did not listen to talk radio- then half of the scandles on capitol hill and the rest of the world (dubai ports deal for one) those dirty old men on capitol hill would rob until they died.

Can you imagine selling our port security to an arab country- especially after GW starts a vietnam in the middle east... Talk radio is responsible for letting the public in on this dirty deal. Both sides of the fence want a muzzle for talk radio- it exposes their thievery on broader base because this stuff is not on the evening news day in and day out. They would rather talk about paris hilton crying about going to jail... The light needs to be turned on so the roaches scatter.

 

[Ray]

So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.

By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.

Good bombs cost more.

I'm sure that most Americans can find something in the gov't spending that they object to.

And, we have discussed that NPR is not left wing.

Right and left are relative. Since we all believe that we're fair minded, MOR people, then anything that is a left or right of our position is just plain left or right.

 

[Carol]

Right and left are relative. Since we all believe that we're fair minded, MOR people, then anything that is a left or right of our position is just plain left or right.

There was a time when I was an RNC member, now I'm not sure what a Republican is. What is "Left" and what is "Right" ?

 

[Monadnock]

So much better that OUR tax dollars go to build bombs.

By the way, how many tax dollars go to NPR.

And, we have discussed that NPR is not left wing. As for whether it is sewage or not, compare and contrast with Coulter, Limbaugh, Severin, O'Reilly, Ingraham. Please.

There is no comparison.

Defense is outlined as a duty of the government. Not bad piano music and snot-nosed reporters aiding the enemy.

 

[crushing]

There was a time when I was an RNC member, now I'm not sure what a Republican is. What is "Left" and what is "Right" ?

I hear ya. I think that is because 'right' and 'left' and the linear 'political spectrum' are inadequate in descriptors for the amount of diversity of political thought we have. For example, how can you have both big government neo-cons to the right with the other conservatives and libertarians? They just don't fit there.

I like the Nolan Chart, as it adds a dimension, and does a much better job, but it is not so well known. Plus it my be a bit disconcerting to those that think it is only 'us v. them' to find it may really be 'us v. them v. them v. them'.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray, I do not view myself as a 'fair minded, MOR person'. I am decidedly left wing ... bordering on socialist. I understand that my opinions are at the edge of the bell curve in our society. But I do believe I get there with logic and reasoning.

I can appreciate that people may hold opinions differing from my own. And they may hold those opinions passionately. I will gladly argue and debate on merits. The trick seems to be finding a 'fair minded referee'.

I was just listening to Ken Pollack on NPR. Ken Pollack is not, by anyone's attribution, a left wing personality forwarding left wing positions. The NPR reportered asked questions, and allowed Mr. Pollack to answer those questions. That's not the type of treatment one hears on right-wing talk radio, eh?

Defense is outlined as a duty of the government. Not bad piano music and snot-nosed reporters aiding the enemy.

The argument that dropping bombs on Iraq provides defense is a struggle, at best, and outright lie and crime, at worst. I have a degree in music, and yes, there is some bad piano music on NPR, there is also glorifying piano music on NPR. Usually, because it is royalty free.

As for accusing reporters of being traitors ... I would prefer a report get as close to an objective truth as possible. The nature of the job is to report facts. Not to advance political ideology.

But, if you want to piss on the First Amendment, I suppose that tells us more about you, than the reporters.

 

[Monadnock]

The argument that dropping bombs on Iraq provides defense is a struggle, at best, and outright lie and crime, at worst.

...

But, if you want to piss on the First Amendment, I suppose that tells us more about you, than the reporters.

As everyone can see, continuing to argue with the idiot will only bring you down to their level.

A discussion can go nowhere with these types of folk, who like their hippy predecessors can sure scream and yell about nothing, but do at least smell a little better.

 

[Marginal]

But they are successful because people WANT to listen to their message. Or are outraged by it but still watch/listen/read them. Either way, sponsors back popularity, sponsors mean money, money means more air time. Al Franken was a flop, admit it.

Al Franken was a reactive move. It wasn't meant to fill a market as much to match vitriol with vitriol. It failed 'cause it was a knee jerk reaction. The Half Hour News Hour will fail for similar reasons. (Conservatives don't need a news show parody since they already have Fox News.)

 

[michaeledward]

Why should the government use money taken from the taxpayers to fund any sort of media? Is there a reason we need another station on the air? There are already things like the emergency broadcast network. I am talking about funding entertainment channels. It is nice that there is opera on the radio, but does it have to be funded by the government? Why isn't Japanese ancient court music given a radio station by the government instead? Not enough people? Well then, what ever happened to the idea of giving the minority access?

If I see the government has taken my tax money to fund programs about how creationism is just as valid a point of view as evolution you can bet I would get mad. And who is to say that the local politicians would not require that sort of programming? Or they can give out money to people without any sort of oversight, and that would mean that Nazis can line up to make documentaries on the lie of the holocaust with your tax dollars. Who gets to decide what is a valid viewpoint to be funded and which is to be ignored? Under a democracy, all points are supposed to be allowed to speak their voice. But with state funded media, certain viewpoints are given an advantage by the government.

There is a principle of 'common good' or 'public interest'. This is the principle that allows government to fund highways, airports, telephone and national defense. All citizens benefit from these products and infrastructure. Individual citizens can not create a useful version of these items alone. It would be akin to a highway, without any exit ramps; or a single fax machine.

In general, modern day Republicans oppose the principle of 'public interest'. From Ronald Reagan's conservativism ~ government is the problem ~ through to Grover Norquist's American's for Tax Reform ~ drown government in the bathtub, they have opposed public good at every turn.

The United States Declaration of Indepedence tells us that Governments are formed to preserve and protect the rights of the people. And that those governments are granted their powers by the consent of the governed. As I recently posted in a different thread, I would prefer that the consent of the governed by informed consent.

In Thomas Jefferson's time, it was the newspaper and the pamphlet that presented the marketplace of ideas to the citizenry. In the past sixty years, our society has moved away from print, where there was a variety of voices, to broadcast which is significantly more limited. Further, broadcast is a one-way medium. The talking heads tell us things, but rarely listen, and even more rarely discuss. (Do you see the Republican Presidential Candidates running away from YouTube?).

So, to address some of your questions; the broadcast spectrum is limited. Not only is the actual bandwidth limited, changes in ownership put in place under President Bush means that even with many different stations, the same corporate ownership has created bigger megaphones for themselves. (you never addressed this point earlier). So, while there may be an frequency available in Peoria for a new voice, that voice is not going to be heard in New York, Los Angeles, or Detroit. Within the confines of these limitations (physical bandwith, consolidated ownership), it is appropriate for the government to help inform the governed. Because it is from us, the public, that government derives its just powers.

Who would you trust, your government, for whom you can vote every two, four, or six years, or Rupert Murdoch?

We do not need another station on the air. What we need is additional points of view on the air. And not in screamfests. Not with Bill O'Rielly cutting of the microphone of guests.

Despite what you have heard, the government provides very little money to public broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting operating budget for this year is about one dollar and thirty five cents per person in the country. Four hundred million dollars may sound like a lot, but when you look at all it does, it is a bargain. May I recommend you watch Ken Burns 'The War' when it is broadcast this fall. I'm sure you'll consider that well worth your $1.35 investment. But, in answer to your question as to why should government money be used .... from CPB's web site, we learn the 1934 Communications Act says, "it is in the public interest {hey, didn't I see that phrase earlier in this post?} to encourage the use of such (public) media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes".

You ask about minority access. Where, in your 'free market' equation does minority access play a part? I posit it does not play a part. Not for opera, not for foreign language, not for anything. If a market segment is too small to gain the attention of Disney, it gets no access. Well, unless you look to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB has a strategic initiative to serve the unserved, and underserved audiences. With a mandate to focus on the bottom line, I guess they can reach out a bit.

Incidentally, let's talk about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It is a clever creation of our government to keep the politicians hands off of the broadcasters. Money is granted to the CPB by Congress (you know, 1.35 per person), and the CPB distributes those allocated funds to the broadcasters. So, Barney Frank can add an earmark for a gay purple dinosaur on PBS. CPB was set up to be non-partisan, and a breakwater between the people who allocate the money, and the people who spend it. (Extra credit - wanna guess who has tried to politicize the non-partisan CPB? Bueller? Bueller?)



Lastly, let's take a look at your last sentence ... But with state funded media, certain viewpoints are given an advantage by the government ... Are you really arguing that with corporately owned media, certain viewpoints are not given an advantage by the corporate entity that owns the broadcast hardware?