EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congress Braces for Fight Over Fairness Doctrine
WASHINGTON - After conservative radio talk show hosts helped bury an immigration bill, Republican Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott complained that "talk radio is running America."
Lott suggested a remedy that immediately got talk-show hosts talking: He suggested bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, which would force broadcasters to provide more political balance on the nation's airwaves.
"It's absurd," said Mike Shanin, a self-described conservative radio talk show host in Kansas City, Mo.
Shanin said there's no doubt that liberals have been left behind in the world of talk radio and that it makes perfect economic sense: "Look, these are businesses, just like newspapers are businesses. If liberal talk worked, it would be on. It's been tried."
With their industry suddenly on the defensive, talk show hosts are trying to ward off any intervention from Congress.
Scott Parks, Shanin's co-host, said that reviving the Fairness Doctrine would "make radio extremely boring." He said it's clear that talk radio had a lot to do with pressuring members of Congress to vote against the immigration bill last month but that critics are overestimating its influence.
"Keep in mind it's not that (conservative talk hosts) Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity convinced millions and millions of Americans that this bill was bad," Parks said. "These people most likely didn't like this bill to begin with and it was listening to Rush and whomever that spawned them into action."
Talk radio contains 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive or liberal talk, according to a study released last month by The Center for American Progress, a research and educational institute that works for "progressive and pragmatic solutions," and Free Press, a group that focuses on media competitiveness.
The report, called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," found that of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial stations, 91 percent of the talk was conservative, while 9 percent was progressive. Ninety-two percent of the stations did not broadcast a single minute of progressive talk, according to the study.
Those numbers are providing ammunition for critics.
"Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way," California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on a recent Sunday television talk show.
Shanin, who worked in radio when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, said he believes it resulted in less political debate because so many station owners didn't want to bother with its requirements.
"Smaller radio stations - and they are in the vast majority in this country - chose to not address many controversial issues, because they did not want to go through the hassle of trying to find the proponents and the opponents and people of other points of view," he said.
The talk show hosts have found plenty of friends in Washington.
Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine "ought to be dead on arrival."
"Some Democrats may not like talk radio, but that does not give them the right to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it," he said.
No one has yet introduced legislation to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. But before Congress left town for its weeklong July 4 break, the House passed an amendment to a federal spending bill that would block all funding for implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. And separate bills were introduced in both the House and Senate that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating it.
Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, one of the House co-sponsors, said the Fairness Doctrine would "effectively and dangerously mandate what can and cannot be said."
Another House co-sponsor, Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida, called it "a left-wing idea that only the likes of self-proclaimed communist Hugo Chavez could love."
"Just as we've seen the systematic elimination of a free and independent media in Chavez's Venezuela, some Democrats in Congress want to impose their own type of `check' on our free and independent media in the Untied States," he said.
The doctrine was repealed in 1987, giving station owners the right to fill their programming with political content as they see fit.
Conservative talk show hosts point to the recent failure of Air America as evidence that liberal talk radio doesn't sell with the public.
And Shanin said that, unlike the old days when the Fairness Doctrine was deemed necessary, the public now has access to a broad array of choices to get other political views, including the Internet, cable television, satellite radio and newspapers.
"If somebody is interested in finding an opposing point of view or something different than a talk show host on some radio station, they'd have to be an idiot not to be able to find it," he said.
2007 McClatchy Newspapers
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
31 Comments so far
Show AllThe rise of the RiechWing bloviators has been a major factor in our current troubles, the disinformation the the Rushs and Hannitys spew forth has poisoned the discourse and made wacko candidates viable. That said, the Fairness Doctrine is a two edged sword. It does quell political discussion to some extent and it's very hard to determine what balance is. Exhibit A: FUX News, "Fair and Balanced" because they bring on some dopey "Librul" to basicly reinforce the WingNut at the top of the bill.
Far more effective and liberating would be to break up the massive Media Conglomerates that dominate print, radio and Tv. Their deep reach and huge budgets make it possible to blanket the country with a Bile O'Really while Amy Goodman is barely heard (and as for the market forces being Air America's downfall. Bullsh!t. FUX and Clearchannel blackmailed advertisers into shunning the network or risk losing market access). The seven or eight giants that rule this industry are owned and operated by hardcore conservatives like Murdoch and Corporations that also produce military hardware, like GE.
Rather than specify what content the outlets carry, it would be better for us all if those outlets were fractured, the Industry owned by thousands of independent and small networks rather than a few Bigfoots.
Brought to you by...
Money talks, and it says: "Access to information on the direction of this country is not necessary for voters to choose said direction." and... "Only rich people should be allowed to speak."
Seriously, access to information and access to media are fundamental human rights.
State vanguards are no better that money at talking. So I'd say that money IS the problem, but the fairness doctrine is NOT the solution. The core problem is that money needs to become democratically administered and based on labor and printed by the labor unions.
Similarly, a new competing media needs to emerge that is cooperative and democratically administered.
Trent Lott is beyond the pale. He's been perfectly OK all these years while conservative talk radio has helped the conservative movement, but the minute it works against him, he wants the Fairness Doctrine back.
Typical conservative hypocrite.
I remember when we had the fairness doctrine. They at least had to put up a show of fairness. They never had any real liberals on, but they did have to have someone on who at least mouthed some positions for the other side. The whole world did not go to hell in a handbasket during all of those years. It worked pretty good. Rush Limbaugh and others said (and many people believed) that if you had the fairness doctrine preachers who preached against homosexuality as a sin would have to give homosexuals "equal access" which was a lot of hooey because preachers were always exempted from the Fairness Doctrine--oh but that didn't stop talk radio from using that as a scare technique for all the good old boys. I actually had this argument with people when they were debating the Doctrine the last time. They also talked about it as though it were something new and crazy that the liberals had unleashed on the world--I couldn't convince them that the doctrine had been around for decades. Conservative radio misleads really well.
It was also pretty funny to see Trent Lott sue his insurance company when it refused to pay off after Katrina. All of a sudden, Lott, who had preached and preached about frivolous lawsuits and tried to limit other people's access to court, determined that his wasn't so frivolous. His brother in law, who is a lawyer and a democrat, represented Lott and had a pretty good laugh over the whole thing. You file silly lawsuits, I file genuine ones: thou art stubborn while I am decisive...etc.
The airwaves belong to us and we should be able to have some variety and diversity that reflects a spectrum of views other than that whichs corporate America deems in their best interests. So, yeah, it threatens them that they could lose control or be forced to compete--rather than take for granted that they control the message.
What can you expect from the Right? But it is the Democrats who voted against the Fairness Doctrine that should be of a concern. Some of these ambitious young Turk congressman who lucked out in the recent Democratic sweep of Congress should be held to account. Like Israel-booster Patrick Murphy, Iraqi vet who claims to be against the war until you read the fine print--who also is banging the drum for Iran, while pandering to Israel. He voted against the fairness doctrine.
Trent Lott, Trent Lott,
Look at him, does he not?
Look every inch bought and paid,
A deceitful mouthpiece unafraid,
To do or say whatever "they" please,
Any and all who will pay his fee
Capable of every known,
Or imaginable position,
Mississippi good ol' boy,
Carrying on the tradition,
Seeking to please,
Every live-long day,
All the lucky "Johns"
Who line up to pay!
in Rwanda, the genocide was incited and driven by the government controlled radio.
In Venusuela, the US backed coup was directed by opposition TV and radio
Its all very similar to US righty radio, calling their opponents subhumans and cochroaches..its a small step from squareheaded Hannitty's psycotic ramblings, to a general call to get out the machettes and start hacking.
The PEOPLE own the airwaves, and ALLOW the corporate media to use them. Time to take them back if they wont use them fairly.
The corporations own both government and media in the USA, making it difficult for the PEOPLE to be heard
Did I miss something?
Since when is Trent Lott a Democrat, Jon Kyl, you imbecile!
I wish people had longer memories.
Starting with the cold war atomic bomb threat over our head days. The prospect of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) kept both sides from striking the first blow because is would have been ...madness! Then the September 11 CRIMES (not acts of war, for they are by definition "a strife or conflict between NATIONS.") happened, and my stupid senator wrote an op ed piece saying he wanted us to attack someone, or anyone with a nuclear device. No one remembered that, or cared, when election time rolled around ~3 years later.
Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine "ought to be dead on arrival."
"Some Democrats may not like talk radio, but that does not give them the right to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it," he said.
And now he is saying that Trent Lott is a Democrat?!! Aaaaarrrrrgghhhh! This place is insane! Stop the world I want to get off! Who believes these stupid, stupid people?!!
I suppose if you have no ideas that the American people want to listen to, censorship is a good alternative. And, endless blatherings of "AmeriKKKa sucks", "I wish I was not born in this country", "Hugh Chavez is God", etc etc are not really the ideas America wants to listen to.
The problem is deeper than a Fairness Doctrine. When 5 corporations own 257 outlets, then we have a problem! Let's break up the big conglomerates and give competition a chance on "our airwaves." Fairness will balance itself on its own.
The Fairness Doctrine said simply, "you have to give time to opposing viewpoints even if they can't pay for it". Its abolition allowed Rush (and his ilk, even Fox News) to say whatever he wants, because they don't have to let anyone call him on it. In fact, you can't even call into his show to call him on it; his screener won't let you. So where's the "free speech" here? Speech is free to anyone who owns a radio or TV network?
And the Doctrine applied to television, too. Newspapers have always printed opposing viewpoints, whether in essay form or as letters.
The Fairness Doctrine only provides time for different opinions and some care with what you call facts. Right wing nuts just make up 'truthiness' items.
People on the public airwaves are entitled to opinions but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.
Each frequency and location of operation is protected by the full force of the government. Bandwidth is a cash machine. Requiring some level of fair play and public service is a very small price too pay.
We will know the rules go to far if large blocks of the airwaves go unused.
"Its abolition allowed Rush (and his ilk, even Fox News) to say whatever he wants"
Yeah, thats called Freedom of Speech. You may have heard about it, it is in the constitution, first ammendment. You may not like it, but there it is.
Thankfully, even under Bush, YOU can also say whatever you want.
What this is really about, of course, is not "fairness", it is about shutting down Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Because as I mentioned above, when your only ideas are a bunch of hate AmeriKKKa screeds, and no one pays attention, censoring your opponents becomes a viable alternative.
BUT, IT DOES NOT MATTER.
In 1985, the unfairness doctrine kept conservative voices off the radio. It will not do so today. Bring it back, by all means. (And apply it to NPR too) Fox News is on Cable TV, and it does not apply to Cable. Rush will do one of several things. Either move to satelite radio (XM and Sirius are PRAYING for a return of the unfairness doctrine, because it will give them all the popular talk hosts...) broadcast over the internet, or move to Digital FM and give the losers their own channel at the same time as Rush, a channel no one will listen to....
I particularly enjoyed the image created by Scott Parks' statement:
"These people most likely didn't like this bill to begin with and it was listening to Rush and whomever that SPAWNED them into action."
It left visions of salmon migrating up past the dams in the Pacific Northwest on their way to mating and dying. That's basically the same thing reich-wingers do: Leave all rationality behind and buck the headwinds of common sense on a mad dash to mass suicide.
My contribution to Lott's memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trent_Lott&diff=90355278&oldid=90279506
Fairness? From CorpCo? Faux having 50% or more true progressive guests? CNN not licking the military-industrial-junkfood complex's boots?
The corporate media won't do anything not in its own short term interest, unless forced. Do you think they'd air a free and open debate to reform campaign contribution limits, which go right into their eager little hands?
Get real, folx.
All we'll get out of a born-again Fairness Doctrine is a "balanced" discussion of whether or not liberals get most of their financial support from terrorists.
Fairness on the Airways is and has always been an illusion. In the current atmosphere
of smoke and mirrors more so than ever. Those
who listen to the spew of the "rightous right"
mouthpieces are heard by those who have no interest in truth or justice or for that matter any opinion other than their own.
Let them babble and regurgitate as they will.
If you desire fairness follow the three rules
that have always worked to support truth.
1. Turn off what ever media is carring the
bilge.
2. Note the advertizers who are paying for the minutes and send them a message that you will not buy their products and follow through with action. DO NOT BUY THEM!!!
3. Tell 24 others of your action and your
reasons and encourge them to think and act on their own.
Unless you choose to get out of the cesspool you are just more of the same S***.
Join me on the high ground where the silence
really is GOLDEN. RL Pete Housman St Louis Mo
I submit that Lott is merely saying this to elevate the "Fairness Doctrine" debate beyond "straw-man" status and to hold it against Democrats in the run-up to the '08 election.
History is always important when discussing the Fairness Doctrine; otherwise, folks such as Sen. Kyl and Rep. Mack can distort reality--lie--and no one calls them on it. Well, I'm calling them liars: The Fairness Doctrine already has passed Constitutional muster (of course the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts has proven what it really thinks of precedent).
From 1949 until 1987, the Federal Communications Commission required radio and TV stations using public airwaves to broadcast all sides of important or controversial issues and to give equal time to all political candidates. The Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in 1969, in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. But in 1986 a federal appeals court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was policy, not law, and the FCC could axe it without congressional approval. Congress responded by passing legislation to establish the doctrine as law—with even conservative Republicans Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms voting in favor of the bill. However, President Reagan vetoed the bill as part of a broader deregulation effort, and Congress did not override the veto (www.fairnessdoctrine.com/history/).
Coincidentally, or not, Rush Limbaugh launched his radio talk show, coast-to-coast, just one year later, according to a biography appearing on the Web site for Huntsville, AL, radio station 770 WVNN. Congress tried to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1993, says Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), but the effort failed, largely because of Limbaugh's claim that Congress was trying to muzzle him with its "Hush Rush" law.
I am a firm believer in free speech. But, the talk radio icon's have been almost exclusively responsible for spreading a level of hate in this country that is unparalleled. I don't think I have ever witnessed a level of venom that deliberately generated by these people. They spew right wing lie's daily and have dumbed part of the country down to the point of being nothing but a flock of sheep. They spout the same tired old set of lie's these people do and have lost the ability to even think for themselves. In this effort the neocon's have been successful. They still have people who think Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and there were WMD's in Iraq. Sadly enough, there is no telling them any different. It is almost ironic that one of the Republican party's stalwart followers would ever admit that talk shows are running the country! That getting rid of the fairness doctrine was a mistake. We all have Ronald Reagan to thank for getting rid of the fairness doctrine. It's been a downhill slide ever since. These people can say whatever they feel like saying and never have to defend where they got their facts or people hear another opinion.
The entire approach the FCC takes to carving up portions of the electromagnetic spectrum for radio and TV is fundamentally flawed.
We should be building a system that treats the entire EM spectrum as one big broadband data pipe.
If this was the case we could all select a broadband provider and then in car radios/TVs, in home computers, TVs, radios, cellphones, etc, would all use your broadband provider for access to the internet where you could view an almost infinite number of radio and TV channel streams.
Then 5 corporations couldn't control the radio airwaves. Sure, they would continue to broadcast their content over the net and they would have listeners but consumers would have far more choices. We could decide to listen to other stations and they would be available to listen to because access to internet broadcasting isn't limited like getting a radio broadcaster's license.
This is where the FCC needs to go and we the people need to force them to go there because they won't go willingly. We all know money and corporations own our government and corporations like having monopolies, less competition is better for them but it is worse for us.
A grassroots open EM spectrum organization needs to be formed to take back our airwaves and remove the existing license system and institute a new broadband data access system with long range, high download, and most importantly high upload speed so that we all can join in contributing to our culture and political system.
I was just scanning the Fairness Doctrine on Wikipedia and noticed one very important aspect - SCARCITY of airwaves was a deciding feature for the Fairness Doctrine.
I believe it is important that access to ideas should be unlimited regardless of the monetary value or popularity of said ideas. (That is the greatest worth of libraries and net neutral internet.) The owned airwaves and other monopolies by "fair market" advocates are a ruse used to promote that their ideas are superior.
I couldn't listen to Air America because it wasn't on the public radio waves I could get in my car or in my kitchen. I had to sit at a computer desk (which as a mother of 3 I can't do for long periods of time). My access to it was limited because the corporate-owned radio wouldn't carry it.
Let's face it - money rules in this country. Not democracy or liberty or justice.
Although we need far, far more government regulation of the MSM than the Fairness Doctrine, it is clearly an improvement over the current hate radio situation we have going on. That so many democrats were against bringing it back even while it's 91% republican says quite a bit about democrats. We had the Doctrine for a long time and it clearly worked better than what we have now....
As I keep mentioning, if you can't beat your opponents in the arena of ideas, and the fact that Air America is bankrupt should tell you something, I guess it is the regressive thing to just censor them. Fortunately, with satelite radio and digital FM, it won't work.
just a little history reminder; the Fairness Doctrine was put into effect in response to Nazi Germanys one line propaganda machinations, bringing about an entire populations cooperation in genocide, We the people, need to remember, THE #1 DEFENSE IN A DEMOCRACY IS AN INFORMED AND EDUCATED PUBLIC
Just becuse liberal intellectuals won't demean themselves to blather dosen't mean people arn't aware of the ass magnitude of Lush Bimbo and his ilk,,,Government control in a democrac is diffrant than control by the bundleing of the sticks of corprate, and governing sellouts, Fascie, ie fascism, as it has been lately changed inthe dictionarys, is the con
Taking people off the air (which is what this is really about) whom you do not agree with is no way to either inform or educate the public. Have faith in your fellow Americans; they are intelligent enough to make their own informed decisions.
So most conservatives believe political advocates on publicly owned airwaves can only be justified in the context of a commercial venture. Vote with your dollars ... how convenient a system for these corporate shills.
Powerslave, your argument that the fairness doctrine is an attempt to take people off the air is nonsense. People with money own our radio and TV stations now--censorship is what we have NOW! Murdoch, who owns Fox, has made no bones about his view. He was pro-war and he did everything to push that war and push the buttons of the American people to lead them into war. Thus, for people who want to be slaves of the power structure (such as yourself) he puts up flags in the back drop, has all of his reporters wearing little U.S. flags, and repeats "fair and balanced" over and over in a hypnotic way so that powerslaves will go on salivating. Rush repeats the same old mantra that the pro-war crowd spouted about Vietnam: "we have to fight them over there or we will have to fight them over here." And, I love this one, "we have to train them to run their own government; to fight their own war and then we can leave." It worked pretty good on 'Nam for a while, so they've brushed it off and use it again about Iraq--deja vu all over again, as they say. Yet the powerslaves bleat and follow the Judas goat as it leads them off to slaughter. It is not "I hate AMERIKKA," dumbass. It's I hate the lying, pieces of crap that pass themselves off as "conservative" who are taking the country which I do love, down the road to destruction while at the same time enriching themselves on fat defense contracts. It should be illegal for anyone spouting pro-war crap to make money off of building and dropping bombs on people. Oh yeah, and Haliburton has the contracts for feeding slop to our soldiers--mercenary companies are getting filthy rich off of Pentagon contracts. But being a "powerslave" maybe you are one of those masochist who likes to bend over and take it. You like to be lied to and beaten up. Some of say "holy f*cking s*hit" we don't like it a little bit. Go back to your closet powerslave and beat yourself--quit whining that people want to take your boy, Rush, off the air. Actually, he has lost a lot of his audience lately as the American people are finally wising up. Fairness doctrine or not, Rush will continue to receive his propaganda fees from his corporate masters--regardless of whether or not he has an audience.
wow holymoly, where did you learn to debate, in the cathouse you were brought up in? Why don't you try to make Air America something more than "whine about how America sucks" radio, and people might listen to it too.
"Let me get this straight...Talk Radio is "running" America? You thimble skulled republi-crat buffoon! It is AMERICA who keep Rush, Sean, Mark and the other TRUE public servants flourishing. Those of us who are not "Hegelian-Dialectic"
automatons. We who bother to circumvent the public mis-edu-manipulation system and go straight to the founding documents and the words and thoughts of the men and women who LIVED the birth of AMERICA to find out the UN-REVISED (true) version of the history of MY nation. This craven little illegal (until he produces a BIRTH CERTIFICATE)is moving full bore to repeal the rights I was CREATED (not a "bundle" I was "born" with), and he may well make good progress...but at some point he (like you) will overstep his bounds. The Amendments to the Constitution are not changes to it, but rather expositions of it: government "gives" me no rights - therefore government SHALL NOT TAKE nor impinge those rights. Talk radio is part and parcel of the EDUCATION (rather than indoctrination) of whoever wishes to listen.