Fairness Doctrine

[Dr. Shane]

Here is Wikipedia's take on the >>>Fairness Doctrine<<< That is a link. Click on it to see the whole article because I am not going to cut and past everything.

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

The doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987. Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to deny a forum for political opposition...

n 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had "never made the doctrine a binding requirement." In August 1987, the Commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in its Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC insisted that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.

In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto...

As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine.

It has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half.

Supreme Court Decision

* "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.[5]

[Dr. Shane]

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is what started talk radio which has been dominated by conservative talk show hosts. There is no right-wing conspiracy that keeps liberals off the air. It is all about ratings and advertisers. Conservative talk show hosts get high ratings and thus the advertisers pay to advertise on their programs. Liberal talk shows do not get high ratings and thus have trouble getting advertisers. There have been liberals such as Larry King and Sam Donaldson that have tried to compete in the marketplace of talk radio but were not able to get the ratings needed to be supported by advertisers. Most liberals are confined to the subsidized Air America or NPR.

The airwaves do belong to the public and that was the justification for the Fairness Doctrine for so many years. However with so many media outlets today, including cable and satellite TV and radio along with the internet, anyone with anywhere can find a forum - just like the one we have here at Club Adventist.

Rather than the FCC worrying about liberals getting enough airtime, they should be more concerned about controlling the sex and violent content being broadcast across the public airwaves.

[Dr. Shane]

A major problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that it isn't fair. It only targets radio - not television. If it were to target television, that would mean for every sitcom that glorified the gay lifestyle, there would have to be a sitcom that glorified a religious lifestyle. Other examples are numerous. Media has expanded so much, it would take a huge bureaucracy to enforce the Fairness Doctrine.

What needs to be done is make a way that small media outlets can reach the masses. One way to do that is prohibit pornography from being broadcast through the public airwaves via satellite or via cable in public easements. That would open up a lot of space for small networks like 3ABN to be broadcast to the masses.

[Neil D]

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is what started talk radio which has been dominated by conservative talk show hosts. There is no right-wing conspiracy that keeps liberals off the air. It is all about ratings and advertisers. Conservative talk show hosts get high ratings and thus the advertisers pay to advertise on their programs. Liberal talk shows do not get high ratings and thus have trouble getting advertisers. There have been liberals such as Larry King and Sam Donaldson that have tried to compete in the marketplace of talk radio but were not able to get the ratings needed to be supported by advertisers. Most liberals are confined to the subsidized Air America or NPR.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course what is most unfair about the fairness doctrine is that it doesn't apply to television which also uses the public airwaves.

Quote:

Adventist nor Christian values should not dominate the airwaves.

Which raises the question about Christian radio and how the fairness doctrine would impact it. If a preacher preaches against gay marriage for a half hour, does the radio station then have to give gay activists the same amount of time?

[Dr. Shane]

Unless the Fairness Doctrine applies to all types of medial using the public airwaves (radio, broadcast and satellite/cable TV) it isn't really fair is it?

Do we want to force Chris Matthews to be fair?

Do we want to force Larry King to be fair?

Do we want to force Bill Maher to be fair?

What about networks that use sitcoms and dramas to push political issues like gay marriage or immigration? Should they be balanced out too?

The bureaucracy to enforce such a thing would be unbelievable. Why not just allow freedom of speech and freedom of the press? If we want to limit certain content from the airwaves, why not just focus on sexual and violent content? And allow political speech to remain free?

[Neil D]

Of course what is most unfair about the fairness doctrine is that it doesn't apply to television which also uses the public airwaves.

[Dr. Shane]

Again "the bureaucracy to enforce such a thing would be unbelievable."

And how can we allow freedom of religious expression but limit freedom of political expression? If a preacher preaches against abortion is that political speech or religious speech? If he or she preaches against homosexuality is that political or religious? Trying to enforce any such law would be a nightmare. It undoubtedly would squelch freedom of speech.

[Neil D]

No it wouldn't . The IRS has been doing this for years...You loose your IRS exemption if you wonder into the polictical relm if you are a religious organization.

And besides, the pulput is not a public media. It is held behind closed doors with a group of people assembling themselves for worship.

When a religious organization wants to use the public airwaves for the transmittion of thier doctrine, they can do so EVERY Sunday morning. No problem there...But when they want to do it EVERY DAY, that's a different story. They have to maintain thier separation of church and state or loose thier airtime. If they want to preach on the morals of abortion, that's fine. If they want to endorse a canidate whose plateform is against abortion, then they must allow his opponet equal airtime.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

But when they want to do it EVERY DAY, that's a different story.

Christian media is an everyday thing - that includes Adventist media.

Quote:

If they want to endorse a candidate whose platform is against abortion, then they must allow his opponent equal airtime.

By endorsing a specific candidate or political party, a religious organization can lose their tax exempt status but they face no criminal penalties for doing so. It is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Rather than trying to force private owners to give air time to those that cannot draw in advertising dollars, the FCC should just allow more radio and television stations within a geographical area. I am not real big on forcing private owners to lose money in the name of fairness.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Christian media is an everyday thing - that includes Adventist media.

Adventist media isn't in the business to promote political canidates...

Quote:

I am not real big on forcing private owners to lose money in the name of fairness.

But I am in favor of an educated public and the dissemination of accurate information. With current education standards, we have a greater 'dumming down' of people. Currently, I have relatives who are truck drivers who rely on radio to inform them while they are on the road. And thier information is primarily conservative talk radio. They are just as conservative as what they hear. And talk radio is primarily dominated by conservatives.

[Dr. Shane]

The government has a nation-wide radio network (NPR) and a nation-wide television network (PBS). In the cause of fairness, the government can make sure that both sides are available to the people via these two networks. They don't need to take over the programming schedules of private companies.

BTW: I think The News Hour with Jim Lerher is one of the best, informative and balanced programs out there and that comes to us via PBS.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The government has a nation-wide radio network (NPR) and a nation-wide television network (PBS).

Which the goverment is reducing it's moneys. PBS and NPR are both solicitating money from the public and recieving less and less as the years go by. When there is less money coming in, for whatever reasons, the origional philosophys and principles tend to go out the door, [that is, radio and tv for the people, by the people for thier edification]. But when there is less and less money, then there comes a decision making policy. Whether to accept moneys from business and abandon the Public trust and become a corporate trust, run by corporations....

Quote:

In the cause of fairness, the government can make sure that both sides are available to the people via these two networks. They don't need to take over the programming schedules of private companies.

They are NOT taking over programing schedules of private companies [to which there are only 5 currently]. They are only providing a reasonable counter arguement to that which they are airing/promoting.

Whether you know it or not, there are a lot of areas in the US where there is just conservative talk radio. It has gotten a foot hold on the area and liberal stations are having a hard time getting into the area...Southern Oregon is one such area. And we are not talking about a narrow along I-5 corridor...We are talking about an area that stretches from Roseburg to Yreaka, California, and as wide as from Brookings to Alturus...I know, because I travel those areas. That nearly 6000 square miles where there is NO or very little progressive radio.

Recently, I have been to the bible belt, and find that the same conditions exist there as well. Here in Southern Oregon, our lifestyle is such that we have no library to check on things, no free access to knowledge that should be free. People here are working 40+ hours a week just to make morgage payments and feed thier kids and the price of real estate here is outragious. There is no readily available progressive place to share ideas here. The concept of "idle hands do the devils work" encourages one to do one of two things, work excessively or become so discouorage that you turn to drugs...and then you don't care....and you are dodging the police...

It is so sad to see this type of lifestyle here...And we left this to our kids and grandkids....Tis a sad world we have left to our children....

...all because we did not educate.....

[Dr. Shane]

From what I understand, NPR and PBS want to become completely free of tax money in the same way the Post Office has. This will allow them more freedom to control their programming. Of course, those that favor the fairness doctrine wouldn't want them to have more freedom to control their programming.

Quote:

They are NOT taking over programing schedules of private companies [to which there are only 5 currently].

Is 3ABN Radio one of those 5?

Quote:

Whether you know it or not, there are a lot of areas in the US where there is just conservative talk radio. It has gotten a foot hold on the area and liberal stations are having a hard time getting into the area...

That is just the open market. There are some places in the country where strawberry ice cream can't get a foothold either. If the people don't want it, they are not going to buy it. That is the free market. It isn't that there are conservatives that own radio stations and won't put on liberal hosts. These private owners will put on anyone that will make them money. The conservative hosts make more money for the stations than the liberal hosts. So guess who gets the air time?

[Neil D]

Quote:

From what I understand, NPR and PBS want to become completely free of tax money in the same way the Post Office has. This will allow them more freedom to control their programming. Of course, those that favor the fairness doctrine wouldn't want them to have more freedom to control their programming.

Or the goverement can say that it is willing to pay to up hold fair counter arguements that are required and limit such payments up to 1/16 of the radio budget or some other payment plan that allows for counter arguements.

Quote:

Is 3ABN Radio one of those 5?

No, and I don't expect it to be a major corporate media information tycoon either....I do expect it to be a religious radio...not a political radio...

Quote:

That is just the open market. There are some places in the country where strawberry ice cream can't get a foothold either. If the people don't want it, they are not going to buy it. That is the free market. It isn't that there are conservatives that own radio stations and won't put on liberal hosts. These private owners will put on anyone that will make them money. The conservative hosts make more money for the stations than the liberal hosts. So guess who gets the air time?

The open market favors corporations...not indepentant radio stations...And the free market system doesn't allow individual indepentant radio...only maga corporations...at least OUR current "free market" system.

So you would want to maintain the status quo, where as I would want indepentant stations to bring in the news and maintain the flow of informed information to the consumer....

Just like a conservative who doesn't want change but rather wants to shuffle papers..bean counter...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So you would want to maintain the status quo, where as I would want independent stations

No, I don't want to maintain the status quo. I would like to see it easier to get on the radio dial. Currently, it is hard to get on the dial with a new station. It is easier to buy an existing station. If the FCC made it easier to start new stations, there would be more variety out there both in music, talk and religious content.

There are laws already that restrict a corporation from owning too many radio stations in one geographical area. The reason conservatives dominate the radio airwaves is not a corporate conspiracy. It is all about the fact they get the best ratings and thus make the stations the most money.

[nuff sed]

The "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with "fairness". It is just another attempt by the leftist liberal whackos who also preach "political correctness" and "we are the cause of global warming" etc. etc. to mold us all into robots. The old "Deceiver of Souls" is trying to get us so confused that we will miss the "end-coming" signs as they unfold. Be prepared for the book "Great Controversy" to be labeled as "Hate Speech" because it will offend our Catholic friends. "We 'ain't' seen nothin' yet!" Regards, Don

[Neil D]

The "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with "fairness". It is just another attempt by the leftist liberal whackos who also preach "political correctness" and "we are the cause of global warming" etc. etc. to mold us all into robots. The old "Deceiver of Souls" is trying to get us so confused that we will miss the "end-coming" signs as they unfold. Be prepared for the book "Great Controversy" to be labeled as "Hate Speech" because it will offend our Catholic friends. "We 'ain't' seen nothin' yet!" Regards, Don

If I were a liberal leftist, I would be retorting that this is some sort of neo-conservative sludge masquaraiding as politically correctness. Instead, what I will ask, Don, is what makes you think thus? Why do you think that the lefties will be the ones to turn the world into robots of Lucifer instead of the ultra-right semi-religious Christians that EGW seems to infer?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If I were a liberal leftist...

How is that again?

[Neil D]

Quote:

If I were a liberal leftist...

How is that again?

Liberal....yes...

Leftist....No...

Know the difference, Shane...

[Dr. Shane]

The term comes from the seating arrangement in the US Congress. Democrats, which tend to be liberal, sit on the left side. Republicans, which tend to be conservative, sit on the right side.

Thus the terms left and liberal have become interchangeable just as the terms right and conservative have become interchangeable.

[Neil D]

The term comes from the seating arrangement in the US Congress. Democrats, which tend to be liberal, sit on the left side. Republicans, which tend to be conservative, sit on the right side.

Thus the terms left and liberal have become interchangeable just as the terms right and conservative have become interchangeable.

What?!?!?! It's doesn't come from politics but rather from the American congress????? What will we learn?