Watch CPAC 2012 Live
-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
A recent conference at American University on Red Lion Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) legacy provided strong representation for last summer’s anti-conservative talk radio study. In the “The
Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Free Press authors conclude that talk radio has an unfairly high conservative
bias, with conservative ideas monopolizing 91% of radio programming
aired by the nation’s top five broadcasters.
“Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive
talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S.
regulatory system, particularly the
complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the
elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and
the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local
participation in management,” write the authors (emphasis added).
They call for greater FCC and Congressional scrutiny of minority
ownership levels, media consolidation, and local responsiveness. The
authors also suggest leveling fines upon broadcasters who fail to
comply with these requirements.
Last year’s Senate hearing on “Localism, Diversity, and Media
Ownership” used language disturbingly similar to the CAP proposals,
prompting Accuracy in Media to warn that the Senate hearing masks a
renewed interest in the Fairness Doctrine. One witness, Alex Nogales, told the Committee that they should rely on Free Press studies which were “much, much better—and they’re recent!”
Could he have been referring to the “Structural Imbalance of Political
Talk Radio,” which is openly hostile to conservatives? In fact, in his
testimony, Nogales, the President of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, accused illegal immigration opponents of committing “hate crimes” on the public airwaves.
Now the CAP and Free Press representatives are again pushing for
“structural” changes to alter the “balance” of progressive and
conservative programming. Their forum: the AU Washington College of Law. Consider the following:
- Free Press published University of Chicago Professor Cass R. Sunstein’s 1995 book, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech.
- Both CAP and Free Press representatives were invited to speak at the AU conference.
- A representative from the Media Access Project, Andrew Schwartzman spoke at the conference. MAP openly favors the return of the Fairness
Doctrine and opposes QVC’s home shopping network because it doesn’t
serve the “public interest.” He said, “As far as I’m concerned, and of
course [we] wind up very divided on this, the Red Lion case did hold
that something like the Fairness Doctrine public interest obligation is
statutorily mandated and the requirement of fairness, not the specific
policy called “Fairness Doctrine,” I believe is statutorily mandated.”
The unanimous Red Lion court ruling upheld the FCC’s authority to impose
“equal time” and “response to personal attack” provisions under the
Fairness Doctrine because the free speech of viewers outweighs the free
speech of broadcasters. It also upheld the FCC’s imposition of these
additional requirements as in continuity with the Congressional
legislation, denying that the requirements were either vague or
unfairly imposed.
“We need not approve every aspect of the fairness doctrine to decide
these cases, and we will not now pass upon the constitutionality of
these regulations by envisioning the most extreme applications
conceivable…but will deal with those problems if and when they
arise,” concluded Justice Byron White for the court majority opinion. In the 1970’s, Justice White also supported forced busing as a remedy for segregation.
Of the 19 speakers at the
conference, only three criticized Red Lion’s court decision—and several
supported the expansion of government regulation into the internet.
Dr. Philip M. Napoli, a Professor at Fordham University,
lectured on possible research methods to improve media analysis. “You
can look back to the time when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated,
this is interesting to see something then that we probably wouldn’t see
today, which is that for a large extent the Fairness Doctrine was
eliminated primarily on the basis of a lot of anecdotal reports from
broadcast licensees about the burden that they were encountering due to
abiding by the Fairness Doctrine,” he asserted. Napoli called for
mandatory media content archiving and greater scientific rigor in for
FCC studies. His work has been supported by both CAP and the Ford
Foundation.
“The third myth regarding Red Lion is that it somehow unleashed the FCC
to overburden poor, struggling broadcasters with unnecessary
regulation, particularly the supposedly onerous Fairness Doctrine.
These myths are, I will argue, nonsensical and ahistoric,” said Mark Lloyd, who works for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Lloyd actually co-authored “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio” and is a former Senior Fellow at CAP.
In a July CAP policy briefing, the Georgetown affiliate professor argued that “How broadcast licensees meet their
responsibility of fair discussion of important public issues has varied
considerably over 80 years of federal regulation. But the image of
eager federal bureaucrats peering over the shoulders of all of
America’s radio talk show hosts with a stopwatch in hand is as absurd
as it is impractical.” He writes that “All of these public policy
objectives are there for Congress and the FCC to act upon within
current law. There is no need to return to the Fairness Doctrine.”
There is no need to return to the Fairness Doctrine because
policymakers believe they can achieve the same result with public
interest regulation.
“This means that under the 20th century general interest
intermediaries, when they’re working well, all of us will have access
occasionally to points of view that we despise and abhor…and to
topics that we thought didn’t interest us,” argued Sunstein in his
keynote address.
What Sunstein means is that liberals and conservatives should be forced
to experience news from the side of the ideological spectrum—in the
name of “free speech.” What could be closer to the Fairness Doctrine,
which requires radio broadcasters to provide equal air time to both
conservative and liberal points of view?
Sunstein questioned whether this will involve government intervention,
saying “It’s possible that what we should do now is nothing,” and he
added that there was a question as to “whether a great deal can be done
privately not publicly.” Yet just a few minutes later, he said “The
second idea point is the Red Lion vision of something like deliberative
democracy could be promoted through public spaces on the internet and
on the media much more than we’re now doing.” This “public space” would
be funded by taxpayers and regulated by the government. Otherwise, it
would have to be considered private.
As AIM has reported in its book, The Death of Talk Radio,
content regulation has a chilling effect on radio programming, leading
to less quality content and more bureaucratic paperwork. It also
involves government inspection of what people say, even if only
to determine the ideological slant of the program. Do we really want
the government to be deciding what is liberal or conservative?
This point remains especially cogent, since the designers of the
CAP/Free Press study specifically warned that their intention was to
ensure equal representation of liberal values as a protection against the unfair radio dominance by the conservative media.
“What will take for it is for a Democratic president to put in place a
Democratic majority at the FCC that can then decide—with the support of
a Democratic Congress—to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. In other
words, that day may not far off on the Fairness Doctrine, [it] may be
ruling our airways again,” warned Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) last year. “This issue is not which broadcaster is fair
and which is not. The issue is who decides. I believe fairness is what
the American public decides is fair, not some Washington politician or
bureaucrat,” he said.
Similarly, President George W. Bush argued at the 2008 National Convention of Religious Broadcasters that
“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their
sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or
many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to
silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they
know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t
acknowledge that you are the balance …”
Marvin Ammori, a Free Press lawyer, told the AU audience that
“the Fairness Doctrine has long since been repealed, it will not come
back,” and accused those who disagree of either being “dishonest,”
using the issue as a “political tool,” or being “overly zealous.”
Ammori’s assertions overlook recent legislative calls for the
Fairness Doctrine. In 2005, two New York Representatives, Congresswoman
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), introduced bills which would have reinstated the Fairness
Doctrine: the “MEDIA Act” (HR 4710) and the Media Ownership Reform Act
(MORA).
The debate continues to this day. Last summer, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (S. 1748) was introduced to the Senate. It was read twice and then
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (the
same Committee that held a stacked hearing on Diversity, Localism, and
Media Ownership). No meaningful action has been taken since then.
Similarly, the House component bill, H. R. 2905, has seen little action. Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) and others filed a discharge petition (No. 110-3) to the
House Rules Committee which would force the House to discuss and vote
on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. The discharge petition can only take
effect with the support of 218 Congressmen. It currently boasts 194 signatures.
In other words, the majority party has, through Congressional maneuvering, prevented the Act from coming to the House floor.
If progressives do not intend to revive the Fairness Doctrine, then why
not let Congress vote on the bill? Are they too scared it will be
passed?
Share This
About the author
18 Comments for Fairness Doctrine Unfairly Promoted
Your right Kristi. Silencing the conservatives is what it is all about. Here is hoping that there will be a significant change in both houses getting enough Republicans in to stop this from happening. If the State GOP’s can run their candidates against Obama the Republicans can pick up more seats and stop the FD from happening.
I would suggest that the “Fairness” (silencing the Right) Doctrine is a restraint of trade.
Rush Limbaugh (whom I largely agree with when I read something he’s said on the radio; I don’t listen to the radio all that much except for the classic rock channels, as our “artists” ran slap out of ideas in the 90s; note the “success” of anti-American/Iraq War movies, as family-friendly movies routinely blow them out of the water at the box office) is a household name. Al Franken is pretty close as a Saturday Night Live writer/star for years. Plus, the disaster that is liberal radio has given him some exposure, mostly humiliating.
However, where conservative talk radio is fairly effective (although I don’t know how effective Rush’s “Operation Chaos” is working out, since both dem candidates are pathological liars and seem to be doing fine in the area of self-destruction), the liberal Air America (with Al Franken, who has been funny perhaps 5 minutes over the course of his career as a comedian) has to resort to unsavory practices to keep its head above water.
Freedom of choice? If anyone wants to listen to ANY radio station, it’s not a major concern for me as I tend to get my news from the Internet (where conservatives tend to have info backing up their views more so than liberals). AIM and Patriot Post (which has a free and quite wonderful daily email, often citing the Wall St Journal’s “Best of the Web Today”…which also has a free and quite wonderful daily email) are great sources of information that I actually find credible. It’s the actual quotes that verify their comments…and BOWT’s James Taranto can be hilarious and, at times, devastatingly so.)
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, assuming the position of God, is quoting Biblical passages that simply don’t exist. She says she “heard it”; actual Biblical scholars insist that what she heard isn’t in the Bible. I would suspect that Ms Pelosi is more familiar with the Communist Manifesto.
I personally don’t think we have much to worry about unless the dems manage to get a closure-proof majority. If John McCain (NOT my ideal candidate, but not an obvious liar despite his voting record reflecting that of one with multiple-personality syndrome) can just get through the next few months without disgracing himself on camera or tape, he should be a shoo-in for president, as a significant number of Obama and Hillary supporters threaten to boycott the general election if their candidate doesn’t win. But telling NC (my state) republicans not to run ads with Rev Wrong is simply not the wisest thing he could do.
The DNC has a sticky wicket here: if they deem Obama unelectable (my estimation of the man) and hand the nomination to Hillary, I don’t see her getting the standard 90% of the black vote. If Obama prevails, get used to seeing Rev Wrong on TV ad nauseum. (BTW, Rolling Stone published a list of the “Half-wit and Non-wisdom” lines from this kook, and Obama disinvited him from offering the invocation preceding Obama’s announcement of his candidacy, so he’s obviously known about the Rev’s lunacy for longer than he’d care to admit.)
One can only wonder if any “Fairness” Doctrine would open up the mainstream media to criminal charges or lawsuits, as they are clearly in the tank for the democrats. A republican screws the pooch, and he gets a ton of press. If a democrat screws the pooch, it’s not really “news”…and you can take that in more than one interpretation, both true.
This will also apply to all radio and all television. In March 2004 “Chicago Sun-Times” sports columnist Jay Mariotti on ESPN’s “Around The Horn” called for shutting down FOX Sports Net (FSN). Additionally, during the 2004 Democratic Presidential campaign, “Washington Post” sports columnist Tony Kornheiser called for the support of Dennis Kucinch, one of the principal architects of reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine” (read censorship) which both Betty Nguyen and T.J. Holmes of CNN failed to report in their November 25, 2007 report about Kucinich. Besides radio, DNC Chairman Dr. Howard Dean has called shutting down FOX News which will include all of FOX (Goodbye “24”, “American Idol”, “America’s Nost Wanted”, “The Simpsons”, “COPS”, “House”, etc.). Also, it will affect the Internet too with Net Neutrality, including Wikipedia (Disclaimer: I have been a Wikipedia editor since May 2006, ranked #575 in number of edits as of March 11, 2008.).
This is a battle that we must win for all of our freedoms.
I am very impressed lately with the comments posted not only on AIM but on every article posted on the internet. I find this to be a new way Americans of all ages can voice their opinions without having any regulations on what, where and when to say it. If anyone is familiar with most sites though I find it frustrating when you post something and its “reviewed” (Especiall on Media Matters). I’m a firm believer, whether its radio, t.v., internet or any media, that you can say whatever you want on any broadcast if you work for it, just understand that your fellow American has that right too and there must be a level of respect even if you completely disagree or even dislike the person. I urge everyone to fight for all of our right to open debate in all fields of communication. God Bless America!
Will someone out there bother to read the United States constitution. Article II, section four, paragraph 3. John McCain was born in Panama!
Why does the Republician party have so little respect for our constitution that they are nominating a person who is not even eligible for the Office.
Why do you think that Hillary is running so hard.
The Democratic primary is the election for President this year!! John McCain can’t even hold office. If by some weird choice he won the election, his Vice-Presidential choice would be sworn in!
Or is that the whole point
Something to think about! Ha Ha Ha !!!
Tyrone,
He was born on a US military base. That would do ‘er!
;>)
If I do not like a broadcast, I change the station. I really do not need help from the government to change the station. This is not about fairness. It is completely about total control of what your mind is permitted to digest.
Both parties are the same. Why anyone would support (financially or otherwise) either political party is a mystery to me. These are the most untrustworthy and profoundly disgraceful un-American individuals I have ever encountered.
I await the election that nobody attends. At that time, and only that time, we can begin to take our country back.
Once the Fairness Doctrine comes back, the people should make sure it also applies to NPR, foreign language stations and so called “urban” (African American) stations, then to cable and satellite tv. From there it can be expanded by Congress to colleges and universities which receive federal funds.
Howzat?
No It would not! According to the law, a U. S. Military Base is not U. S. property. You people really are dumb. If it was a embassy that might be different because embassies are considered U. S. property no matter what country they are in, but the bases are not.
It is an attempt to silence free speech, or at least freedom of speach that promotes ideas that don’t suit the purposes of some. The liberals already control most of the newspapers and mainsteam TV outlets. They want a complete monopoly. I can’t count the number of half the story articles and news reports I have seen. If they are able to push this through in the future I dont know how the public could become informed on many important matters. Most people are already poorly informed as it is. Say yes to the first amendment, and no to the so called fairness doctrine. God bless America and freedom of political speach.
@ Tyrone:
Please do not spout such stupidity, there is no “law” that governs whether a base in another country is sovereign territory or not. These things are set up by treaty with the country the base resides in. Incidentally, I cannot think of a single US military base that is NOT considered sovereign US soil. Not to say there are none, but I cannot name one. Besides, if both your parents are US citizens and you happen to be born outside the US you can still be considered a natural born citizen so long as both your parents have current residence status, this law mainly effects the children of missionaries who were born off of US soil.
You are simply upset that both your party’s candidates are completely un-electable in the general election. Obama has been outed as an anti-American racist, and Hillary is to busy dogging sniper fire to tell a single bit of truth. The republicans could run Big Bird from Sesame St. and still win. The Democratic party, that not so long ago touted its self as the party of “solidarity” has shot its self in BOTH feet. Its pathetic lust for power has ensured its own defeat, a lesson it could have gleaned from any children’s book, that is if they weren’t so busy writing books to convince children that America is horrible.
My greatest hope is that one day in the history books people will read the truth about our modern liberals. That they fed on the ignorance of their base supporters, that they purposefully manipulated data and facts to keep their supporters ill-informed and scared and most of all, riddled with guilt. In a fruitless attempt to stay in power they committed base treachery against the constitution they swore oaths to uphold and were ousted from power never to return again. I get all misty eyed just thinking about it…
I always thought that people who voted against their own self interest where dumb! But man you really make the case for me without me ever having to say or write a word. In case you don’t know it this has been decided by the Supreme Court of the U. S. which is why this is so funny.
Citizenship by right of being born in this country,and citizenship by right of blood! Are two different things, or don’t you know that? Do you think that congress passed a non-binding resolution on this very matter about McCain about a month ago for nothing.
Let, me but it like this! Do you love this country more than you hate black people! That is the only question that needs to be asked of the American public. Now let see if anyone out there can really think, not subjectively, but truly objectively and really understand why this is the only fundamental question there is for our country at this time.
Wow, not surprised that liberals are trying to take control of EVERYTHING. Newspapers, t.v., news and now talk radio. They have AirAmerica….but no one listens to that and that is why it is in the garbage with their ratings. Stay away from our talk radio. We are allowed to have free speech. This is another round of the thought police trying to control us.
@ Tyrone:
Please present verifiable facts to backup your arguments. For example; if the issue in question was solved by the supreme court, please provide the case name and number (both public information, as are the written opinions). Also your comment about congress passing a non-binding resolution makes me laugh, partly because you again forgot to cite any creditable source but mostly because you seem to miss the entire idea of a non-binding resolution. That it is … wait for it … NON BINDING. Meaning it means nothing, basically it is congress standing up and saying “we have an opinion”. It has no official affect on policy or law. Congress passes many of these useless resolutions all the time. I thank you again for your comments, they were as amusing as your first. Do keep them coming.
@ Tyrone
I have let snide remarks like yours slip for too long without an appropriate retort. Let me take issue with your remark:
——————-
“Let, me but it like this! Do you love this country more than you hate black people! That is the only question that needs to be asked of the American public. Now let see if anyone out there can really think, not subjectively, but truly objectively and really understand why this is the only fundamental question there is for our country at this time. “
——————-
So, your only recourse to defeat my logic is to accuse me of racism. Let me ask you this then, do you love your country more than you love black people, or do you love your country more than you hate white people? Both of these questions are valid in your context. You see, in baseless accusations of racism you open yourself up to these questions. I for one am probably the most non-racist person you have never met. I could not care less about the color of your skin. It matters to me the same as the color of your hair or eyes.
What I do care about are your scruples, your principals,and your traits. These are the things I will judge you on. And it is against these that I have weighed Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. I have found them both to be wanting in all three categories. It seems more to me that you find it easier to believe that someone MUST be racist if they do not want Obama in The Whitehouse, because disagreeing with him on his foolish policy views would be unthinkable, right?
Then let me return the favor for you, and for the benefit of all we will keep things overt and not thinly veiled as your comment was.
I do not know you, you do not know me. If I had to classify you, I would label you as a racist. My reasoning being that it was you who first mentioned it (Psychologists term this projection) when none of my posts have the slightest inkling of racism. I have before now not even mentioned the issue, but now that you so desperately wish to invoke it I will not evade.
Why is it so important that a black man get into The Whitehouse? Why is it so important for a woman? Isn’t it more important that the best person for the job be elected whether it be man or woman, black or white, or any other race? The biggest racists around are the people going around shouting that race should be apart of everything, not for the exclusion of others but for the benefit of the shouter.
We will never be free of racism so long as people like you keep trying to use it as a weapon against those whom you do not agree with. You shout racism in the hopes that the idea of being labeled a racist will frighten your opponent into submission.
What kind of effect do you think it has on white people when you are shouting “Black Pride” or “Mexican Pride”? No imagine if a white man come on your TV and shouted “White Pride”. The funny thing is that all three people are wrong! There should not be such a thing as white pride, black pride, or any other kind of pride! Be proud of being an American! I don’t care what color you are, stop telling me. Just like an intelligent person will decide the issue on its merits so will an intelligent person judge his fellow on his actions.
Do not accuse me of racism, I have never been and never shall be a racist. Too many good people have died for me to sully the freedom they bought with such ignorance and foolishness. We all bleed, we all die, who cares about the rest.
You are an utterly contemptible fool, keep your thinly disguised insults to yourself and your forked tongue behind you teeth!
I think that I will take the time to write you dumb people one last time. First, forget where McCain was born at. What I have said is a fact although, his citizenship is sanguine, that is by blood, not by land that is by birth! I studied constutional law in 1978 and I had to give a term paper on this, couldn’t find it, but when I do I will cite the case, because it is a Supreme Court case and if memory serves me right I think the Holmes court decided the case.
My thing was not about race, really, it was more like reality. McCain was a prisoner of war! He was broken by the VC and swore oaths and made sworn statements against the U. S. These are not lies or other B S like I see on this and other sites like these. It could happen to anyone trying to defend our country, and I respect and admire him for his service, but the you can not get around basic facts. Those facts make him unfit for the role of commander and chief, just like there are certain security clearances he would be unfit to have for the same reasons.
Hillary! Forget all of the personal stuff, just simple practial stuff! As a woman she would not have any standing in many places in the middle east. Try instead of four dollar per gallon gas, how about fourteen dollar inside of one year. If some of those countries would not receive Ms Rice then think about Hillary. These are people whom deal on a defferant level of policies than we do. We accept lying politicians, they cut their heads off. They put up with us out of fear and they were dealing with men. We have had our interest sold out so much over the years that they are starting to respond from positions of strengh, think when was the last time we would bomb a small middle east country and wait eight four months to own up to it, and we didn’t even do that we put it on Isreal.
So it not about a black think, it the facts of life that a certain amount of Democrats are not going to vote for the only viable choice because he is black. Republicians are going to go republician, some are going to be mad seeing the truth of things and realize we need something different, but some who realize this are still not going to vote their self-interest simply because of race.
Just a note to Tyrone, I noticed that even though Elcrapo speaks of a solution to how Americans should view the ignorancy of racism you still choose to side with the reality of the day. Yes, racsim will play apart of this election because there are people like you who are elect delegates and super delegates and powerful people that care more about money and power than anything. They fear minorities more than you think.They use racism to confuse stupid people who don’t go out in the world to find their answers because you let them do it for you.
They say black people cause crimes in certain areas but no one checks to see how those neighborhoods were constructed in the first place. Case in point in any renown ghetto of the day, when theres little food, no job oppurtunity, crack implimentation, and no community service from the federal gov’t what group of people wouldn’t look rundown? That statement could be made for any race actually because it happens to everybody but for some reason black and mexicans are worst than poor white people. Pay attention to the PEOPLE that stand above racism, that chose to live their lives with dignity and respect.Try talking with someone your not familiar with and see what its like in their culture. Because if you don’t you’ll end up jumping to conclusions and causing more harm to this country.
Also let me clarify the whole Barack = Black. Hes not black! He’s a multi-cultural guy that has caucasian and african-american in him. He’s mixed just like most of you people, check you geneology. Are you disowning his mothers and grandmothers that are white? Thats part of my arguement. Read the book not just the cover. Might as well call you Mr. Paraphrase.
I have heard Nancy Pelosi propose bringing back the fairness doctrine. If democrat wins the presidency, and retain control of both houses, there will be nothing stopping it. This will silence just about the only media outlet for conservatives out there. The liberals already dominate television and print media.