Back When You'd Get Fired for Supporting Free Speech That Criticized the President

[slim 1,533]

If you meant that the government can force the owner of a radio station to share his antenna, broadcast equipment, facilities, and the time of his employees, you probably live in a different country than I do. It's his antenna. This is America. He can turn it off and on when he wants to.

However, this is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine is trying to do. (Isn't it funny that everything overly-Socialist in this new administration is called a Doctrine but yet we still don't get it?) They're trying to mandate certain groups get "equal" access and air time to broadcast on privately-owned radio broadcasting equipment. So, let's say you own a radio station, have employees, etc., and you run a pretty good business. Well, under this Fairness Doctrine, the govt. is going to mandate that you stop broadcasting what you want to broadcast for X number of hours per week and in place of your desired choice of broadcasting, they're going to require you to "allow" certain folks to use your equipment, your facilities, your resources - all to put out their message.

Fair?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

However, this is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine is trying to do. (Isn't it funny that everything overly-Socialist in this new administration is called a Doctrine but yet we still don't get it?) They're trying to mandate certain groups get "equal" access and air time to broadcast on privately-owned radio broadcasting equipment. So, let's say you own a radio station, have employees, etc., and you run a pretty good business. Well, under this Fairness Doctrine, the govt. is going to mandate that you stop broadcasting what you want to broadcast for X number of hours per week and in place of your desired choice of broadcasting, they're going to require you to "allow" certain folks to use your equipment, your facilities, your resources - all to put out their message.

Fair?

Oh good grief. You gotta go beyond the bullsh!t that some in the Right Wing media shovel out on a daily basis.

Let's look at the history and facts. Just what was the Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.^[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.^[2]

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

[SMR 368]

However, this is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine is trying to do. (Isn't it funny that everything overly-Socialist in this new administration is called a Doctrine but yet we still don't get it?) They're trying to mandate certain groups get "equal" access and air time to broadcast on privately-owned radio broadcasting equipment. So, let's say you own a radio station, have employees, etc., and you run a pretty good business. Well, under this Fairness Doctrine, the govt. is going to mandate that you stop broadcasting what you want to broadcast for X number of hours per week and in place of your desired choice of broadcasting, they're going to require you to "allow" certain folks to use your equipment, your facilities, your resources - all to put out their message.

Fair?

Oh good grief. You gotta go beyond the bullsh!t that some in the Right Wing media shovel out on a daily basis.

Let's look at the history and facts. Just what was the Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.^[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.^[2]

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

The key here is that the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in cases where channels were limited. That makes sense, but only in a situation where that limit was actually approached. A key point of my post is that we aren't anywhere near that with broadcast radio. If there was a group with a plan to create a station with a conflicting point of view and there wasn't bandwidth, they might have a case. But we aren't there.

Thankfully, I don't think we will ever reach such a limit. That's simply because as the number of stations goes up, the number of listeners on any given station will go down. That's less revenue from advertisements and controls the number of stations. Conditions may change, but new technology such as satellite radio and digitization will increase the number of available channels. I doubt we'll get to a situation where there are people who can't broadcast because of bandwidth issues.

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation of what the right of the listener and viewer, which are paramount to the right of the broadcaster, actually entails.

Edited December 10, 2009 by SMR

[slim 1,533]

but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.

Not yet... but they're trying!

[ScratchIt 12]

If you meant that the government can force the owner of a radio station to share his antenna, broadcast equipment, facilities, and the time of his employees, you probably live in a different country than I do. It's his antenna. This is America. He can turn it off and on when he wants to.

However, this is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine is trying to do. (Isn't it funny that everything overly-Socialist in this new administration is called a Doctrine but yet we still don't get it?) They're trying to mandate certain groups get "equal" access and air time to broadcast on privately-owned radio broadcasting equipment. So, let's say you own a radio station, have employees, etc., and you run a pretty good business. Well, under this Fairness Doctrine, the govt. is going to mandate that you stop broadcasting what you want to broadcast for X number of hours per week and in place of your desired choice of broadcasting, they're going to require you to "allow" certain folks to use your equipment, your facilities, your resources - all to put out their message.

Fair?

As a rule for the protection of personal property, this is a farce. As a rule for the presentation of opposing views, this is ludicrous. Personally, I feel that media should be un-biased but I believe in unicorns too. The "Fairness Doctrine" is hardly written in stone and appears more of a guide than law. To me it appears that no one wants to carry this flag into battle. It stinks of huge personal liberty/property issues. I can liken it to me writing something about someone on this forum and them demanding to use my computer to respond. Buy your own damn computer!!!

I'm waiting for it to be taken to the extreme when someone says "they play country music all day, they should be required to play rock and classical too". (I intentionally excluded Rap from that statement as I do not consider it music! )

[slim 1,533]

I'm waiting for it to be taken to the extreme when someone says "they play country music all day, they should be required to play rock and classical too". (I intentionally excluded Rap from that statement as I do not consider it music! )

This is where it is in many urban areas around the U.S. They're actually talking about stopping AM talk radio to play "more urban" programs and citing the Fairness Doctrine as their guarantee. So far they've had 0 success, but hey, we may see an end to the BCS by 2012. YES WE CAN!

[ScratchIt 12]

I'm waiting for it to be taken to the extreme when someone says "they play country music all day, they should be required to play rock and classical too". (I intentionally excluded Rap from that statement as I do not consider it music! )

This is where it is in many urban areas around the U.S. They're actually talking about stopping AM talk radio to play "more urban" programs and citing the Fairness Doctrine as their guarantee. So far they've had 0 success, but hey, we may see an end to the BCS by 2012. YES WE CAN!

Guarantee of what? If you are saying that legal action is being threatened if they do/don't change then I will have to ask for your back-up on that information before I respond to that allegation. If a radio station decides to play "more urban" programs, that's their ballywick. If it doesn't sell, too bad for them. Their P&L will drive what they broadcast or if they survive in their market. I just don't see anyone in the government or courts driving this thing to the edge.

[slim 1,533]

Guarantee of what? If you are saying that legal action is being threatened if they do/don't change then I will have to ask for your back-up on that information before I respond to that allegation. If a radio station decides to play "more urban" programs, that's their ballywick. If it doesn't sell, too bad for them. Their P&L will drive what they broadcast or if they survive in their market. I just don't see anyone in the government or courts driving this thing to the edge.

So far it hasn't come to that, but there have been threats of legal action if access is not granted. The radio stations are standing their ground - we'll see how it plays out. I haven't heard anything about it in a few months, but back in the "things are going to change soon" days, it was all over the airwaves. Now that things "have changed" we're not hearing much about it. Hmmmm.

[ScratchIt 12]

Guarantee of what? If you are saying that legal action is being threatened if they do/don't change then I will have to ask for your back-up on that information before I respond to that allegation. If a radio station decides to play "more urban" programs, that's their ballywick. If it doesn't sell, too bad for them. Their P&L will drive what they broadcast or if they survive in their market. I just don't see anyone in the government or courts driving this thing to the edge.

So far it hasn't come to that, but there have been threats of legal action if access is not granted. The radio stations are standing their ground - we'll see how it plays out. I haven't heard anything about it in a few months, but back in the "things are going to change soon" days, it was all over the airwaves. Now that things "have changed" we're not hearing much about it. Hmmmm.

IMHO - if push came to shove, the Feds might make a station give up airtime on a frequency but I don't see a broadcaster having to allow usage of their equipment, at least not without adequate compensation. That is absolutely a violation of personal property rights. It would take a very foolish politician to try and take this "Doctrine" for a ride. It would turn into a fiasco where the "right" wanted Christian views broadcast, then the gays would want their agenda broadcast etc. The idea is good, that no one can buy up all the bandwidth and prevent opposing broadcast, and that issue is easy to deal with. The idea that you could commandeer private property for such things would be hard to justify and would trample the Constitution. I believe that is what the Supreme Court said when they deferred the issue back to the FCC. Again this is only my opinion...