FCC officially kills Fairness Doctrine, wiping it from rules

[The Northerner]

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the elimination of 83 outdated and obsolete agency rules on Monday, including the controversial Fairness Doctrine.

“The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead," Genachowski said in a statement.

"The Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free flow of ideas and was properly abandoned over two decades ago. I am pleased we are removing these and other obsolete rules from our books."

The rule required broadcasters to cover controversial issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC. The commission deemed it unconstitutional in 1987 and ceased enforcement.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/177775-fcc-strikes-83-outdated-rules-including-fairness-doctrine

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Long live the party...

no I am not being in the least ironic.

[SavWriter]

2. How about a rule requiring truth?

If we can't demand equal time to present the other side, how about a rule requiring Faux News to tell the damned truth for a change.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. The truth according to who?

When you give any government the power to determine what "truth" shall be broadcast you will have established a tyranny.

[Rex]

3. They love Rush and Hannity so why would they want to have

something in place to silence hate speech radio? The M$M pimps hardon pills and life insurance, why the fuck would they want to actually be forced to tell the truth?

[KoKo]

69. Yep...the "Opposition" keeps us Dems who Vote always Fighting Back while our Dems keep the System

that perpetuates what the REPUGS always WANT...and WHAT THEY GET!

When Obama appointed Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski ...I shuddered...but hoped for the Best. So far the "BEST" from OBAMA is what Lieberman or McCain or the Bush Family would have given us.

It's really getting OTT as to what Obama's Appointees are doing to get rid of every single bit of Democratic HOPE and LEGISLATION that were fought for for Decades. Not that Clinton and Carter to some extent before didn't continue the Reagan and Repug stuff...but that they are NOW so BLANTENTLY DOING IT ALL UNDER ..."Hope & Change..OBAMA!"

WAKE UP...times are getting short.....we've been HAD.

[Rex]

71. I never bought into the 'we have to negotiate with the Rep terrorist demands'

as soon as I heard that line of bullshit I thought...no way! We don't negotiate with terrorists, reference OBL...so why the FUCK are we dealing with the Right Wing that has clearly taken Washington DC hostage (and has be reference many times by Obama himself as 'holding America hostage')? So I guess that was all a lie and we will bendover backwards for the Right Wing, as long as they hold America hostage...great what fucking country am I in again?

Times run out. We now have to see what crap hand we will get and LIKE IT!

[AndyTiedye]

4. All Repiglickins All the Time

[Drix]

5. Fixed

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the elimination of 83 outdated and obsolete agency rules on Monday, including the controversial Fairness Doctrine.

“The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary FAIRNESS. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead," Genachowski said in a statement.

"The Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill CORPORATE speech and the free flow of CORPORATE ideas and was INproperly abandoned over two decades ago. I am pleased we are removing these and other obsolete PROTECTIONS OF FREE SPEECH from our books."

The rule required broadcasters to cover controversial issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC. The commission deemed it unconstitutional in 1987 and ceased enforcement.

[Bluebear]

6. Invaluable translation

Perfect.

[amborin]

27. +1000

[Lorien]

36. Talk about a slanted article by dittoheads

pathetic.

[WhiteTara]

7. Fairness in Communications is dead.

Long live Fairness.
:cry: for justice and fairness

[lpbk2713]

8. It was killed during Runny RayGun's term of malfeasance.

Taking it off the books is just a formality.

[bear425]

9. Stick a fork in us, we're done.

Thanks to a b class actor...

[xchrom]

10. Can we get a 'moderate dem' Boo-Yeah!

Their in this w/ repukes.

[AsahinaKimi]

11. He with the MOST MONEY wins the Air waves...

Step right up and buy a patch of sky!! let the bidding begin... OH LOOK.. ITS RICH REPUBLICANS!

MEH..


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaka tare.

[fishbulb703]

12. Media besides the internet stopped being a tool for honest communication long ago.

The internet helps, but even there one must sift through thousands of sources to find only a handful of reputable ones.

[spanone]

13. in america, fairness is certainly controversial....damn shame

[lib2DaBone]

14. This is removal of fairness...I worked 20 years in Broadcast... this is a sad moment...

From this point on.. we have lost control of our airwaves and information sources.

The rush to the right can only get worse.

Clear Channel, Rupert Murdoc, right wing Christian control of all information.... folks.. we are in serious trouble.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Ao much for the free exchange of ideas.

[abq e streeter]

16. But, but...this can't be bad, because it happened under a Democratic President

Anyone who criticizes this must want a republican president, who would completely destroy the fairness doctrine...oops, never mind.

[scheming daemons]

17. You realize that the FCC operates independently of the Administration, right?

Right?

[w4rma]

19. Whatever. Obama appointed how many people in the FCC, directly or indirectly? (nt)

[scheming daemons]

20. Exactly one of the current five commissioners.

20%.

Three of the five are Republicans.


In other words, the White House has absolutely no sway on what the FCC decides to do.



But you can go ahead and post your childish "whatever" responses that aren't based on fact at all.



Another example of someone wanting to bash Obama so bad that they disregard reality.


Congrats.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. And that one pick was...wait for it...Julius Genachowski!

[Recursion]

40. One out of five (nt)

[BumRushDaShow]

48. Actually two - Mignon Clyburn and Julius Genachowski. n/t

[Occulus]

25. That's RIGHT! Obama is POWERLESS!

Nobody here buys that schtick anymore.

[Recursion]

41. Over the FCC? Yes (nt)

[KoKo]

77. No...Bush appointed Michael Powell..Colin Powell's son to FCC HEAD..and he picked

his own appointees for the expiring ones. Michael Powell was a pig...he used the place to promote Roger Ailes Crap.

The President does control the FCC by picking the Head who then can pick appointees and set the agenda for what FCC does.

[blkmusclmachine]

18. What would you expect after Citizens United?

More "Change" I don't want to believe in!

[Tesha]

21. And isn't it nice that this is Obama's man doing this???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski

[robcon]

22. Great news. Let's never bring back "the anti-First amendment"

We are free to write or say anything short of libel and encouraging violence against others.

That sounds like the country I love. The Fairness Doctrine was an aberration, and it's good that it's over.

[Drix]

24. Wrong!

Under the Fairness Doctrine private citizens could be heard on the public airwaves voicing their opinions in opposition to station owners opinions. Now only the owners of TV/radio stations have their opinions heard on the public airwaves. Your comment, "We are free to write or say anything short of libel and encouraging violence against others." is demonstrably incorrect. "We" are not free to write or say anything short of libel and encouraging violence against others. That right is preserved for TV and radio station owners exclusively.

[Lorien]

34. Exactly. The Fairness Doctrine allowed us to HAVE a voice

now we have NONE!

[Nye Bevan]

46. Hilarious irony there.

Posting on an active, open and partisan Internet message board to complain about not having "a voice".

[robcon]

53. Forcing others to express particular views is a fascist practice.

Show trials. Forced confessions. Forced opinions on some, not all, media.

They're all the same: anti-American and unconstitutional.

[Drix]

62. How is public access to the public airwaves facist?

Show trials? Forced confessions? Surely you can't be serious.

[Lorien]

33. You must be too young to remember America during the Fairness Docrine

Clue: talk radio wasn't filled with RW hate speech 24/7 and channels like Faux "news" didn't exist.

[Nye Bevan]

47. No Rachel Maddow show either. And no Democratic Underground. (nt)

[Drix]

63. You don't understand the FCC or the Fairness Doctrine.

Rachel and DU are not broadcast on the public airwaves.

[robcon]

54. What a nonsense conclusion, Lorien.

The reason for RW hate speech is that there were only three outlets for news. All 3 were centrist. All 3 were bland.

The explosion the number of cable TV and talk radio outlets has 'forced' many of those outlets to stand for something. Fox and MSNBC are the result: stations that are segmented... appeal strongly, but only to a part of, the viewing/listening audience.

Competition among media outlets is GREAT news. The Fairness Doctrine is horrible governmental interference in what the media can say.

BTW, I'm in my 60's and I remember the terrible days of "opposing editorials." It should have made your skin crawl that outlets HAD TO COME UP WITH OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW. Talk about Big Brother.

[Drix]

64. Fairness Doctrine did not limit speech.

It expanded it. Citizens should have a right to freedom of speech on the public airwaves. It absurd to say since MSNBC exists private citizens no longer need representation on the public airwaves. MSNBC speaks for MSNBC, not for me.

[KoKo]

78. Thanks Lorien...I do think there are so many DU'ers who don't remember what it was like

when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. It was "Equal Time" for all views. Some younger ones seem to think it stopped Free Speech. Free speech when one has Corporate Use of the Airwaves was to allow the owners of the Air Waves (the people) to have a voice in proportion to other voices. No dominance by one Particularl Political Group or Corporation over the Voices of Opposing Voices.

It worked.

[indurancevile]

59. bullshit.

[Balbus]

23. Good.

[Lorien]

35. Love Limbaugh, do you?

And only the media owners should have ANY speech, right?

[Nye Bevan]

52. I hate what he says but I will defend to the death....,

you know the rest.

[Solly Mack]

26. K&R

[Octafish]

28. So what if there goes the First Amendment?

It's not like Corporate McPravda is using it or anything.

[Volaris]

29. semi-sarcastic argument INCOMMING....

GOOD, and GOOD RIDDANCE, I say....here's WHY

The next time some idiot 'bagger opens their know-nothing craw about how

"THE EVIL LIBERAL MEDIA CONTROLS EVERYTHING AND ARE BRAINWASHING AMERICA WITH THEIR GAY-LOVING, GOD-HATING AGENDA, AND THE OPPOSING VOICES HAVE NO WAY TO GET THEIR VIEWPOINT ON THE AIR ANYMORE, AND ITS NOT FAIR AND SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!"

I'm going to THROUGHLY enjoy explaining to them that a values choice was made..."Well, which do you hate more, motherfucker? The idea of there being NO counter-weight to what the "liberal" media report as factual news, or the Governmental oversight that can PREVENT such bias, that you and yours seem to hatehatehate with every fiber of your being? Don't like the status quo you say? OK, then put your money where your mouth is and re-instate the fairness doctrine next time you have control of government.

I swear, some days I think they're so stupid they would actually fall for it, and give us what we want without us actually having to argue for our position...I have also discovered that I can win a god number of arguments this way, they just have to be framed in such a way that HATE is the primary motivator for what they want...if I can get them to hate...something, ANYTHING enough to think that the only recourse is to have the GOVERNMENT fix it for them ('cause they DO tend to like that, 'cause they are kinda lazy that way) they will do it with the same kind of blind idiocy they have used to tear down that govt. in the first place. It's been said that trying to get Dem's. to do anything in unison is like "herding cats", well, the GOP has no such problem, they are EASILY led, you just have to know how to yank on their leash. You just have to know how to get them to hate the "right" things...

[Skittles]

30. as requested by republicans

it's not as if anyone is trying to stop repukes from getting what they want

[Rex]

32. I've never seen such greedy pigs.

[Lorien]

31. Bullshit. America needs the Fairness Doctrine now more than ever

Removing it cleared the way for only ONE party-the corporate party-to own the microphone. So did Obama appoint this corrupt GOP tool?

[Nye Bevan]

37. The Fairness Doctrine is obsolete in the age of the internet.

When anyone can get all their news from DU, Buzzflash and the Guardian online, no Government mandated "fairness" is needed. If the only news sources were 3 broadcast channels, would be a stronger argument.

[Octafish]

39. What happens if the Internet goes down?

Will we get balanced perspectives and honest news and information from ABCNNBCBSFixedNutNoiseworks?

As for newspapers, how many people do you know under the age of 30 who subscribe to a daily?

Call me old-fashioned, but the Fairness Doctrine was important for Democracy because it enabled voices other than Rush Limbaugh's to be heard.

[Drix]

65. Stupid argument.

The issue is not the amount of alternative news sources. It's the right of the people to have access to property they own. Clear Channel and all the other millionaires and billionaires who operate broadcast tv and radio stations do not own the public airwaves. The American people do. Owners decide how property is used, not renters, not licensees.

[KoKo]

70. NOT TURE....and you KNOW IT.

[cascadiance]

38. The emphasis now should be breaking up the media monopolies, not doing useless things like this!

We need to reverse the mess that the Telecommunications act created in terms of screwing up media ownership. The corporations owning all of our media need to be broken up.

I do understand that the Fairness Doctrine as written for a media landscape prior to the 1980's would be difficult to apply to today's media landscape, but that doesn't lessen the need for some sort of laws to work in the same interest it did then.

We can't expect every specialized media outlet to operate with the same "balance" as we were wanting the three networks to do back in the old days, but we could break up the media ownership so that so many of these media "outlets" aren't owned by the same companies which give the "illusion" of diversity of content, when the fundamental messaging is controlled by the same very small number of corporate entities.

We should tell the media empires that if they want to stay large that they need to provide dedicated news outlets that are NOT profit-driven to serve as real news outlets (like the news segments of the networks did in the old days). If they can't provide this sort of media outlet within their ownership that isn't under their direct control, then they should be prepared to be broken up. Something like that.

[Recursion]

42. Good. I like watching Keith and Rachel

You realize they're both against a return of the FD too, right?

[Drix]

66. Fuck Keith and Rachel!

You really expect a straight answer from people cashing million dollar checks from their corporate puppet masters? Why not just ask Steve Doocy if he thinks Roger Ailes is a fat pig of if Mrs. Murdoch is a scheming slut.

[City Lights]

43. Well, that settles that.

:argh:

Looks like fairness is an outdated concept in 21st century Uhmurika. Better to lie with abandon!

:puke:

[Nye Bevan]

45. Should DU be forced to allow a conservative right of reply on its website?

Should Rachel Maddow be compelled to allow contrary opinions on her show?

You're correct. Government-mandated "fairness" *is* an outdated concept.

[Occulus]

49. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the doctrine actually was

DU would be unaffected because we do not produce what can be called "news". DU isn't a media company, it's a message board, and serves a fundamentally different purpose than a newspaper or a television newscast. DU would be as unaffected by the fairness doctrine as dialup bulletin boards actually were during the time the doctrine was in force.

Rachael Maddow is an editorializer. While she does on occasion provide serious, in-depth reporting on a number of issues, that reporting is always, intentionally, and openly biased toward a particular mindset or point of view. To her credit, even though the fairness doctrine would not apply to her show, editorial as it is, she does have guests with whom neither she nor her audience see eye-to-eye politically.

The fairness doctrine wasn't about editorial content, it was about news content. Fox News would never have been allowed to do what it does (such as out-and-out lie to its audience) on its newscasts under the fairness doctrine, and no other news network would have been allowed to behave like Fox does today. I would go so far as to say that the doctrine was intended specifically to prevent networks like Fox from doing what Fox has to the level of information available to Americans.

[Spike89]

55. Actually, that isn't actually true

First off, Fox News Network is mostly cable (and would easily go 100% cable if needed) and the Fairness doctrine NEVER covered cable networks. It also NEVER covered factual news. It was actually extremely limited to ensuring that over-the-air political messages swhare time with opposing viewpoints. It did not force stations to present news without a slant, or force "the truth" it simply stated that if you accepted an ad from A, you must also accept one from B. If you provided an opinion on the local school board tax issue, you needed to give equal time to the opposing side.

It never had any effect on Rush or any other right-wing (or left-wing) show. Those are entertainment shows, which never were subject to the fairness doctrine.

What is totally weird is people not even reading the OP - the fairness doctrine has not been enforced for ~25 years! It has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, it has nothing to do with the bias in the media, and it wouldn't fix a damn thing if it came back.

[hugo_from_TN]

81. Most people here seem to believe it would offset Rush, Hannity, and the like

They are also editorializers.

[Enrique]

50. is DU regulated by the FCC? n/t

[Drix]

67. You do understand the difference between media broadcast

over the public airwaves and all other media don't you? The Fairness Doctrine is for broadcast media. Not cable shows, websites, newspapers, pamphlets,or birthday cards to your nephews.

[kctim]

51. Boo yeah!

One less trivial thing the right can use against President Obama.

[progressoid]

56. But Neil Boortz and Rush told me that Obama was going to bring the Fairness Doctrine back!

I can't believe this is happening. It's exactly the opposite. :shrug:

[bvar22]

57. Another Mission Accomplished!

Quick,
somebody add this to The LIST of Achievements!



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[indurancevile]

58. access ruled by $$$$$ isn't "free speech".

[hugo_from_TN]

60. Great news.

I have no tolerance for 'progressives' that are against, or afraid of, free speech.

[robcon]

61. I agree. The number of 'liberals' who want to force stations to air certain editorials is shameful.

Freedom of speech = free to say whatever you want, short of libel and incitement to violence or crime.

We're well rid of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Drix]

68. No one is forcing anybody to do anything.

It's like any other license. You abide by the rules of the license. If you don't like it do something else like start a newspaper, or a website, or a cable station. Corporate owners of TV and radio station do not have a right to do anything they want on the public airwaves. You've bought into the mindset that those licensed to operate on the airwaves have rights. They don't. Owners have rights. Do you know why there are no Hooters in Yellowstone? Because the public decides what and how a business will operate on land owned by the public. Nobody is crying about freedom of speech or about what businesses are forced to do because Hooter girls cannot jiggle their money makers for tips in a park owned by the public.

[BzaDem]

72. That is nonsensical. Under your view, government can attach any content-specific rule as a

requirement to speak on the airwaves. This means that there is nothing to prevent the government to require that broadcasters say or not say whatever the government wants as a condition to say anything on TV. That would be a horrifying breach of the first Amendment, and you would immediately regret allowing the government to do this once Republicans start banning liberal views from the airwaves.

[Drix]

74. Where did I promote banning speech?

The Fairness Doctrine expands speech. But this is the flip flops you get from the people who hustle this nonsense. On one hand they they talk about all the alternatives like the internet and how the Fairness Doctrine is not necessary but then immediately start complaining the Fairness Doctrine would chill free speech because their is no alternative. Now which is it?

[hugo_from_TN]

80. You advocate the broadcasters must abide by a license that the government is free to craft.

Thus a Rick Perry FCC commission can decide that the license requires broadcasters to adhere to the Perry line or they are off the air.

Do you disagree that this is possible?

[KoKo]

79. You then agree that Fox News Dominance and Murdoch buying Wall Street Journal to control content is

"Freedom of Speech" even though it's Corporate Dominance by one person who can buy up 2/3rds of TV Media News and Newspapers. His corporate voice should reign because he has the money and power to express his views over others?

[hugo_from_TN]

82. As long as dissenting speech is allowed, yes.

[robcon]

83. Of course that's freedom of speech.

Fox and Murdoch are free to say anything short of libel and incitement to violence or crime.

Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

[mmonk]

73. Love all that free speech pouring into our elections and broadcast media.

[robcon]

84. So do I. Now the threat of the Fairness Doctrine's limitation of free speech is over.

n/t

[kenny blankenship]

75. Fuck you, Fairness!

Die, Die, Die!

[Fumesucker]

85. +1