Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFairness Doctrine Hammered 309-115
The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.
The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.
It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.
House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.
Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view.
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," he said. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said this week that she would review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine.
Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic Party's 2004 presidential nominee, also said recently that the Fairness Doctrine should return.
In 1985 the FCC discarded the policy after deciding that it restricted journalistic freedom and "actually inhibit[ed] the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Thursday, the House firmly rejected the prospect of requiring balanced views on talk radio.
Before the passage of the amendment, which he sponsored, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former full-time radio host, forecast a big majority and took a shot at the Senate, saying: "This House will say what some in the other body are not saying, that we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the doctrines of the past that would have this federal government manage political speech on the public airwaves."
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also sponsored the legislation.
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals' answer to "The Rush Limbaugh Show" and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that listeners should be able to decide if they want to hear different political arguments.
"The best way is to let the judgment of the American people decide, and they can decide with their finger," Boehner said.
"[People] can turn it off or they can turn it on. They can go to their computer and read it on the Internet."
Flake added: "Rather than having the government regulate what people can say, we should let the market decide what people want to hear. That's precisely why the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, and that's why it ought not to be revived."
At the end of Thursday's debate, Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.) agreed with Republicans that the government should not regulate conservative radio hosts such as Limbaugh and Hannity.
"We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now," he said. "Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected."
© 2007 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc
28 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems to me the biggest whiners are Limbaugh and Hannity who think someone is trying to restrict "their" voice. I don't think that's what this is all about, it's about choices.
Part of me agrees that people have the choice to turn off the radio or change the station - but I didn't have any choices until I chanced upon my local Nova M progressive station. I stay listening because I LOVE Stephanie Miller & I need my Mike Malloy rants to keep me sane.
There's a reason Olbermann's ratings are doing so well....there is a progressive audience just waiting to be found.
There is an elephant in our National living room--- I think it is a conspiracy. One to favor a particular group. Who is Time Warner? Who are its Directors and what are their political connections? Besides making money, what are their goals? Ask yourself who benefits from ownership of CNN. To state the obvious, It has been totally totally trashed. One of the nations best minute to minute news organizations is now a gossip freak show, more interested in who fathered someone's child and the foibles of the rich and famous than in reportage. Who benefits? and how? It has become a propaganda forum for someone, fit only to watch to see what is NOT reported. Why did this happen???? Who was behind it's destruction??? I would personally give a lot to know what these folks had on Ted Turner---- surely he knew what they had in mind.
My apologies for being thick :-) Humor is always appreciated...if completey unrecognized :-(
Sorry. Smiling now.
Unknown-Arts, are you saying the whining is democratic dialogue or are you saying the whining/grousing/complaining., etc that powerslave1 is doing is democratic? I would imagine it all feeds in together.
Nonetheless, I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek, and attempting to be constructive at the same time. I guess you didn't get the joke. "He's got a point, even if it's a bit whiny." get it? ha! ha! ha!
oh, never mind.
Leobixby:
I really appreciated what you had to say and posted your comments to the Bill Moyers article, "Moyers on Murdoch." I hope that is okay, but I just didn't think I could state your point any better than you did and that it was very valuable to the discussion of the fate of the Wall Street Journal. I hope that is okay...
Rob.Price wrote: powerslave1 has a point, even if it's grousing.
Actually, no. The whining that powerslave1 goes on about is, interestingly, democratic dialogue. It is the sharing of ideas and rage and energy. It is a very STRANGE assumption that we are, in fact, doing NOTHING. That we are not involved in, say, local access cable, or community radio, or INDEPENDENT PUBLISHING, as the case may be. Can I just say, my sense of logic is suffering and it is sad that I feel it so, but to have someone say, at the same time, that we HAVE free means to communicate our ideas, so we should SHUT UP and do something...hmmm. Free to speak and please stop it. Hm. Yeah, I am just having the worst time getting that one through.
Thanks for the links.
powerslave1 has a point, even if it's grousing.
For those interested, but wondering where they can start check out http://www.freepress.net/
There are some serious issues happening right as we speak. 1) The postal rate hike engineered by Time Warner. Smaller publications are -like Nation Magazine who will pay an additional $500k in fees- are at risk of being shut down. The cost is too high. Those that can pay, get to play? That's not freedom. Check it out.
Then there is the low power radio. There's a bill in works right now. Maybe you want to check it out. Lo-fi FM is popping up everywhere. People can go down and volunteer time, get on the air, speak their mind, or just play those crazy songs commercial stations won't play. Help raise a station's an antenna. Doesn't that sound really cool? Check out the links below to find a local network you can contact.
"freeing the airwaves away from corporate control"
http://www.prometheusradio.org/
http://reclaimthemedia.org/
have fun.
------
ps. does anyone ever have command problems using the discussion forum? sometimes my browser is stymied and I can't enter text and I have to reboot.... anyway!
"With the internet we now all have a voice". So true. And that is why I find all this whining about how "unfair" talk radio is to be rather pathetic. Stop whining, don't censor anyone, start acting. But, reading the comments of the unknown-arts, gails, et al, sadly, all I see are a bunch of censors and whiners. I guess that is easier...
powerslave1, you sure complain a lot. ;p
WTP (Whence The Pelosi)?
At the time Reagan trashed the Fairness Doctrine, I was sorry to see it happen.
That was then and this is now.
With the internet we now all have a voice and do not have to be a talk radio host to do so.
Talk radio hosts are no longer bush butt hummers. The notorious, Doctor Savage, of "The Savage Nation" now constantly denounces Georg Bush. It's no longer the love affair between right wing talk show hosts and the Bush administration.
Actually, Savage is one of the few talk shows I listen to. Savage is a great story teller. He sort of reminds me of Arthur Godfrey for reasons I can not explain.
Many of today's talk hosts are declaring that they are independents. They are at least smart enough to get off the ship before it sinks.
Although right-wing talk radio says that the left can't muster the audience that the right can, they fail to realize that we on the "left", especially true progressives prefer the Internet as it is the last bastion of truely free speech.
People like myself and i'm sure many of you lean more toward the anarchic structure that the Internet provides.
As a progressive, I prefer the revolutionary "undergroundness" of alternative media available on the internet.
So when right-wing radio cites the lack of a "liberal radio audience" as proof that America leans toward the right, they are failing to take into account that we progressives have already "progressed" past talk radio; prefering the community and freedom of the Internet.
Ahh Fairness. Nothing in our little Aryan Slave Empire was ever "fair" or "balanced". Was genocide fair? Was slavery fair? Were any of the abominations inflicted on our general population, minorities, or people around the globe fair?
"Fairness" in American parlance would mean a balance between the Democratic Party version of reality and the Republican Party version of reality. Neither of them want accurate history or accurate reportage of what they do - THEY WANT THE "TRUTH" THAT SERVES THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THEM - CORPORATIONS AND THE RICHFILTH OF AMERICA whom they serve on bended knee.
When this is added to the reality that the majority of America reads at a 6th grade level and cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map - you can sell that vast trove of ignorance ANYTHING and they do, regularly.
The final piece can be summed in 3 words: "Money is Speech". WE ARE ALL MUTE.
Now, where'd I put that scapegoat? I know it was around here somewhere....
Peace
Unknown-Arts.org June 29th, 2007 5:36 pm
"The Market can't decide if we limit ENTRY to the Market. Media is a monopoly. Open it up and then I will HAPPILY support the White Ring leaders in continuing their lunatic fringe coverage of the world."
Exactly! If we don't have "fair access" to public airwaves, we don't have a democracy; and what many fail to recognize is that our corporate-controlled government is not only interpreting, but creating laws to increase the power of their corporate masters while simultaneously undermining the Constitutional sovereignty and power of the people.
As a long time media activist, student of journalistic inquiry, and professional environmental activist, I have finally come to the realization that fairness in reporting is a joke. I am very sorry to say that. The truth is, there are NEVER multiple sides to a story! There is the story; what actually happened, and there are various interpretations of the story. Dig? All this flap about right, left and center is pointless. There are those who will exercise what my mentor called a "shit filter", and then there are those who will lazily soak in whatever the television or Internet, or radio news people tell them too. In the US, most will unfortunately take the lazy road.
To demand truthful representation of the news - not balanced interpretation - is a requirement of any democratic citizen, and should be instilled in us from the moment we are old enough to contemplate the idea. As for journalistic interpretation - otherwise known as editorializing, or opinion - it is much more healthy if there are sources that make their point of view well known. In Hungary, where I am right now, everybody knows which paper represents which part of the political spectrum, and accordingly read. As a matter of fact, if you stop the average person on the street and ask them which papers they read, they will say they read pretty much all of them, but that they only trust one or two, depending upon their particular ideological bend.
The so-called fairness doctrine does nothing but make it much easier to require much less of a citizen's critical thinking skills.
What I didn't see mentioned in the article is that even though most people are not the rabid idiots that listen to rightwing talk radio, the concentration of radio stations in the hands of only a few corporations is going to result in more and more rightwing programming since the owners think that way. They aren't going to broadcast something that is against their corporate interests even if it made money for them.
The solution is not to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine but rather to reinstate the prohibition against one owner controlling so much of the media. You will notice that almost all this trash is being broadcast from stations owned by big corporations, not by local people.
Since she never watches conservative TV, or listen to conservative talk-radio, Loretta Sanchez doesn't understand what it means to have progressives out-numbered 9 to 1. I have tried to alert her that the Republican machine has already printed the Absentee Ballots for all the Vietnamese-Americans in their favor. Karl Rove has already "caged" the Latino voters. She hasn't figured out that the Hispanic Caucus has agreed to "throw her under the bus!"
So what if Progressive TV & Talk-show hosts are out polling the competition. The neocon-controlled corporate media will still cancel them. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, despite all warnings, blissfully enjoys what will be her last year in office. Too bad. We Dems in her district just don't count!!!
Mammon can't fight Mammon. Only the people can.
http://ni4d.us/
I listened to the Limbaugh show a few times before I realized that almost all of his show relied on two basic tricks.
Trick 1:
Make up a statement that you can easily prove wrong. Then say a Democrat made that statement.
Trick 2:
Never give a Democrat the opportunity to say that no Democrat ever made that statement.
It is really easy to figure out his tricks and once you have figured out these tricks and a few others that he uses, you really don't want to listen to his show because it has nothing to do with the real world. He just tells hurtful lies. I don't like to smell garbage or listen to it.
So, why does anyone listen to his show? I believe it is because too many schools and and too many parents do not produce thinking adults with any kind of moral values.
Maybe I counted wrong, but there were 437 votes and I didn't see how Nancy Pelosi voted. I guess this means that out of 437 or so votes in the House, only 113 believe that Congressmen and Congresswomen shouldn't be owned lock, stock and barrel by the wealthy. Pretty poor result, but gives me a better understanding of why the Dems are and have given bi-partisan opposition to the troops, voting to fund their deaths and maimings against the interests of the U.S.
PR plant? I'm guessing.
Pity the poor midstate farmers driving their tractors all day to grow enough corn to fuel their tractors to listen to Rush all day. Talk about purgatory! This ruling will eventually make it easier for people to hear the truth and nothing but the truth and a call to prayers five times a day.
Ummm...here's a thought on censorship that we, as a public, seem UNABLE to grasp: WE ARE ALL BEING CENSORED. Please take note, WE don't have a NATIONAL VOICE in the way that RUSH LIMBAUGH, or HANNITY or BRIAN WILLIAMS or ANDERSON COOPER have a NATIONAL VOICE. We have a PREPONDERANCE of conservative voices that DO have a NATIONAL VOICE. ACCESS to the WAVES that WE OWN. CORPORATIONS SPEAK, while the population is only allowed to LISTEN. You want to call taking Rush off the air CENSORSHIP??? Hasn't anyone read Plato's Republic? The Allegory of the Cave? Get out of the Cave and realize that your view of the big picture has been completely distorted by the CAVE you are kept in. We had this debate over the "censorship" in Venezuela, with many crying out that to give the license of a RIGHT WING, COUP SUPPORTING network to a PUBLIC group was CENSORSHIP. The point of my writing above was that it is FINE to skip the fairness doctrine if we have fairness in ACCESS. Read the magazine EXTRA to get an idea of the diversity of views on the public airwaves. Not so diverse. To cut off one of these voices so that we can get a DIFFERENT, NON-CORPORATE OPINION is not CENSORSHIP. It is LIBERATION of the voice of DIVERSITY. How is it that 78% of the population supports environmental protection and 0% of the broadcast networks are reporting on the GUTTING of the Endangered Species Act??? Talk about CENSORSHIP!!! Citizens like POWERSLAVE who spout the common wisdom of, "You can turn it off," hardly consider the fact that having a ONE SIDED debate means that those who are NOT informed enough to KNOW they are being LIED TO by RUSH LIMBAUGH are carrying our (laughter) democracy over the edge of the corporate precipice. Not allowing monied conservatives to completely dominate the public airwaves is NOT censorship, it is democracy (one person, not one DOLLAR, one vote style democracy--the real deal).
But that is the idea in this "democracy" isn't it? In our Free Market, electoral system, it is vote for pepsi or coke, Republican or Democrat, Hillary Clinton or George Bush, Red or Blue. It is not an on or off world. Not a 0 or 1 binary system, especially when the choices are being laid out by the wealthiest members of our society. Our children are BEGGING for decent education and we are offering them a year's preparation for a standardized test! We are not stimulating their creativity or teaching them HOW TO THINK. We are wasting their time, creating the illusion that we give a damn, while intentionally dumbing them down to be the next generation of powerslaves, who will have no concept of alternatives outside what the MEDIA MONOPOLY is willing to offer.
Am I pissed? Yeah, I'm pissed.
Ah, yes fairness. A long lost tradition WASPs once held dear.
Then again, there was a lot more changes during raygun's tenure than just knocking the fairness act out.
Rush and O'Reilly and Ollie and Jesse Helms and Falwell and Hannity and Savage didn't create a culture of hate.
Jesus Christ, people. The reason those guys are popular is because they stroke the ego of that hyper-sensitive self-titled, endangered species called stupid white men. Not all white men. Just the one's who subscribe. Rush tells them what they want to hear, and they pay out the ass*.
The boys need moral support and Rush and O'Reilly have convinced them they're it!
roflmao
Damn me to hell!
*"pay out", as in slacken the lead., to your ass.
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," he said. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
This "old fashioned" notion that there are two -- and only two -- sides to every story is the problem, not hate broadcasting. It's why Americans can't seem to move beyond the two-party system. It's why Bush and supporters can get the good/evil binary to pack such a punch in response to blowback. It's why there are still too many Americans who assume they are themselves allied with the Axis of Good -- Israel, Britain, USA.
For all anybody knows, the extremism of Limbaugh and Hannity has done more to wake Americans up to the perilous situation America is in right now. I'd be willing to bet that those two guys have provoked as much resistance as they have hate. The MSM has never been in such low repute as it is today -- forcing thoughtful Americans to look to the underground of cyberspace for their news and understanding. That can't be all bad.
I don't think many Americans know how long this media crisis has been around. What's the date of Chomsky's *Manufacturing Consent*? How far back in the history of American news media did he have to go to formulate his thesis? The American media's decision to take up the anti-war position during the Vietnam era was, believe me, merely a blip in the history of American broadcast propaganda. Limbaugh and Hannity serve at the pleasure of CNN and the New York Times: the former make the latter think they are "fair and balanced." CNN and NYT ARE "the other side" in the binarized minds of Americans.
What's needed is more indie media, not more of that "two-sided" trash that passes for debate in the US.
George Carlin proposed an excellent solution to talk radio. People, there are TWO knobs on your radio. One turns it off, the other changes the channel. If you do not like Rush et al, use either or both of the knobs. Problem solved.
Let's be honest, this has nothing to do with "fairness", it is about getting Rush Limbaugh off the air. Is that what you really want? To be known as the party of censorship. Because the "unfairness doctrine", if reinstated, will humilate progressives. Have any of you heard about the internet? Satellite radio? Stack Rush up against Air America on XM or Sirius and see what happens. There is the new HD FM frequencies, that allow TWO channels to broadcast on ONE station. Who wants to see the ratings of Hannity vs Air America on the same station?
All the unfairness doctrine will do in 2007 is mobilize the Republican base and embarrass the left. It is SO 20th century...
Its no accident that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al were able to create their culture of hate AFTER Reagan\Bush destroyed the Fairness Doctrine.
This was the rule in this nation for 50 years or more, and the public debate was more diverse and more civilized when the Fairness Doctrine was the rule.
Of course, its no surprise that the Democrats once again side with the Republicans against the best interest of America.
Strangely, I agree with this decision...to an extent. I think that "fair and balanced" is a deceitful doctrine, allowing those who present the opinions of Right Wing and EXTREME Right Wing to claim they have shown two sides to the issue. And it is also the screeching call of conservatives when they encounter a voice like that of Mother Jones, Z Magazine, Extra or The Progressive. We need to surrender the idea of journalistic OBJECTIVITY and move on. That said, if we are to allow things like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to survive, we do need to offer an (antidote?) alternative. Free Speech TV, for example, needs to be given one of our coveted broadcast licenses to replace ONE of the FOUR conservative networks that dominate our airwaves. I don't mind that Rush, or O'Reilly LIE on the air. What I mind is that there is no counter programming to be found with the same ease. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are the closest thing to reasonable reporting on the national news. Amy Goodman is brilliant with Democracy Now! but not so readily available as Comedy Central's fake news (which is much more accurate than the REAL news on television).
It is no surprise that Air America failed. They were trying to IMITATE the White Wing radio jocks whom we all know and hate. Interestingly, people on the LEFT are generally INTELLIGENT and not so much interested in the grumpy, insulting rants that dominate the Clear Channel airwaves, whether our slant or someone else's. Humor is great, but we have higher expectations than it appears talk radio can provide. Al Franken seemed to me to be trying to BE the Left Limbaugh instead of breaking new ground. Maybe such a thing was beyond his reach, but I doubt it. He's a clever guy. I just think Air America misunderstood what its audience was looking for. We want to be informed, above all things. We're not very patient with an hour of fluff. We have better things to do. We already know Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, a hypocrite, and a liar, so let's not dwell on it...unless you can make it REALLY FUNNY. The Daily Show and Colbert Report have shown there is a BIG left of Reagan audience, but we expect a lot. We expect intelligence, wit, and not so much talking about nothing. John Stuart Mill said, "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that all stupid people are conservative." Something like that, anyway. The point is, you can't imitate a model meant to draw in the conservatives and expect it to appeal to the progressives.
Fine. The House believes that we should have a biased presentation of the news with no dissenting opinion to balance it. I'll take that. But, then, we need to make a birthday gift of a network to Jon Stewart and company. We don't need Fox's "Fair and Balanced", we need an antidote to the corporate news and we need it available to the masses. We need a network where Amy Goodman is the anchor for the nightly news and Jon Stewart is the parody of the days events, for those of who can't always take the news straight. We need reporters who quit trying to be "objective" (which seems to mean reporting what two different people SAY, while not DIGGING to find out what they MEAN). Reporters are human beings with human insights and we should be privy to those. Permit Fox to ramble on, but the LEFT NEEDS A VENUE. Then you can let your liars and hypocrites prattle on all day long. We just need SOME WAY to counter the programming where LIES AND DECEIT are presented as OBJECTIVITY. Of course, it might add some credibility to the world if Rush were doing TIME for his drug offenses in the way that, say, an African American, or poor White folks in West Virginia would be. It would be JUSTICE if he were treated in the way he has preached we should treat OTHERS who have committed his crimes.
The Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys and O'Reilly's create a culture of HATE in America. It is dangerous and irresponsible, but I have no illusions that our government is interested in preventing class and racial hatred from smearing our airwaves. If Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and Clear Channel don't want to present any views of those but the Great White Wing of politics, I'm just saying, PULL one license and give it to an alternative, sane, truthful voice and THEN see what the public chooses. The Market can't decide if we limit ENTRY to the Market. Media is a monopoly. Open it up and then I will HAPPILY support the White Ring leaders in continuing their lunatic fringe coverage of the world.