Hannity's Bitching & Moaning About The Fairness Doctrine

[CO Liberal]

I think he an Limbaugh are scared shitless that it's gonna be reinstated and they'll be out of work.

[flamingyouth]

1. Yeah, I hate fairness too, Sean

You big, angry ape, you.

[LoneStarLiberal]

2. Faux Downsizing

The conservative punditry would stand to get downsized quite a bit if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated.

Fortunately for them it probably won't be.

[Homer12]

3. I'm Shawwwwwwn Hannnnnnnity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me get this straight; Shawn Hannity whom works for the Most "Fair and Balanced" Fox news Network, a supposed ethical and moral conservative, is against a doctrine of fairness that would regulate radio to make-sure that their programing was balanced.

Wow! That would really cut into profits.

They know their days are numbered, Why do you think Rush is trying to brake into the cable market as a non-poltical sports pundit?

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. That's because it wasn't called The Fairness and Balanced Doctrine.

They're confused.

[plcdude]

4. what's the story on the fairness doctrine?

Is there an attempt to reinstate or revitalize this important concept?

[madfloridian]

6. It must be spin on their part to get people stirred up.

All Move On is doing is to get Congress to nullify the media ownership rules put through by Michael Powell.

I have had no mail from them indicating anything about the Fairness Doctrine.

[Isome]

10. the FCC rule change is up for vote this week.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), and co-sponsors Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) and presidential candidate John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), introduced the rarely-used CRA to roll back all of the rules passed on June 2 by the FCC.

The measure requires only a majority of the Senate for passage. If approved by the Senate, it goes on the House calendar (circumventing oppositional committees, like the one chaired by Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), whose members made clear they would block any attempt to overturn the FCC's rules).

Advocates for a number of the groups working on this issue started delivering comments (numbering in the thousands) sent to Senate offices at the Capitol. Though it could be a few weeks before the final vote, that give us more time to make the case for a diverse and competitive media and get more citizens involved.

[Flying_Pig]

15. I've been calling for it to be re-instituted for years,...

and have written posts about it here at DU. There is nothing more important, than say complete and genuine campaign reform, to the functioning of our democracy. WE MUST urge our Dem president-elect, to, by executive order, reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, as one of his first orders of business. We can no longer allow the tratorious media to ruin this country with their embrace of fascism, and those who support it.

I wonder if Hannity and Rush have been reading the letters I've written to the newspapers, or my posts here at DU? If I had my way, all of these media traitors would be rounded up and put on trial. They must be stopped.

Again, the only hope we have of saving our democracy, is to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, and enact genuine campaign reform (ie: publicly financed elections).

[calimary]

28. As a former news reporter, I TOTALLY agree, Flying Pig.

It's really the bedrock of a free discourse in our media. And its removal is proof-positive that broadcast property owners will only do what sells, not what's good for the community. They got an early hit with Limbaugh and then proceeded to jam him down our throats, and then to clone him so his clones would jam the same crap down whatever orifice was left. And the left? Was left out.

It's totally true. When I worked on the air, we had to put on the air - anybody who asked for airtime. Furthermore, we were compelled to justify our license renewals by what we did to recognize and address the needs of our local community through our programming. No more. It's a shame. Deregulation has quashed a free expression and exchange of ideas. And I knew our management did it only because the law said they had to.

[jos]

5. He's got a point

Right-wing talk radio didn't really take off until the fairness doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration in 1988. Soon after you had Limbaugh, etc. all over the dial. If it were reinstated, he would have to offer equal time to all candidates in a race.

[RobertSeattle]

13. Yep - and they are invaulable to the GOP

Hannity/Limbaugh/Savage/Etc are easily worth Billions to the GOP in regards to getting out their message - and it barely costs the GOP a dime.

[AWD]

7. Call them on it!!!

Tell them that if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, then the "liberal media" would, by law, be countered with a conservative side.

Ask them what would be wrong with that???

[cjbuchanan]

8. Fantastic point

Thanks for your post.

[arcane1]

9. EXACTLY!!!

works for the new FCC rules, too.

you notice that repubes all over tv are praising the new rules, though based on their own rhetoric the rules would give the "liberal" colossus even MORE power than it already has

if any righty truly believes in the "librul" media, they would not just say no, but F*CK NO, to Mikey Powell's plan...

[grasswire]

12. How can they...

...be against the Fairness Doctrine when they're fighting a media biased against conservatives? I've been making that point for a year.

Codify the Fairness Doctrine. Codify the Fairness Doctrine.

We don't want either side with an advantage in the press. Liberals can win on an even playing ground, in the marketplace of ideas.

[Hanuman]

11. What would be wrong with it?

How about freedom?

The freedom of the "liberal press" to be liberal and the freedom of the "conservative talk radio" to be conservative.

[kwolf68]

16. DING DING

Awesome argument.

[conservdem]

31. Is this accurate and how decides how this would work?

Who decides what is "fair" ?

[Langis]

17. Can someone please explain the

Fairness Doctrine to me? I have no idea what it is.

[Langis]

18. NM I got it

n/t

[Adjoran]

19. The FCC dumped the Fairness Doctrine

but only after a couple of SCOTUS decisions limited its application and hinted that it might eventually be declared unconstitutional if not voluntarily withdrawn.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241) 1974
FCC v. League of Women Voters, (468 U.S. 364) 1984

The problem is always that what constitutes "fairness" is always a judgement call, unless you mandate equal time for every different point of view. Since no commercial broadcast outlet can afford to give away that much time, they would simple carry no political content at all. This would result in less public discourse, not more.

Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press."

[Sterling]

26. This is a lie

"Since no commercial broadcast outlet
can afford to give away that much time"

It is as simple as inviting a guest with an opposing point of view. And trust me they CAN afford it.

A "free" press is not one that serves only the corporate agenda but one that allows access to the airwaves that belong to the public to the diverse view points within our population.


Our current media is no more "free" than our economic system is a "free market".

Not a lot of freedom in a monopoly.

[depakid]

33. Actually, the rationale behind the Fairness Doctrine is still Good Law

The case is called Red Lion and it sets out most of the arguments for and against the doctrine(s) at the time.

The fairness Doctrine was brought down by administrative fiat in the Reagan Administration by one utterly corrupt former NAB lawyer who became FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler. There is simply no comparison to this man- Michael Powell hold a cacle to him. During his tenure, Fowler dismantled 50 years worth of responsible broadcasting regulations- often at the vehement opposition of Congress. Some of them you may not remember- like limits on commercial time, but thanks to Reagan & Fowler you now get to "informertials" all over every channel- often in prime viewing slots on multiple channnels in the same market at the same time. It wasn't always like that. And that's just one example.

To take down the fairness Doctrine, Fowler ammassed a series of methodologically flawed studies, often usuing bogus data to conclude that the fairness doctrine was in fact a hinderence to diversity and ignored all testimony to the contrary when the FCC issued its final report. To make a long and twisted set of administrative law cases short, the end result came in the so called TRAC case on the DC Circuit, where Judges Bork and Scalia dictated (it wasn't argued by either side) that the Fairness Doctrine was a set of policies- not a law and the FCC could simply repeal the doctrine altogether, which it did when the very next fairness complaint came onto the docket.

Interestingly enough, though efforts to reinstate the Fairness doctrine failed in Congress (twice by 1 stinking Senate vote of an override, under the Rationale of Red Lion and the TRAC case, a newly Democratic FCC could initiate its own formal rulemaking process through notice & comment and public hearings- in effect restoring and enforcing some forms of the Fairness Doctrine. Republicans be Damned!

It might take some chutzpa- but it seems to me that chutzpa hasn't exactly been lacking in the administrative agencies these days. Seems to me that turnabout is fair play.

[Sterling]

35. If Dems take power and fail to do this I give up.

They are too dumb to be saved. I do think they have gotten the clue though. Lets hope I am right.

[pstokely]

20. doubt it

Clear Channel will probably just buy weak stations and turn them into all liberal talk stations while keeping the powerful ones hate talk

[LastDemInIdaho]

21. Airwaves, internet bandwidth - what's the difference?

What if it came down to DU having to presend both/all sides of political commentary? If the content of RF waves can be regulated what's to stop our public broadcast and privately controlled DU from getting hosed too?

Careful what you wish for.

[Sterling]

27. Huge difference

There is a limited amount of "air wave" frequencies. They are awarded licenses form the FCC on behalf of the public (you and I). In other words our radio and television frequencies belong to the public. Only very well funded interests can participate in this system as it stands because the cost of operation is very high.

On the other hand almost anyone can start a website and there is no limit on how many sites can exist.

Understand?

[LastDemInIdaho]

32. The internet is transmitted over public lines and RF bands

Of course there is no limit on filepaths a provider can assign for site data but there is a limit to the IP addresses for POPs and web servers.

And yes, I very much understand how all this stuff works...it's my job.

That said, the internet is as much public as the FM/AM rf bands. Be careful when calling for regulation of public bandwith is all I'm saying. Do you understand?

[Sterling]

34. I guess you missed the part about

The Internet affords everyone the same opportunity to express their views as it has near unlimited access to individuals. Try starting a TV station and try starting a website. Big difference.

To start a website you do not need a license that can cost a fortune to obtain and keep. When you start a website you are not automatically excluding others from doing the same by occupying a finite public resource.

We can “share” the net; you can only share the public’s airwaves with a limited amount of players.

But no you don't understand. What do you do for a living may I ask that makes you feel as though you have an understanding of the FCC and concept of public ownership of the airwaves?

[LastDemInIdaho]

37. The number of internet hosts is finite

If the same wingers that will take over the finite RF band can take over the finite IP range then what is the difference? Can you grasp that reality?

My living is being able to create solutions and fix things that other people can't. I deal with reality not concepts of "ownership".

Police the RF band and the internet band is next. Bank on it.

[Sterling]

38. Not a valid point sorry.

There is no comparison between the availability of space on the PUBLIC airwaves and the Internet. That is reality.

You and I could go start a website in the next 30 mins as could most anybody. The process of securing a piece of the very limited PUBLIC airwaves is another matter and if you do indeed work in broadcast or even cable television media you would surely understand this. Unless of course you simply choose not to like Sean and Rush because it suits your agenda.

Go ahead and fret over losing the Internet. In fact vigilance against Internet censorship is a very good idea. However returning the Fairness Doctrine to the FCC will not be a catalyst for losing the Internet.

Anyone who remembers what the news media was like before the doctrine was dropped understands that although the system was flawed it was FAR better than the corporate agenda that is by and large the only viewpoint allowed to be heard on our PUBLIC airwaves.

[ewagner]

22. Scanning radio on a long drive today

Rushboooo was telling listeners to make no mistake about it, the fairness doctrine is a direct attack on HIM!!!!

[maggrwaggr]

23. so .... he's admitting he's not fair? that's a start

now if he would just admit he's a lying propagandist for the GOP.

why doesn't what happened to John Ritter happen to this fat tub off shit?

[ewagner]

39. No, he didn't admit anything

He put it in egomanaical terms as "...it would limit the choice of millions to hear him..." that's a paraphrase but it's close to the argument he was making....

he also put the classic propaganda spin on it by saying his program is listened to by "millions" and millions more are listening every day....that would be true if clear channel bought up all the stations in any given market and played ONLY Limpballs 24/7!

[depakid]

36. He did manage a remarkably successful misinformation campaign

Calling it "The Hush Rush Bill" and and "The Rush Elimination Act of 1993."

The actual name was the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993 and it enjoyed amazingly broad bipartisan support from such noted liberals as Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms.

Eventually, Rush and the rest of the nascent hate radio movement "rallied" enough Republicans to threaten a filibuster, and Clinton, quite frankly didn't give a rats ass about it, though he had many, many avenues at his disposal to get it passed- including using the very power of the FCC itself! But no. Clinton was more concerned with enomoring himself with the big media interests. How ironic that they showed their appreciation turning around and biting him on the ass, holding like a pit bull, til long after he left office.

[BuelahWitch]

24. Is there a movement to reinstate it?

If so, where do I sign up? Move-On??

[Isome]

29. Yes...

Go to moveon.org and register right now! You'll be glad you did!

[maggrwaggr]

40. Dean has mentioned bringing something like it back

That it's an industry like so many others that needs regulation.

Ain't that the truth.

Cable TV news is especially an oligopoly. Oligopolies are supposed to be seriously regulated.

You know, like the car industry. So nobody gets hurt.

[reprobate]

25. Since Captain Codpiece has used executive orders to wipe out

...so many regulations, what's to stop a dem president from reinstating the fairness doctrine by executive order. It sure would be a lesson to the repugs.

[calimary]

30. It would be a Godsend.

I remember some thread around here - what would you do in your first acts as president, if you won the election? Several of us said we'd reinstitute The Fairness Doctrine by executive order. It'd be Priority One for me.