Who’s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine?
Nick Name
By Steve Almond | November 9, 2009
OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our
biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax,
that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals
socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called
Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.
Nonsense.
The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the
invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is
subject their invective to a real-time reality check.
If you don’t believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal
Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949.
Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to
ensure that licensees devoted “a reasonable amount of broadcast time
to the discussion of controversial issues,’’ and that they did so
“fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing
viewpoints.’’ That’s the whole shebang.
Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?
The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness
Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media’’
outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath
as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the
public good?’’ they ask, “Will it get ratings?’’
This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement,
etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care,
or address climate change. It’s quite a racket. Talk radio hosts
foment ignorant rage, then their “mainstream’’ brethren cover this
ignorant rage as news.
In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to
devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body
politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments,
let alone potential remedies.
And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC
installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who
broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their
microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who
recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not
childish forms of denial.
Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic
discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined
to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about
bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want “fair and
balanced’’ voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the
FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
If Obama and his congressional counterparts don’t have the guts for
that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to
seek out “news’’ and opinions that merely reinforce their biases,
rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will
continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than
free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an
honest desire to solve our common plights.
Which brings me to a final mystery: If today’s conservative talkers
are so sure they’re right about everything (and they certainly sound
sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why
don’t a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their
programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No
shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom
of speech.
Actually, consider that a dare.
Steve Almond, a guest columnist, is the author of five books, most
recently the essay collection “(Not that You Asked).’’
Mike Van Pelt
Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>Who�s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine?
>
>By Steve Almond | November 9, 2009
Who is Steve Almond that anyone would consider him a potentially
interesting guest to have on their program?
This whole "We know what the unwashed idiots ought to be
listening to, and we're going to force them to listen to it,
because we are so wonderful and perfect and enlightened and
intelligent, because we say so" attitude is really a bit too
much. The Left just can't get over that they no longer have an
absolute lock on all broadcast opinion. You've got CBS, NBC,
ABC, PBS (paid for with tax dollars). Why can't there be any
alternative voices permitted anywhere?
What are *you* afraid of?
If this "Fairness" Doctrine you're pushing doesn't equally
provide for giving Rush Limbaugh equal time on 60 Minutes,
and Michael Savage on Pacifica Radio (and we both know it
would never, ever be so applied) then you're simply a
hypocrite.
--
Mike Van Pelt "If they're going to talk about
mvp.at.calweb.com Camelot, then we get to talk about
KE6BVH The Lady in the Lake." - ?
Phil Kane
wrote:
>If this "Fairness" Doctrine you're pushing doesn't equally
>provide for giving Rush Limbaugh equal time on 60 Minutes,
>and Michael Savage on Pacifica Radio (and we both know it
>would never, ever be so applied) then you're simply a
>hypocrite.
The Fairness Doctrine does not equate to Equal Time. Look it up.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
Mike Van Pelt
Equal amounts of "rebuttal time". However much free time Chris
Matthews gets to gripe about Rush's program on the station that
carries Limbaugh's show, Rush gets the same amount of free time
to gripe about Chris Matthews on his show. Same thing with Sean
Hannity and 60 minutes. Michael Savage and Keith Olbermann. And
<some even crazier right-winger I don't know about> and <whoever
Mae Brussel passed the Molotov... er, torch to on Pacifica Radio>.
Of course, there are more than two sides. How much time will
be left for programming when every single spliter group and
random crackpot (like the "Steven King Killed John Lennon"
guy) in the entire country gets granted their "Fair Share"
of rebuttal time? If you exclude some of these people, then
how are you being "fair" to their point of view?
Where do you draw the line?
As the computer from some old 80's scifi movie said, "The only
way to win is not to play the game." Or just refuse to start
down that path.
Nick Name
> So if a radio show guest advocates against child molestation then the
> broadcaster has to have a member of NAMBLA on to balance the issue fairly.
No, this is not true. Take a look at how the Fairness Doctrine worked
when it was in effect previously. Please inform yourself before
making incorrect statements.
Nick Name
> In article <n194g55p8g9423ttek8ngij3i34257i...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>
> >On 17 Nov 2009 00:23:23 GMT, m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt)
> >wrote:
>
> >>If this "Fairness" Doctrine you're pushing doesn't equally
> >>provide for giving Rush Limbaugh equal time on 60 Minutes,
> >>and Michael Savage on Pacifica Radio (and we both know it
> >>would never, ever be so applied) then you're simply a
> >>hypocrite.
>
> >The Fairness Doctrine does not equate to Equal Time. Look it up.
>
> Equal amounts of "rebuttal time".
No, this is not correct.
> Of course, there are more than two sides. How much time will
> be left for programming when every single spliter group and
> random crackpot (like the "Steven King Killed John Lennon"
> guy) in the entire country gets granted their "Fair Share"
> of rebuttal time? If you exclude some of these people, then
> how are you being "fair" to their point of view?
>
> Where do you draw the line?
When the Fairness Doctrine was in effect previously, did you see
"every single spliter group and random crackpot guy in the entire
country gets granted their "Fair Share" of rebuttal time"? No, you
didn't.
cph...@gmail.com
This isn't the age of only three networks and limited access to the
media. Nowadays
we have hundreds of cable channels, and, if that isn't enough, the
internet.
People will now be able to listen to/watch what they want, when they
want, and
there will be little, if anything, to compel them to deal with issues
that they choose
not to think about.
Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, or even worrying about whether it
will be reinstated,
is really fighting the last war...
Nick Name
> I think the train has already left the station.
>
> This isn't the age of only three networks and limited access to the
> media. Nowadays
> we have hundreds of cable channels,
But this is the age of conglomorates.
We have hundreds of cable channels, but they are controlled by a
few.
And if Comcast doesn't want you to see MSNBC or Ovation....you dont
see it.
> Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, or even worrying about whether it
> will be reinstated,
> is really fighting the last war...
Or reinstating the fact that the public owns the airwaves, not the
licensees.
cph...@gmail.com
> On Nov 17, 2:12 pm, "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the train has already left the station.
>
> > This isn't the age of only three networks and limited access to the
> > media. Nowadays
> > we have hundreds of cable channels,
>
> But this is the age of conglomorates.
>
> We have hundreds of cable channels, but they are controlled by a
> few.
>
> And if Comcast doesn't want you to see MSNBC or Ovation....you dont
> see it.
Now we're talking about *cable*, which isn't covered by the same rules
as
over-the-air broadcast in terms of content. (Hence different rules on
"indecent"
words, etc.)
I'm not sure the old Fairness Doctrine ever applied to cable-only
stations....
>
> > Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, or even worrying about whether it
> > will be reinstated,
> > is really fighting the last war...
>
> Or reinstating the fact that the public owns the airwaves, not the
> licensees.
1. Cable isn't "the airwaves" as far as I can tell; that physical
plant is owned
by the cable company.
2. Back to over-the-air media, you say on the one hand that the
"airwaves belong to the public"
and then on the other hand, you swear up and down that we wouldn't be
inundated with
"crackpots" wanting access.
Well, to be frank, why *shouldn't* they get access? They're part of
the public too....
3. The Fairness Doctrine, if reinstated, will probably not do what you
seem to
want it to do, because of the different media market (including the
Internet, which
no one really controls)
Nick Name
> On Nov 17, 11:19 am, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2:12 pm, "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think the train has already left the station.
>
> > > This isn't the age of only three networks and limited access to the
> > > media. Nowadays
> > > we have hundreds of cable channels,
>
> > But this is the age of conglomorates.
>
> > We have hundreds of cable channels, but they are controlled by a
> > few.
>
> > And if Comcast doesn't want you to see MSNBC or Ovation....you dont
> > see it.
>
> Now we're talking about *cable*, which isn't covered by the same rules
> as
> over-the-air broadcast in terms of content. (Hence different rules on
> "indecent"
> words, etc.)
>
> I'm not sure the old Fairness Doctrine ever applied to cable-only
> stations....
>
> plant is owned
> by the cable company.
No one ever said it would. However, the argument was put forth that
the hundreds of cable channels negate the need for the Fairness
Doctrine (for OTA broadcasters). That's the only reason why cable was
brought up.
> 2. Back to over-the-air media, you say on the one hand that the
> "airwaves belong to the public"
> and then on the other hand, you swear up and down that we wouldn't be
> inundated with
> "crackpots" wanting access.
> Well, to be frank, why *shouldn't* they get access? They're part of
> the public too....
Well, because broadcasters are allowed discretion as to who or what
they air. The "crackpot" or anyone else would have to prove he was
treated unfairly. (i.e...had untruths told about them, etc.) The KKK
or Nambla does not automatically get access.)
You can read the Red Lion B'casting case if you want to see how the
aggreived person can seek recourse.
> 3. The Fairness Doctrine, if reinstated, will probably not do what you
> seem to
> want it to do, because of the different media market (including the
> Internet, which
> no one really controls)
What is it I "seem to want it to do"?
Mike Van Pelt
Go track down the people who fled broadcast TV opinion because
it completely excluded their point of view, and harrangue them
mercilessly about their choice of media.
I said it previously: You've already got CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS
which give your point of view and nothing but your point of view.
Why are you so threatened by any alternative voice?
And, yeah, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, the old
"Talking hairdoo pontificating on the tube" media is becoming
a lot less important.
Don Freeman
> In article <b401b6f5-df25-4e79...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 3:03 pm, "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 3. The Fairness Doctrine, if reinstated, will probably not do
>>> what you seem to want it to do, because of the different media
>>> market (including the Internet, which no one really controls)
>> What is it I "seem to want it to do"?
>
> Go track down the people who fled broadcast TV opinion because
> it completely excluded their point of view, and harrangue them
> mercilessly about their choice of media.
>
> I said it previously: You've already got CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS
> which give your point of view and nothing but your point of view.
> Why are you so threatened by any alternative voice?
Alternative is fine, deliberately misrepresenting the facts? Not so
much, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it originates
from. I would love to hear a responsible conservative viewpoint, but if
they exists they are drowned our by all of the demagogues that claim to
speak for the Right.
--
-Don
cph...@gmail.com
> On Nov 17, 3:03 pm, "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, because broadcasters are allowed discretion as to who or what
> they air. The "crackpot" or anyone else would have to prove he was
> treated unfairly. (i.e...had untruths told about them, etc.) The KKK
> or Nambla does not automatically get access.)
Not necessarily automatically, but a poorly-written Doctrine, plus
some
sharp lawyering, could get them in there.
>
> You can read the Red Lion B'casting case if you want to see how the
> aggreived person can seek recourse.
>
> > 3. The Fairness Doctrine, if reinstated, will probably not do what you
> > seem to
> > want it to do, because of the different media market (including the
> > Internet, which
> > no one really controls)
>
> What is it I "seem to want it to do"?
Well, from your article:
"And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC
installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who
broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their
microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who
recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not
childish forms of denial. "
Force them to share their microphones.
So after the hour or so of someone saying that global warming
is bunk, someone automatically gets the right to say "We must all
stop driving tomorrow or we will all die!"
I don't think you can guarantee a certain level of debate by
legislation.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>>The Fairness Doctrine does not equate to Equal Time. Look it up.
>
>Equal amounts of "rebuttal time".
Nope - not even that. It required "balanced views" on
"controversial issues of public importance". You would be surprised
at what "balanced views", "controversial issues" and "public
importance" meant in the context of the applicability of the Fairness
Doctrine. They don't mean what the average person would think that
they mean in plain language. It specifically did not require any
equal amount of time.
Mark Howell
While everything you say is true, it remains true that the fairness
doctrine had the practical effect of stifling opinion-based
programming. Especially at the smaller-market level, management
simply didn't want the compliance hassles. Setting that aside,
programming that is truly "fair and balanced" does not work. If it
did, CNN and the PBS NewsHour would be at the top of the ratings.
In today's media marketplace, individual outlets function as echo
chambers, telling listeners/viewers that their existing beliefs are
correct. The notion that people can somehow be forced to listen to
views that diverge from their own is ludicrous. So is the notion that
"one-sided" media influence public opinion -- in fact, they merely
reflect it. Think back to the early days of the Republic, when no
electronic media existed. Then, each city had multiple newspapers,
each trumpeting its own political views to the exclusion of others.
Readers chose the papers that lined up with their own beliefs.
Somehow the Republic survived.
The fundamental problem with the fairness doctrine is not that it
violates the First Amendment (which it does), but that it is an
exercise in futility, because it assumes that listeners are powerless
to tune out.
Mark Howell
Nick Name
> The fundamental problem with the fairness doctrine is not that it
> violates the First Amendment (which it does),
No, it does not.
> but that it is an
> exercise in futility, because it assumes that listeners are powerless
> to tune out.
No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
discourse is expected.
Just like certain behavior is required when you are in a National
Park, which is also owned by the public.
D. Peter Maus
National Parks are not a commercial entity. Radio is. Since the
beginning, Radio has always been about the money. Even NPR is about
the money. Radio is a business. Radio is a business that builds
listeners by providing programming that draws them to the Radio, and
then Radio sells those listeners to advertisers.
It's always been that way. Since the first radio stations were
owned by grain elevator operators to distribute commodity prices,
the purpose of programming is to hold listeners between commercial
announcements.
Whatever discourse exists need be neither civil, nor balanced.
Because it's the public, with it's wallet and the finger on the
button, which determines what will sell.
National Parks are run by the government, non profit.
Radio isn't.
Start running the parks as a profit generating entity, and you'll
see a dramatic change in what is and is not tolerated in the
National Parks.
Nick Name
wrote:
> On 11/19/09 21:16 , Nick Name wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:36 pm, Mark Howell<howellina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The fundamental problem with the fairness doctrine is not that it
> >> violates the First Amendment (which it does),
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> >> but that it is an
> >> exercise in futility, because it assumes that listeners are powerless
> >> to tune out.
>
> > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> > discourse is expected.
>
> > Just like certain behavior is required when you are in a National
> > Park, which is also owned by the public.
>
> National Parks are not a commercial entity. Radio is.
Radio by it's nature is not a commercial entity. It is a public
resource and a public service.
However, continuing with the National Parks analogy....people are
given licenses/leases to operate a commercial enterprises on the
property. A private citizen may apply to run a hot dog stand, or a
souvenir shop, etc. You are not the owner of the land, but are given
the right to use it for a period of time, with special restrictions.
> Since the
> beginning, Radio has always been about the money.
Not true, the first stations were experimental and public services.
The lecensee is/was a public trustee to use the public airwaves. The
goverment allows one to make a profit to finance the services provided
the public.
> Whatever discourse exists need be neither civil, nor balanced.
> Because it's the public, with it's wallet and the finger on the
> button, which determines what will sell.
Well, that's ok in the days of the hearst papers...when they would
lie, and slam people they didn't like. They owned the paper, they
owned the ink and presses, and the public paid for the product.
However, radio spectrum is owned by the public.
> National Parks are run by the government, non profit.
>
> Radio isn't.
Radio spectrum is owned by the people, people are allowed to operate
on the spectrum (like they are allowed into the National Park). Hot
DOg Stand analogy, or the tourbus that operates.
The National Park still belongs to the people. The spectrum still
belongs to the people.
Mike Van Pelt
Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>Radio by it's nature is not a commercial entity. It is a public
>resource and a public service.
And the public decides what programming stays on the air by
their vote, every day, every hour, every minute, as to which
station they listen to. It is the ultimate democracy.
A station that doesn't provide what the public wants to
listen to will start losing listeners, then advertisers,
then its business.
Unless, of course, it's NPR, which we are all compelled to
pay for with our tax dollars, whether we listen to it or not.
You're just upset that the public doesn't vote your way, so you
want to take away that vote and impose your own preference on all.
David Kaye
>Unless, of course, it's NPR, which we are all compelled to
>pay for with our tax dollars, whether we listen to it or not.
What makes you think we're "all compelled to pay for with our tax dollars"?
Do you know how little government money is received by NPR?
Okay, sure there is *some* government money. Don't you believe in government
grants for the arts and culture? We would be a much poorer country without
such spending.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
D. Peter Maus
> On Nov 20, 10:22 am, "D. Peter Maus"<dpeterm...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>> On 11/19/09 21:16 , Nick Name wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 7:36 pm, Mark Howell<howellina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The fundamental problem with the fairness doctrine is not that it
>>>> violates the First Amendment (which it does),
>>
>>> No, it does not.
>>
>>>> but that it is an
>>>> exercise in futility, because it assumes that listeners are powerless
>>>> to tune out.
>>
>>> No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
>>> public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
>>> discourse is expected.
>>
>>> Just like certain behavior is required when you are in a National
>>> Park, which is also owned by the public.
>>
>> National Parks are not a commercial entity. Radio is.
>
> Radio by it's nature is not a commercial entity. It is a public
> resource and a public service.
Asolutely not. Radio is a business. And it always has been.
Privately held. Privately operated.
>
> However, continuing with the National Parks analogy....people are
> given licenses/leases to operate a commercial enterprises on the
> property. A private citizen may apply to run a hot dog stand, or a
> souvenir shop, etc. You are not the owner of the land, but are given
> the right to use it for a period of time, with special restrictions.
Not so much, no. Business licenses have to do with taxation. Not
land use.
>
>> Since the
>> beginning, Radio has always been about the money.
>
> Not true, the first stations were experimental and public services.
No, they were not. The first radio operators were grain elevator
owners using radio to announce commodity prices, announcements for
commerce, before the broadcast bands were created. Amateur radio,
in other words. They would have price announcements three or four
times a day. When competing elevator operators would begin using
radio, shrewd operators would leave the carriers on between
announcements and fill the time with local performers, story
tellers, and musicians.
Even then, the purpose of programming was to hold listeners
between announcements for commerce.
Of the radio stations I've worked, 5 were begun precisely that way.
When the first paid advertisements were sold, radio operators
began a new business model. But the intent was still the same: To
use radio to make money.
This is true only in the US. In other nations, radio stations
were operated by the government. But in the US the government didn't
opererate radio stations. In fact, with the first Radio Act this was
forbidden to prevent broadcasting from becoming a propaganda arm of
the government. This why domestic SW broadcasting is illegal.
At no time has radio ever been deployed as a public service.
It's a business.
Even Public Radio. Go to your local public radio station and take
a tour of the public file. See precisely how much money is involved
in operating that station. Talk to manglement. See if they don't
face ratings pressures. The model may be different, but operation
is driven by revenue.
In the US, Radio is about the money. And always has been.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> What makes you think we're "all compelled to pay for with our tax dollars"?
> Do you know how little government money is received by NPR?
Where does the bulk of NPR's money come from? It must come from
somewhere.
> Okay, sure there is *some* government money. Don't you believe in government
> grants for the arts and culture? We would be a much poorer country without
> such spending.
Whatever happened to art patrons?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Patty Winter
In article <higgy-6A81A5....@news.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>In article <he737m$9s9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> What makes you think we're "all compelled to pay for with our tax dollars"?
>> Do you know how little government money is received by NPR?
>
>Where does the bulk of NPR's money come from? It must come from
>somewhere.
Umm, it comes from the same sorts of places that most nonprofits
get their money: individuals, corporations, and foundations. And
in NPR's case, also some from member stations. Here's a summary:
"NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and
programming fees from over 860 independent radio stations, sponsorship
from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales
of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage --
between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from
competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations,
such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science
Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts."
Patty
Stratum101
> Unless, of course, it's NPR, which we are all compelled to
> pay for with our tax dollars, whether we listen to it or not.
KQED supports NPR through payment for programs.
Several years ago, KQED claimed that about 11% of their
funding came from government grants.
David Kaye
>Where does the bulk of NPR's money come from? It must come from
>somewhere.
Corporate underwriters, foundation underwriters, and donations from
individuals and estates of individuals. Listen to the funding credits at the
end of each broadcast to hear for yourself.
To quote NPR: "NPR supports its operations through a combination of
membership dues and programming fees from over 860 independent radio stations,
sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the
sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage --
between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from
competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the
National Endowment for the Arts. "
There you have it: Between 1% and 2% of NPR money comes from federal
government grants.
HD Radio Farce
"The Wonderful World of HD Radio"
"Perhaps it is because it is the American Public that has been paying
a large portion of the development costs for HD radio? Yup, that is
you and I. An FCC filing from North Carolina’s Public Radio Stations
cites: Just a few weeks ago, the House Appropriations Committee
approved an additional $40 million to assist public radio stations’
transition to HD radio technology.”
There you have it, tens-of-millions for the HD Radio scam. Yup.
cph...@gmail.com
> No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> discourse is expected.
Civility? Come now.
If a "certain level of civility" were required, probably more than
half the programs on the air
right now would have to be shut down!
Or are you saying that "politically-oriented" programming would have
to toe some line, while
so-called "entertainment" programming could skate?
John Higdon
<b268e1f3-cd6f-4334...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
"cph...@gmail.com" <cph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:16�pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
>
> > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > public, not the licensee. �And a certain level of civility and
> > discourse is expected.
>
>
> Civility? Come now.
The only people who resort to the old "the airwaves belong to the
public" hooey are those who are definitely speaking from outside the
industry.
D. Peter Maus
No, he's right. The airwaves are public. The license, however, is
granted by the public. To a commercial entity. For commercial
purposes. And the commercial entity plays by rules of the market.
Civility may or may not apply depending on the forces at play
within the marketplace.
And 'civility' itself, is a nebulous term. It's a loaded word
intended to pressure someone who's opinion does not coincide with
the opinion of the person using the term by invoking undefined
emotional issues, including shame and fear of criticism. So it has
no real meaning as used in this context. Like the Fairness Doctrine,
it's an attempt to censor persons with opposing positions.
It's also interesting that the term is frequently used by the
person who's just pissed someone off, intending to avert the
pressures on the moment of an anger response.
Which is utter horseshit.
One may pick the offense, or one may pick the response, but one
doesn't get to pick both.
D. Peter Maus
Nick Name
>
> "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 7:16 pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > > public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> > > discourse is expected.
>
> > Civility? Come now.
>
> The only people who resort to the old "the airwaves belong to the
> public" hooey are those who are definitely speaking from outside the
> industry.
Guess again big boy.
RP
"HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a48f16a-534a-43c4...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Isn't it funny that HD RADIO FARTZ comes into a discussion about the
fairness doctrine to turn it into a discussion about HD radio. <sigh>
RP
>>So after the hour or so of someone saying that global warming
>>is bunk, someone automatically gets the right to say "We must all
>> stop driving tomorrow or we will all die!"
Not if it's determermined that the opposing sides position was presented
fairly.
It's not so much giving everyone a microphone, as to make sure those with
the microphones don't use them to mischaracterize the other side.
I don't think you can guarantee a certain level of debate by
legislation.
Sure you can. We do it all the time. Did someone use the National Park
analogy?
We don't allow irresponsible behavior in National Parks.
D. Peter Maus
We don't allow irresponsible behaviour on the Radio, either.
But taking one side of a political position that opposes the side
you favor is not an example of irresponsible behaviour.
RP
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hef3sr$qoi$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
As long as you don't MIS characterize the opposite side. Once you use your
power and authority to mislead or mischaracterize, then you are being
irresponsible.
Again, Peter, you'r a bright dude...you should read the Red Lion case and
see what led to the challenge, on the basis of the Fairness Doctrine.
It's not simply that someone one the air took a position on anything.
We lived with the fairness doctrine for years, and that didn't stop
commentary or opinions.
D. Peter Maus
> "D. Peter Maus"<dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:hef3sr$qoi$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 11/23/09 15:17 , RP wrote:
>>>>> So after the hour or so of someone saying that global warming
>>>>> is bunk, someone automatically gets the right to say "We must all
>>>>> stop driving tomorrow or we will all die!"
>>>
>>> Not if it's determermined that the opposing sides position was presented
>>> fairly.
>>>
>>> It's not so much giving everyone a microphone, as to make sure those with
>>> the microphones don't use them to mischaracterize the other side.
>>>
>>> I don't think you can guarantee a certain level of debate by
>>> legislation.
>>>
>>> Sure you can. We do it all the time. Did someone use the National Park
>>> analogy?
>>>
>>> We don't allow irresponsible behavior in National Parks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We don't allow irresponsible behaviour on the Radio, either.
>>
>> But taking one side of a political position that opposes the side you
>> favor is not an example of irresponsible behaviour.
>
> As long as you don't MIS characterize the opposite side. Once you use your
> power and authority to mislead or mischaracterize, then you are being
> irresponsible.
>
> Again, Peter, you'r a bright dude...you should read the Red Lion case and
> see what led to the challenge, on the basis of the Fairness Doctrine.
I have. And that thinking was flawed, even then. You should read
the Federalist Papers. They explains the thinking behind the First
Amendment. And the reasons why political speech is untouchable. Even
spin and distortion.
Mischaracterizing the other side is part and parcel of politics.
The Left has been mischaracterizing the Right for centuries. But I
don't hear anyone calling for the reinstitution of the Fairness
Doctrine for that.
Bill Clinton flat out lied about the Right after Oklahoma City,
and no one said a word. Rush Limbaugh laid out the facts about
McVeigh and his history, and calls for the Fairness Doctrine went up
like fireworks on Independence Day.
And, surprisingly, within the context of a political ad,
virtually anything may be said with impugnity. One may say that the
opponent sleeps with goats while married to an underage dwarf
crippled monoped with herpes who passes out cigarettes to 5 year
olds on Halloween, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
In one dramatic case, Barry Commoner during the 1980 Presidential
Campaign used the word "Bullshit" in a spot 7 times, and there was
nothing, we at the stations, or community standards groups could do
about it. Not on political grounds. Not for the profanity.
And yet, an editorial comment endorsing an candidate opens up the
stations resources to any and all respondents. This while newspapers
endorse candidates without complaint.
But for a host to express an opinion, that requires an equal time
response?
Newsroom editors have been selecting and shaping news stories
along political lines since the nation was founded. In newspapers,
on radio, and especially on tv, political bias has been shaping the
news from Day 1, mischaracterizing, spinning and even suppressing
stories for partisan purposes. And yet, only when the Right makes an
opinion, does the issue of the Fairness Doctrine come up.
What a hypocrite.
This is just an attempt at censorship. And in matters political,
the First Amendment prohibits censorship.
> It's not simply that someone one the air took a position on anything.
Actually, it is precisely that. The Left has been shaping TV News
according to it's agenda for years. Now that the Right has found an
audience, calls for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine ring
out.
Nonsense.
Especially, on public airwaves.
>
> We lived with the fairness doctrine for years, and that didn't stop
> commentary or opinions.
Actually, it did. Until the inaccurately named Fairness Doctrine
went away, opinions and commentary were carefully avoided, to head
off possible response by opponents seeking access to the station's
resourcs to every side in response. The effect was the chilling of
opinion and commentary, while News was shaped according to an agenda.
In '78, I was working a local school election. Very hotly
contested, many things were said. And one item, a non binding
resolution, would determine the fate of one school, slated to be
closed, and very vocally protested. The school board said that only
a clear mandate would be considered in making their decision. On the
order of 60%, one director said. The vote on that item came in at
50.6% to 49.4%. And I said, 'well, looks like we're back where we
started,' during my show that evening.
There was an EXPLOSION of protest demanding equal time. One side
thought I was siding with their opponents, the other thought I was
siding with THEIR opponents. And everyone who had a comment wanted
equal time to rebut. Keep in mind I said ONE LINE. And the result
was a line out the door of persons wanting their comment. And I had
to record them. Every damned one of them mischaracterized something.
They mischaracterized what I said. They mischaracterized what one
side said, what the other side said. One guy wanted the opportunity
to call for another resolution on the matter and demanded another
election.
Nothing was accomplished by this. Except it severely crimped our
ability as a station to do business. And everything that walked
through the door was a mischaracterization of the other side.
The newspaper, however, took a clear side in the matter. With
impugnity.
The result was that we stopped covering some news stories in
detail where the school system was concerned.
And public affairs programs that noone listened to, became the
exclusive arena for opinion and commentary. That, ultimately, was a
disservice to the community. Meanwhile, the newspaper was putting
opinion and commentary on the front page.
And news continued to be shaped according to the editor's agenda.
And newspapers continued to take sides without the 'Fairness'
requirement.
It's nonsense.
Post-Reagan, there was no call for the return of the Fairness
Doctrine until Rush.
NOONE called for the return of the Fairness Doctine, when John
Chancellor called Reagan a moron. No one called for the return of
the Fairness Doctrine when Walter Cronkite called him a cowboy who
would be king.
No one called for the Return of the Fairness Doctrine when Peter
Jennings eviscerated Newt Gingrich. No one called for the return of
the Fairness Doctrine when Peter Jennings led off the evening news
with 'Well the American People had a hissy fit last night....' when
Republicans took back the house.
And no one called for the return of the Fairness Doctrine when
Dan Rather presented his infamous story, with falsified documents,
about the service record of George W. Bush.
But let Rush Limbaugh call Bill Clinton out for breaking his
campaign promise not to raise taxes within 2 weeks of being elected,
and calls for the Fairness Doctrine ring out like a carillon at a
Tchaikovsky Festival.
It's bullshit.
Only when the Right gets a voice is there call for the Fairness
Doctrine.
And that's censorship.
It serves no purpose except to silence the Right.
RP
Except when political speech is on your front lawn? Even when they are
using your facilities?
Free Speech is a public right...but not when you are in someone else's home,
not when you are standing in the middle of the street.
It's not absolute.
> Mischaracterizing the other side is part and parcel of politics. The
> Left has been mischaracterizing the Right for centuries. But I don't hear
> anyone calling for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine for that.
I am looking at this issue totally neutral. (If anything I lean a little to
the right. But the fairness doctrine was in effect before, for Right and
Left....and the problems you potentially see did not occur.
> In one dramatic case, Barry Commoner during the 1980 Presidential Campaign
> used the word "Bullshit" in a spot 7 times, and there was nothing, we at
> the stations, or community standards groups could do about it. Not on
> political grounds. Not for the profanity.
There was something the station could have done, it could have decided that
no political spots be sold.
This however has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
> And yet, an editorial comment endorsing an candidate opens up the
> stations resources to any and all respondents.
A simple endorsement does not invoke the fairness doctrine.
> This while newspapers endorse candidates without complaint.
They own the paper, ink and presses. Broadcasters don't.
> But for a host to express an opinion, that requires an equal time
> response?
Again, no. You are old enough to remember when the FD was in effect. There
were plenty of opinions.
> Newsroom editors have been selecting and shaping news stories along
> political lines since the nation was founded. In newspapers, on radio, and
> especially on tv, political bias has been shaping the news from Day 1,
> mischaracterizing, spinning and even suppressing stories for partisan
> purposes. And yet, only when the Right makes an opinion, does the issue of
> the Fairness Doctrine come up.
This is not a partisan issue. (I would probably be characterized as a
Rightie.)
> What a hypocrite.
Not at all.
> This is just an attempt at censorship. And in matters political, the
> First Amendment prohibits censorship.
No, it's an attempt to allow for some meaningful and civil discourse. It's
also an attempt to excercise who owns the airwaves.
>> It's not simply that someone one the air took a position on anything.
>
> Actually, it is precisely that. The Left has been shaping TV News
> according to it's agenda for years.
No, it isn't. WHile it has become a politcal football, (us vs,. them),
there were lots of ideas expressed while the FD was in effect.
> Now that the Right has found an audience, calls for the reinstitution of
> the Fairness Doctrine ring out.
Again, I am a conservative, and I like the FD. The pundits have gotten a
lot of the righties running scared that this would be a rule against having
opinions. AGAIN...the FD was in effect previously, that did not stop
opinions. (Nor did it stop religious broadcasting, which is another false
argument.)
>> We lived with the fairness doctrine for years, and that didn't stop
>> commentary or opinions.
>
>
> Actually, it did. Until the inaccurately named Fairness Doctrine went
> away, opinions and commentary were carefully avoided...
I don't know where you lived, but there wer plenty of opinions on the radio.
Remember Bob Grant found a way to operate under the FD. The most
opinionated host on the air in America! And again, there were plkenty of
religious stations too. The Right did not get squelched.
> 50.6% to 49.4%. And I said, 'well, looks like we're back where we
> started,' during my show that evening.
>
> There was an EXPLOSION of protest demanding equal time. One side thought
> I was siding with their opponents, the other thought I was siding with
> THEIR opponents.
Well you must have been doing something right if you got everyone mad at
you! lol
In reality, there are ALWAYS calls for equal time. There has been since the
day broadcasting was created. Simply getting asked for equal time does not
invoke the FD.
If you look back at when the FD was in effect, of all of the calls for
"equal time", very few needed to be acted upon.
> The newspaper, however, took a clear side in the matter. With impugnity.
You're right. The newspaper owns the ink, presses and paper and sells them
to people who pay for them. Last I heard there was no shortage of any of
the above.
Broadcasting is different.
> Only when the Right gets a voice is there call for the Fairness
> Doctrine.
> It serves no purpose except to silence the Right.
It's not a Right or Left issue.
You would do yourself a favor not make it such.
D. Peter Maus
> "D. Peter Maus"<dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> I have. And that thinking was flawed, even then. You should read the
>> Federalist Papers. They explains the thinking behind the First Amendment.
>> And the reasons why political speech is untouchable.
>
> Except when political speech is on your front lawn? Even when they are
> using your facilities?
I'm glad you brought that up. Then, what you're saying is, when a
broadcaster makes a substantial investment, the broadcaster's
content may not be hijacked by a political force opposing the
broadcaster's content.
>
> Free Speech is a public right...but not when you are in someone else's home,
Radio is invited into the home. Unless one lives in The Village. :)
> not when you are standing in the middle of the street.
Absolutely, it's protected in the middle of the street.
>> Mischaracterizing the other side is part and parcel of politics. The
>> Left has been mischaracterizing the Right for centuries. But I don't hear
>> anyone calling for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine for that.
>
> I am looking at this issue totally neutral. (If anything I lean a little to
> the right. But the fairness doctrine was in effect before, for Right and
> Left....and the problems you potentially see did not occur.
Read further, they did, in fact, occur. I've been on the inside
as they did.
>
>> In one dramatic case, Barry Commoner during the 1980 Presidential Campaign
>> used the word "Bullshit" in a spot 7 times, and there was nothing, we at
>> the stations, or community standards groups could do about it. Not on
>> political grounds. Not for the profanity.
>
> There was something the station could have done, it could have decided that
> no political spots be sold.
Absolutely not. Political advertisements, by law, may not be
edited, and may not be refused.
>
> This however has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
>
>> And yet, an editorial comment endorsing an candidate opens up the
>> stations resources to any and all respondents.
>
> A simple endorsement does not invoke the fairness doctrine.
>
>> This while newspapers endorse candidates without complaint.
>
> They own the paper, ink and presses. Broadcasters don't.
Broadcasters own the transmitter, microphones, and tower. The
frequency is leased to them, for a substantial fee, for commercial
purposes.
And like newspapers, which may be not purchased at the discretion
of the reader, radio content may be disapproved by not turning on
the radio.
In each case the discretion rests with the public consumer of the
content.
>
>> But for a host to express an opinion, that requires an equal time
>> response?
>
> Again, no. You are old enough to remember when the FD was in effect. There
> were plenty of opinions.
Read on.
>
>
>> Newsroom editors have been selecting and shaping news stories along
>> political lines since the nation was founded. In newspapers, on radio, and
>> especially on tv, political bias has been shaping the news from Day 1,
>> mischaracterizing, spinning and even suppressing stories for partisan
>> purposes. And yet, only when the Right makes an opinion, does the issue of
>> the Fairness Doctrine come up.
>
> This is not a partisan issue.
When I start hearing Republicans start calling for the return of
the Fairness Doctrine, I'll agree to that. So far, it's only the Left.
> (I would probably be characterized as a
> Rightie.)
Not by anything I've read.
>
>> What a hypocrite.
>
>
>> This is just an attempt at censorship. And in matters political, the
>> First Amendment prohibits censorship.
>
> No, it's an attempt to allow for some meaningful and civil discourse.
Loaded language. Meaningless.
>>> It's not simply that someone one the air took a position on anything.
>>
>> Actually, it is precisely that. The Left has been shaping TV News
>> according to it's agenda for years.
>
> No, it isn't. WHile it has become a politcal football, (us vs,. them),
> there were lots of ideas expressed while the FD was in effect.
You have a creative memory.
Actually, no there weren't. Remember, I spent much of my life in
Media. Radio and TV since I was 6. Much of it at CBS. And I sat in
those meetings where content was determined by fiat. Where were TOLD
what positions we were to take. Why we were to take them. Every
week. I worked in newsrooms where stories were killed by the
assignment editor. One editor specifically said that for every story
about Jimmy Carter in the positive we ran, we were to run a story
about Ronald Reagan. But he was to approve all copy. And he edited
all the Reagan positive stories to spin a negative light.
At least once a day he'd send it back as a rewrite specifically,
to (his words) "paint this moron as he really is."
When Reagan's economic policies began to bear fruit, we were
specifically prohibited from crediting Reagan with the fall of
interest rates, the upswing in domestic housing starts, or the fall
in unemployment.
We were also specifically prohibited from crediting Carter's
policies with having created double digit stag-flation. By editor's
order.
News has been shaped by editor's agendae for years. FD or no.
As hosts were were prohibited from taking political opinions by
manglement for fear of invoking FD rights to equal time. Which, as I
mentioned, could simply paralyze the ability of the station to do
it's business. And Radio, in the US, is first, and has always been,
a business.
>
>> Now that the Right has found an audience, calls for the reinstitution of
>> the Fairness Doctrine ring out.
>
> Again, I am a conservative, and I like the FD. The pundits have gotten a
> lot of the righties running scared that this would be a rule against having
> opinions. AGAIN...the FD was in effect previously, that did not stop
> opinions.
Repeating a mistruth does not make it so.
Opinions WERE suppressed under FD.
>>> We lived with the fairness doctrine for years, and that didn't stop
>>> commentary or opinions.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it did. Until the inaccurately named Fairness Doctrine went
>> away, opinions and commentary were carefully avoided...
>
> I don't know where you lived, but there wer plenty of opinions on the radio.
> Remember Bob Grant found a way to operate under the FD. The most
> opinionated host on the air in America!
Grant's pre FD work was as the 'house conservative.' A token.
Other hosts on the same station were far more liberal. Today, that
mix is commercially unviable. Primarily because radio listeners
aren't interested in the Left's position. Look at the spectacular
failure of Air America. Bankrupt it's first week on the air because
advertisers were not interested. Because listeners were not interested.
Radio is a business.
But we're not talking about 1977. We're talking about today.
and calling for reinstatement of FD is about silencing. Not balance.
And specifically it's about silencing the Right.
You may be more equanimous. Those pressing this issue are
not. And it IS about silencing opposition.
>> 50.6% to 49.4%. And I said, 'well, looks like we're back where we
>> started,' during my show that evening.
>>
>> There was an EXPLOSION of protest demanding equal time. One side thought
>> I was siding with their opponents, the other thought I was siding with
>> THEIR opponents.
>
> Well you must have been doing something right if you got everyone mad at
> you! lol
>
> In reality, there are ALWAYS calls for equal time. There has been since the
> day broadcasting was created. Simply getting asked for equal time does not
> invoke the FD.
Nice edit. You completely ignored the point of the paragraph.
As Colorado Charlie once said, 'There's no point in talking,
ain't nobody gonna listen."
Nice chatting with you. Have a good day.
Phil Kane
<dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> But for a host to express an opinion, that requires an equal time
>response?
How many times do I have to instruct that the Fairness Doctrine does
not invoke Equal Time? The latter applies ONLY to air time used by
candidates for elective office, not to opinions or even things like
Propositions or Bond Issues and it does not apply to bona fide news
events even if they are debates between candidates. See Section 315
of the Communications Act.
D. Peter Maus
Your experience is sharply different than mine. 52 years of
broadcasting says the issue is not that simple.
Communications Act is very clear.
Lawyers, however, have muddied many of those waters.
And you, of all people, know how that works.
Phil Kane
<dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> There was an EXPLOSION of protest demanding equal time. One side
>thought I was siding with their opponents, the other thought I was
>siding with THEIR opponents. And everyone who had a comment wanted
>equal time to rebut. Keep in mind I said ONE LINE. And the result
>was a line out the door of persons wanting their comment. And I had
"Wanting their comments" and "The law requiring their comments" are
two entirely different things. It's those differences that keeps us
communications attorneys in business.
D. Peter Maus
It was you communications attorneys that kept the radio station
tied up for months after.
RP
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:hrbog5lqstefso5ii...@4ax.com...
Phil, as Maus quoted:
" As Colorado Charlie once said, 'There's no point in talking,
ain't nobody gonna listen."
;-)
RP
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
Phil, Maus keeps wanting to turn this into a partisan issue. And who can
blame him, in this day and age, every issue is shaped by the extremes.
RP
> On 11/24/09 11:33 , RP wrote:
>> "D. Peter Maus"<dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
>>> I have. And that thinking was flawed, even then. You should read the
>>> Federalist Papers. They explains the thinking behind the First
>>> Amendment.
>>> And the reasons why political speech is untouchable.
>>
>> Except when political speech is on your front lawn? Even when they are
>> using your facilities?
>
> I'm glad you brought that up. Then, what you're saying is, when a
> broadcaster makes a substantial investment, the broadcaster's content may
> not be hijacked by a political force opposing the broadcaster's content.
No, it's not a substantial investment that gives one ownership.
You can make a substantial investment in your apartment...that does not give
you ownership. The owner, decides what you can and can't do.
>> Free Speech is a public right...but not when you are in someone else's
>> home,
>
> Radio is invited into the home. Unless one lives in The Village. :)
Free speech is a public right. But certain rules apply when using the
public airwaves.
To who much is given, much is required. Responsibility has always been
required from the broadcaster.
Yelling Fire in a crowded theater is a limitation on free speech.
Broadcasting false information is not allowed by broadcasters.
>> not when you are standing in the middle of the street.
> Absolutely, it's protected in the middle of the street.
No, for safety purposes, the police may remove you from the middle of the
street. Yelling for cars to stop in the middle of the street is not
protected.
>>> Mischaracterizing the other side is part and parcel of politics. The
>>> Left has been mischaracterizing the Right for centuries. But I don't
>>> hear
>>> anyone calling for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine for that.
>>
>> I am looking at this issue totally neutral. (If anything I lean a little
>> to
>> the right. But the fairness doctrine was in effect before, for Right and
>> Left....and the problems you potentially see did not occur.
>>> In one dramatic case, Barry Commoner during the 1980 Presidential
>>> Campaign
>>> used the word "Bullshit" in a spot 7 times, and there was nothing, we at
>>> the stations, or community standards groups could do about it. Not on
>>> political grounds. Not for the profanity.
>>
>> There was something the station could have done, it could have decided
>> that
>> no political spots be sold.
>
> Absolutely not. Political advertisements, by law, may not be edited, and
> may not be refused.
Wrong. The rule states that if you DO sell commercials to one candidate,
you must sell them to the opposing side for the same price.
A station can decide it does not want to sell any political ads at all.
>> This however has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
>>
>>> And yet, an editorial comment endorsing an candidate opens up the
>>> stations resources to any and all respondents.
>>
>> A simple endorsement does not invoke the fairness doctrine.
>>
>>> This while newspapers endorse candidates without complaint.
>>
>> They own the paper, ink and presses. Broadcasters don't.
>
> Broadcasters own the transmitter, microphones, and tower. The frequency
> is leased to them, for a substantial fee, for commercial purposes.
It is not "leased" to them under current law. They are given licence to USE
the public resource and the airwaves t is "entrusted" to them to use in the
public interest.
> And like newspapers, which may be not purchased at the discretion of the
> reader, radio content may be disapproved by not turning on the radio.
Again..the newpaper owns the press, ink and paper. The public willkingly
pays for the content.
> In each case the discretion rests with the public consumer of the
> content.
See above.
>>> But for a host to express an opinion, that requires an equal time
>>> response?
>>
>> Again, no. You are old enough to remember when the FD was in effect.
>> There
>> were plenty of opinions.
>>> Newsroom editors have been selecting and shaping news stories along
>>> political lines since the nation was founded. In newspapers, on radio,
>>> and
>>> especially on tv, political bias has been shaping the news from Day 1,
>>> mischaracterizing, spinning and even suppressing stories for partisan
>>> purposes. And yet, only when the Right makes an opinion, does the issue
>>> of
>>> the Fairness Doctrine come up.
>>
>> This is not a partisan issue.
>
> When I start hearing Republicans start calling for the return of the
> Fairness Doctrine, I'll agree to that. So far, it's only the Left.
You seem to like a side when it is introduced by "your side"..and oppose
anything that isn't.
Slavery was a partisan issue as well. But in reality it wasn't.
>> (I would probably be characterized as a
>> Rightie.)
>
> Not by anything I've read.
What have you read of mine bsides the FD that would indicate otherwise?
>>> What a hypocrite.
>>
>>> This is just an attempt at censorship. And in matters political, the
>>> First Amendment prohibits censorship.
>>
>> No, it's an attempt to allow for some meaningful and civil discourse.
>
> Loaded language. Meaningless.
Not at all. Maybe you should learn something aout meaningful and civil
discourse.
>>>> It's not simply that someone one the air took a position on anything.
>>>
>>> Actually, it is precisely that. The Left has been shaping TV News
>>> according to it's agenda for years.
>>
>> No, it isn't. WHile it has become a politcal football, (us vs,. them),
>> there were lots of ideas expressed while the FD was in effect.
>
> You have a creative memory.
>
> Actually, no there weren't. Remember, I spent much of my life in Media.
> Radio and TV since I was 6. Much of it at CBS. And I sat in those meetings
> where content was determined by fiat. Where were TOLD what positions we
> were to take.
This is/was a function of your ownership and management. Not a function of
the FD.
> I worked in newsrooms where stories were killed by the assignment editor.
> One editor specifically said that for every story about Jimmy Carter in
> the positive we ran, we were to run a story about Ronald Reagan. But he
> was to approve all copy. And he edited all the Reagan positive stories to
> spin a negative light.
This was a decision made by your management. Not a function of the FD.
> At least once a day he'd send it back as a rewrite specifically, to
> (his words) "paint this moron as he really is."
This was a fgunctionof your ownership & management...not the FD.
> News has been shaped by editor's agendae for years. FD or no.
Ummm...so if it was shaped by the editors agenda, (FD or no), what
difference does the FD make?
>>> Now that the Right has found an audience, calls for the reinstitution of
>>> the Fairness Doctrine ring out.
I am a "rightie" and I don't fear open and honest debate, as well as civil
discourse.
>> Again, I am a conservative, and I like the FD. The pundits have gotten a
>> lot of the righties running scared that this would be a rule against
>> having
>> opinions. AGAIN...the FD was in effect previously, that did not stop
>> opinions.
>
> Repeating a mistruth does not make it so.
Ditto.
> Opinions WERE suppressed under FD.
Not at all.
>>>> We lived with the fairness doctrine for years, and that didn't stop
>>>> commentary or opinions.
>>>
>>> Actually, it did. Until the inaccurately named Fairness Doctrine went
>>> away, opinions and commentary were carefully avoided...
Tell that to Bob Grant, Barry Farber, Joe Pine, etc.
>> Primarily because radio listeners
> aren't interested in the Left's position. Look at the spectacular failure
> of Air America. Bankrupt it's first week on the air because advertisers
> were not interested. Because listeners were not interested.
Again, it's not a partisan issue.
> Radio is a business.
It certainly is!
> But we're not talking about 1977. We're talking about today. and
> calling for reinstatement of FD is about silencing. Not balance. And
> specifically it's about silencing the Right.
Nobody on the air now would be removed from the airwaves if the FD was in
effect.
Nothing said on the air now, couldn't be said under the FD.
It's not about "silencing" as there is nothing that could not be said on the
air.
> And it IS about silencing opposition.
>
>
>>> 50.6% to 49.4%. And I said, 'well, looks like we're back where we
>>> started,' during my show that evening.
>>>
>>> There was an EXPLOSION of protest demanding equal time. One side
>>> thought
>>> I was siding with their opponents, the other thought I was siding with
>>> THEIR opponents.
>>
>> Well you must have been doing something right if you got everyone mad at
>> you! lol
>
>>
>> In reality, there are ALWAYS calls for equal time. There has been since
>> the
>> day broadcasting was created. Simply getting asked for equal time does
>> not
>> invoke the FD.
>
>
> Nice edit. You completely ignored the point of the paragraph.
>
> As Colorado Charlie once said, 'There's no point in talking, ain't
> nobody gonna listen."
Your point was a personal story about people calling for equal time because
of something you said. a "call for equal time" does not invoke the FD.
> Nice chatting with you. Have a good day.
You too!
RP
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hehc2d$366$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
A curmudgeon-ly response..
Phil Kane
My 54 years in broadcasting - 28 of them at the FCC - trumps your 52
years and how many of those 52 years were involved in regulatory
compliance enforcement or other facets of communications law? Many of
mine were involved in teaching the subject.
--
Phil Kane (Attorney at Law)
Beaverton, OR
D. Peter Maus
You miss my point, Phil....what the law says is one thing. What
someone with a grudge and an aggressive attorney can do is something
else.
And, again, you, of all people, know how that works.
Phil Kane
Do it right the first time and it doesn't get tied up.... :-) :-)
D. Peter Maus
And you, as a practicing attorney, know better than that.
Nick Name
wrote:
> On 11/21/09 14:07 , John Higdon wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > "cph1...@gmail.com"<cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 19, 7:16 pm, Nick Name<l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> >>> No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> >>> public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> >>> discourse is expected.
>
> >> Civility? Come now.
>
> > The only people who resort to the old "the airwaves belong to the
> > public" hooey are those who are definitely speaking from outside the
> > industry.
>
> No, he's right. The airwaves are public. The license, however, is
> granted by the public. To a commercial entity. For commercial
> purposes. And the commercial entity plays by rules of the market.
No, they play by the rules set up by the governing body.
>
> Civility may or may not apply depending on the forces at play
> within the marketplace.
>
> And 'civility' itself, is a nebulous term. It's a loaded word
> intended to pressure someone who's opinion does not coincide with
Look it up. The word has no political meaning to it.
> Which is utter horseshit.
What is horshit is people trying to politicize everything. And
repeating what Rush tells him Or Sean Hannity.
>
Nick Name
> In article
> <b268e1f3-cd6f-4334-bc1c-709c0e280...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:16 pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > > public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> > > discourse is expected.
>
> > Civility? Come now.
>
> The only people who resort to the old "the airwaves belong to the
> public" hooey are those who are definitely speaking from outside the
> industry.
Not at all. Some of us working in the industry believe that too...and
take the "public trust" seriously.
Nick Name
> On Nov 19, 7:16 pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> > discourse is expected.
>
> Civility? Come now.
>
> half the programs on the air
> right now would have to be shut down!
No, they would just have to be "civil".
> Or are you saying that "politically-oriented" programming would have
> to toe some line, while
> so-called "entertainment" programming could skate?
You really don't get it do you maus?
D. Peter Maus
Yo! Nick. I'm over here.
Phil Kane
<dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You miss my point, Phil....what the law says is one thing. What
>someone with a grudge and an aggressive attorney can do is something
>else.
One last time....decisions made under "What someone with a grudge
and an aggressive attorney can do" are the voluntary choice of the
decider. The law is not forcing them to do it.
I think that I've had enough of this.....
cph...@gmail.com
> On Nov 21, 1:10 pm, "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:16 pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > > public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> > > discourse is expected.
>
> > Civility? Come now.
>
> > If a "certain level of civility" were required, probably more than
> > half the programs on the air
> > right now would have to be shut down!
>
> No, they would just have to be "civil".
By whose terms?
>
> > Or are you saying that "politically-oriented" programming would have
> > to toe some line, while
> > so-called "entertainment" programming could skate?
>
> You really don't get it do you maus?
I'm not "Maus" but ... again. With today's ever-blurring line between
"news" and "entertainment" programming, if we plan to hold news to
some
higher standard, how do we pick and choose?
D. Peter Maus
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:19:23 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
> <dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> You miss my point, Phil....what the law says is one thing. What
>> someone with a grudge and an aggressive attorney can do is something
>> else.
>
> One last time....decisions made under "What someone with a grudge
> and an aggressive attorney can do" are the voluntary choice of the
> decider. The law is not forcing them to do it.
You're right. The law forces nothing. But the law, and lack of
clarity on the part of the public, opens the door for such abuses.
Hell, we've had posters in this and other newsgroups, teachers in
the public schools, asserting that there was a legal mandate for
equal time, so ignorant is the public on this. Activists encourage
the ignorance and exploit the ignorance, laughably, in the name of
the law. Aggressive attorneys empower the exploitation.
You can't tell me as an attorney that you've never seen a law
exploited and a businesss/person ruined in the interest of silencing
someone. Pick a headline in the last 5 years.
Shit, during the campaign, the Missouri State Police became the
self appointed regulators of political speech threatening arrest and
prosecution against radio stations and personalities airing
anti-Obiteme content.
KMOX was threatened with legal action for continuing to air Rush
during the campaign.
Pickets went up around WGN during the campaign with threats of
legal action for airing conservative content during the campaign.
WGN had it's license threatened by the Obiteme campaign if Milt
Rosenberg did not stop airing Republican content during the
campaign. Rosenberg went quite public with all of this. It's hardly
a secret.
These incidents were not isolated. Nothing illegal was being
done. And there was no Fairness Doctrine. And yet, legal threats?
You don't see that having an exploitable legality wouldn't
aggravate the ignorant pursuit of radio stations and personalities
over their content?
I've been reading you for more than a decade, Phil. You're not
that blind.
RP
<cph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88a17468-59bd-40bb...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 7:31 pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:10 pm, "cph1...@gmail.com" <cph1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:16 pm, Nick Name <l...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, it is an excercise in asserting that the airwaves are owned by the
> > > public, not the licensee. And a certain level of civility and
> > > discourse is expected.
>
> > Civility? Come now.
>
> > If a "certain level of civility" were required, probably more than
> > half the programs on the air
> > right now would have to be shut down!
>
> No, they would just have to be "civil".
> By whose terms?
It's simple. Just dont' unfairly attack someone or purposely
mischaracterize them.
RP
> KMOX was threatened with legal action for continuing to air Rush
> during the campaign.
So what? a threat to legal action is much ado about nothing.
How many times have you head people threaten legal action. i.e.."I'm gonna
sue!!!'
> These incidents were not isolated. Nothing illegal was being done. And
> there was no Fairness Doctrine. And yet, legal threats?
People threaten all the time, regardless of wether they have a leg to stand
on or not.
> You don't see that having an exploitable legality wouldn't aggravate the
> ignorant pursuit of radio stations and personalities over their content?
No. If you run a newspaper, or broadcast station, you should know the
limits of your rights, responsibilities and freedoms.
If an operator wants to operate so that he never gets a "threat" of legal
action, maybe he should go into another business.
D. Peter Maus
So, you're talking to yourself, here.
RP
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:heqb3r$kn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Maybe you didn't make any points.
D. Peter Maus
Nice try.
RP
Nice comeback...again, with no points.
D. Peter Maus
Ain' no point in talking, ain' nobody gonna listen.
RP
Apparently you are, cuz you keep respondin'!