Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Going Backwards: FCC Kills Off Fairness Doctrine
The FCC gave the coup de grace to the fairness doctrine Monday as the commission axed more than 80 media industry rules.
Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule, but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license.
While the commission voted in 1987 to do away with the rule — a legacy to a time when broadcasting was a much more dominant voice than it is today — the language implementing it was never removed. The move Monday, once published in the federal register, effectively erases the rule.
Monday’s move is part of the commission’s response to a White House executive order directing a “government-wide review of regulations already on the books” designed to eliminate unnecessary regulations.
Also consigned to the regulatory dustbin are the “broadcast flag” digital copy protection rule that was struck down by the courts and the cable programming service tier rate. Altogether, the agency tossed 83 rules and regs.
Genachowski said in a statement that the move was aimed at promoting “a healthy climate for private investment and job creation.” Both the Obama administration and the FCC have come under criticism by business groups over laws and regulations such as health care reform and net neutrality rules.
63 Comments so far
Show AllWho cares? When broadcasting/the media specifically, the Washington Post, reported that Michel Bachmann came in first in Iowa and Pawlenty came in third, the Washington Post liquidated second place---Ron Paul---from its rhetoric by not mentioning him at all. When broadcasters/media want me to help them, in this case, I say you get what you deserve from your wonderful government!
Ron who ?
The mainstream media's mission is to promote pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans by marginalizing, ostracizing, demonizing, and ignoring any candidate or incumbant who is not gunning 100% for corporate interests.
EXACTLY!
That's it! I am officially an Old Fart now that I can say, "You young kids have no idea what we've lost."
If a T.V. network pulled that crap back when I was young, you could have written them a letter, saying you wanted to go on the air to refute what they said,. If they didn't give you (or somebody with your same message) 30 seconds of air time in the same time slot as the show you disagreed with, you could write the FCC, and they could lose their license. People used to do it. I remember seeing them all the time. It was like letters to the editor, but on T.V. It was real people, setting the record straight any time the T.V. news tried to hide or distort the truth.
That is what they stopped enforcing in 1987, and that is what they officially laid to rest today.
Oh really?
"...regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view."
I rarely if ever heard my point of view on the airwaves. I guess I just don't follow "controversial" issues ...
I don't know about the other 79 rules that were discarded, but that one meant zilch ...
...Like the article said, what they did today is just a formality. They stopped enforcing the fairness doctrine almost twenty five years ago. I remember T.V. back in the 1970s, and it was _different_
They called Walter Cronkite "the most trusted man in America." There's a reason for that. If he slipped up, you could expect to see a rebuttal in a 30 or 60 second slot at the end of the following evening's news. Some ordinary citizen from your own home town would be allowed to go on the air to set the record straight. That was the Fairness Doctrine in action. If people applied, and the local T.V. station did not pick one of them, the people could sue, and the T.V. station could lose its license.
So, the Feds have stolen the People's Airwaves for corporate plunder.
It's long past time for a bloody revolution.
Or a peaceful revolution..
the "Fairness Doctrine" along with limitations on advertisement's portion of hourly broadcasts has been Dead in terms of enforcement since 1987 as mentioned, and
further dead in terms of enforcement when neo-liberal Clinton made a deal with
Rupert Murdoch and Fox News to do away with the limits on local broadcasters'
ownership.
Of course it COULD have been dusted off and revived if Obama was serious about true progressive reform and democratic access to the Media but, as in all other
ares, Obama and his Administration prove themselves to be neoliberal Corporatists to the max...
Unknown to most on the left wiping the Fairness Doctrine off the books was perhaps the top priority of the corporatocracy.-----
The ability to control the message, and thus the public mind, is the greatest weapon of the fascist.-----
There is still no other medium, even in this day of the internet, to reach tens of millions of Americans with a single scripted message hour after hour, day after day for weeks on end than through the public airwaves of free television and terrestrial radio.-----
With the public now officially denied access from the airwaves it owns the gullible masses are sitting ducks for unlimited pro-war, pro-free market, pro-two tier justice, pro wall street propaganda.-----
Obama college buddy and current FCC head Julius Genachowski freely admitted opposing the Fairness Doctrine prior to appointment. Yet almost nobody paid attention to the person who now holds a position certainly as powerful as a Supreme Court Justice.-----
Genachowski has now begun implementation of a stealth plan to erode net neutrality by allowing the providers to "self regulate". Thus the curtain is slowly coming down on what will surely be remembered as the golden days of the internet.-----
What should've been the First Amendment fight of our times has ended with a whimper. Being thrown off the public airwaves is no different than being thrown out of your public town square for exercising your free speech rights.---
In fact, if you turn on your radio right now you can still hear the echoes: Iraq had WMD, tax cuts spur growth, globalism creates jobs, handing over trillions to wall street saved the economy and the Earth is cooling.-----
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
Well Stated and what I really wanted to say but couldn't quite find the words...
I believe 2 of those fcc clowns are obummers nominations.........And note the 'based on white house orders' ...........
The only power a government has over corporations is to regulate them. The corporations don't want to be regulated. I do not believe for a minute that getting rid of these rules is in our (The common people's) good interest.
This is just making sure all the doors and windows are closed and locked. Fascism requires a closed and controlled enviornment. Don't know how long the total transiition takes. Tony
It hasn't been enforced in years. I can hardly think that most corporate people cared as long as no one brought it back and it is as likely to come back today as it was yesterday or the day before. Basically, it is gone for ever.
On the other hand is it really important? No one wants balanced reporting anyway, we all self select the spin flavor that agrees with what *WE* think. That applies to people here as much as tobacco-chewin, nascar watchin, gun shootin rednecks. Who wants to hear about Global Warming as a hoax or creationism or *rights* of illegal immigrants.
We now have more information that we can eat from a thousand different sources. We all self select what we consume and only consume what we like or like to argue with. There is no public debate on issues or ideas any more. The Fairness Doctrine is from a time past when the body politic had compromise as a trait. That is all gone now.
Let them publish what they want and the messages that succeed are the messages that people want to consume.
Sure, John... all voices are out there equally represented. Your attempt at honoring diversity is just a grotesque apology for the status quo. Read Cygnus' post.. he has been a consistent voice of Truth on this very important subject for some time. Yours, in contrast, is a smear job, or otherwise represents an irresponsible obfuscation. Were news fair and balanced, were all voices represented on the MAIN channels.. .not just Balkanized (like this site) to some tiny portion of the Internet, so that EVERYONE truly got to hear those points of view that genuinely challenged the corporate narratives, then, and only then, could your glib dismissal of this selling out of THE PEOPLE'S airwaves, be taken for a sane, fair or principled position.
John Shade's response is pro forma. If free television and terrestrial radio no longer matter then the owners shouldn't mind giving back to the public some of the thousands of stolen stations and millions of hijacked broadcast hours.-----
The sad fact is that the great masses of the American population are not politically savvy. Few could accurately describe any of the major, constitution altering legislation that's been passed in the last decade: The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the FISA laws.-----
This hasn't happened by accident. The major centers of information have been consolidated via legislative excrement such as Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act and various votes taken by the FCC expanding vertical ownership.
When they turn on their t.v or radio Joe and Jane Sixpack (again, most of the country) believes they're getting viable information. Unfortunately, they're sitting ducks for the skilled propagandists who lead them into believing false realities as simply and easily as an adult coaxing candy from a baby.-----
The information existed that Iraq didn't have WMD. I found it online, quickly, with a dial up internet connection, no less. So why didn't the rest of the country also know the truth John? Could it have anything to do with the Too Big and Already Failed Media repeating the "Mushroom Cloud" lie ENDLESSLY on every AM radio station in the country? Could that have possibly played a key role in selling the Iraq war?-----
The news should be sacred. Like the flow of a lake or the cleanliness of the air. This requires that the medium the news travels through, the public airwaves, also be sacred. Information is the lifeblood of democracy. It's not a product to "consume" as John Shade and Julius Genachowski want us to believe.-----
When news becomes a for-profit product to "consume" the only possible outcome is that'll be used as a weapon to accrete more power and wealth to those who control it...at the expense of everyone else.
Souxie. You're simply wrong.
People are not interested in debate or ideas. We don't read or listen or watch things that change our minds, we only use what we see to either prove our points or prove the existence of a mammoth conspiracy to sidetrack our side.
You personally are a symptom of this problem and have been for years. You deny every piece of information that violates your world view and accept with rejoicing anything that supports it.... In short, you are human and like everyone else when it comes to this subject.
Your claim that a *fairness doctrine* would change the debate is simply infantile. Give me ONE case of presenting Darwinism to a Creationist that converted the Creationist. There is none. In the rather famous outing of the idiots in Dover, Penn (?) who had creationism added to text books, after all the court cases and REAMS and PILES of facts presented to them and a federal judgement placed against them, they continue to maintain they were right.
Look at the tea party and the budget ceiling. They would not listen to any rational argument. However from their standpoint, the Democrats and the Republicans didn't listen to *their* arguments, hence it was a "stonewall".
Another great example is Progressive101 who, everytime there is an article about Israel, posts his 11 points of Hasbra or whatever so that anyone that disagrees with him or presents any other fact is simply a Hasbarist.
Think about that... any dissenting opinion is part of a plot. Does that remind you of anyone? Seriously? None of us here care about objective fact only subjective fact and we only care about the subjective facts that validate our opinion.
No. A fairness doctrine is silly and would cause people to simply self select to another station or to use the arguments presented to either validate their dismissal of the other side or worse would serve as evidence of a plot.
If you have ideas that sell, then people will buy them (listen to them) if you don't then they won't. Air America vs. Rush Limbaugh. CurrentTV vs. FOX (or any of them).
Fairness doctrine is only a grasp at a straw to get out a Progressive view that no one wants to hear. Of course it would be good for us, but not because it is *fair* as in what people want to see, but because it would artificially insert our message into the market of ideas.
Your points are intentionally misleading. The great masses of the country are not fundamentalists like Tea Partiers. And most political issues are not religious issues. When presented with factual information, I believe, the majority of the country will demand action in their best interest. One rather large example from the countless many... If Iraq war critics such as Scott Ritter (among others) were granted equal access to the airwaves to dispel the WMD lies do you not think this could've slowed down or halted the march to war? Do you not believe that if the people of this country heard an equal amount of opposing voices describing the likelihood of a multi-year war, thousands of potential dead and potentially trillions in costs they could've applied a more appropriate amount of pressure to change or challenge the neocon's plans? There's simply no case to be made, none whatsoever, that all public viewpoints not be allowed access to the public airwaves especially when the government is quickly trying to march us off to war with dubious claims.
I am interested in debate and ideas, particularly debate and ideas related to a functioning government in an incresinly complex world. So I am your "black Swan" that challenges you entire posting after the first sentence.
I remember Fairness Doctrine in force in broadcasting. It's presence meant the Rush Limbaughs knew they could be challenged. What this did, strangely enough, was to cause the stations to cut back on *both* sides, and play music. So we had less dedication of media to political screaming all around. What we get now is dedicated propaganda outlets, especially on AM radio. Is that better?
They're not gonna hear you, JS. And thus proving your very point.
The "market of ideas" is a dangerous concept / trend - reduces news to consumerist tribalism.
Hello John,
I agree with you on almost every point.
Human nature just seems to work in a way that our beliefs are or become our religion.
Even when we claim to be listening what we are really doing is preparing to respond; not seeking to understand.
What I find a disgusting part of human nature and I see equally on left and right media outlets is the intolerance to differing opinions.
Opposing views are seen as needing to be wiped out, destroyed, beaten back, shut out or killed.
Most claim to want democracy, but with theocratic views and laws.
And that applies equally to our enlightened elected officials who I believe claimed to initiate the fairness doctrine to solicit and give outlet to diverse opinions, while with their actions set up election rules to effectively destroy any realistic possibility of a nationally viable third party movement.
"Fairness doctrine is only a grasp at a straw to get out a Progressive view that no one wants to hear."
I'm old enough to remember when the situation was reversed, and it was the conservative view that was not wanted by most, and the rightists were the ones who saw sinister "plots" to stifle their views, by "Rockefellers" and "Communists". The conservatives got that reversed, largely because of backlash over the civil rights acts, and the antiwar demonstrations of the 1960's, plus their ability to get their word out using things like Fairness Doctrine to see that their alternative was at least heard. There's your "one case" of changed opinions you asked for.
Once conservatives got things reversed, they attempted to seal the deck to prevent further change. That's neither conservative nor free market (small, independent stations are purchased by huge monopolies). Your defense of that is unconvincing and circular, largely because you believe people don't change, and that they won't ever listen to new views. But they have in the past.
You are so wrong..
The Fairness doctrine is about having A diversity of thoughts, facts and opinion....
Without A "fairness Doctrine" the moneyed elite can play every Orwellian trick in the book on Americans that are uneducated and incapable of critical thinking..
It has been proven over and over that when you repeat A lie often enough people begin to believe it the truth..Just look at how Fox News sold us the Afghanistan/Iraqi war predicated on the bullshit Collin Powell presented to the U.N. along with Bush's and Cheney's constant seemingly macho lets go get them terrorist's bullshit...That U.N. weapons Inspector that kept telling us there were no weapons of mass destruction was imprinted into peoples minds as A traitor, along with the Dixie Chicks and anyone else who showed conviction...With A fairness doctrine, we would have been able to hear more of both sides of the argument.
Just watch Democracy Now sometime and compare it to MSM...All there is on the alledged liberal media now is coverage of all of the wacko, bat shit Republicans and how badly they are treating poor little Obama...
I get my News from the Internet mainly but I am without work now and have the time....
Hello Siouxrose,
Questions, in your world, does one government own "THE PEOPLE'S airwaves" as undeniably there are many many accessible global transmissions taking place concurrently from sources around the world? If so which one? If not, in your ideal, can a progressive claim fairness doctrine violation and demand equal time for comments pumped into her home from foreign media/news sources? If not why?
Are incoming signals from foreign media/news sources that do not comply with a country's fairness doctrine laws a violation of airspace? If so should it lead to a declaration of war? If not should it be illegal for the citizenry to access all non compliant media?
And I can see you are exceptionally open to opinions which differ from yours; "Yours, in contrast, is a smear job, or otherwise represents an irresponsible obfuscation." I can honestly see you believing that a theocratic democracy constitutes diversity.
I do not believe that your comment is an apology, smear-job, or obfuscation. You astutely observed that the FD hasn't been operating at all for at least 20 years now. I agree with your comment that, because of all the news sources available to the individual, s/he will likely choose to pay attention to the ones s/he agrees with. (This habit has actually been proven by research.) (The reader as consumer of news products) And I detect a note of despair in your comment about the outcome or the chance for improvement. I don't often agree with you, but this time, I do. It's sad and pitiful to see America swirling down the drain like this.
Without a Fairness Doctrine that requires equal time even when the opposing views don't have money to buy time, the only course left for fair politics is to require public campaign financing. That's a poor substitute for the Fairness Doctrine, because public financing is unlikely to be offered to smaller fringe parties and candidates as easily as a Fairness Doctrine rule might apply.
There really isn't much "democracy" left in the corrupted American system. Such a system has no right to expect to survive in a just world ...
The FCC could do more to put a stop to corprotocracy and fascism that almost any other group or organization. If the would just make a rule that the "information" requirement for license renewal included providing free time to all candidates in all elections who are officially registered to present their ideas and ruling that it is no longer permissible to charge for political advertising.
In other words, rule that the only permissible political advertising is that which is free and made equally available to all registered candidates.
This would be possible.
Sorry, but the FCC is beholding to the corprotocracy. As my senator informed me several years ago when I wrote about reinstating the 'fairness doctrine', his reply was that 'it would interfere with the revenues of the (essentiallly) M$M. I still can't get over that and I still can't get him voted out of office, because the M$M WANTS him in his seat to protect them.
That was then and it is now also. I had no idea the wording had not been erased. Now we have to or should I say that now the M$M's dumbstream garden has the one viewpoint they are expected to use as a source of information and to take it as 'just the facts, ma'am'.
Fuck 'em. Get our news online from elsewhere
Exactly! Make your own Funking headlines. We choose and make our own headlines everyday! We don't need them, this, that or you or myself. Choose your own headlines. Kill your television and this Funking computer and be free.
Except that you live in a society where 99% of the citizens ARE programmed by these media messages, and therefore the indoctrination DIRECTLY influences culture, mores, rules, and the state of the nation. ---------------------------------------------------
I turned my TV off 5 years ago... do you think that changes the nation?------------------------
Another "it's all just about me, and what I do" libertarian view of a complex and highly important situation. And for those who say the Fairness Doctrine was compromised some time ago, yes and no. Just like the analogy of the frog left in SLOWLY boiling water, it's been a gradual accommodation process to that which no free society should EVER tolerate... and then idiots show up on this thread to conflate these control devices aimed at very real efforts to use propaganda in place of genuine citizen consent, with the idea of freedom? Unbelievable... it should be obvious who they work for.
Any deregulation in any aspect of government over sight is a bad turn. I agree whole heartedly. The corporations will just take more! But my message to people on this website is too go make your own changes. Stopped getting caught up who is right or wrong and look what they're doing to us now!, save your precious energy for the real battles. Battles within and out.
Yes I do believe to rescind television use does change this nation/world. I've seen it many times. People become more alive. They're outside more planting gardens, flowers, talking to their neighbors and getting active in the community.
Most people that I know that are progressively trying to make changes against whatever dastardly deeds of choice, does not own a television.
I agree that you have to be informed, but you also have to be open to other's views. There is too much dog fighting in these comment sections. Not just on CommonDreams, any and all. It is caused by the most malicious disease known to humankind: the disease of being RIGHT!
Until each of us reach deeply within and change that two year old mentality, we may have no hope. That all sounds fluffy and all, but it does work.
I guess having balance is the key. I don't know, just my opinion.
Good points, all-But the reality is that the majority of Americans form their opinions of political candidates from Televised News...And that is A sorry assed shame but that is the beast we are dealing with.
Since Citizens United, the subliminal, mind altering, produced "Cells of thought" people will be bombarded with will be so upscale, state of the art, deceptive mind control shit you have ever witnessed...
Have you ever watched "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" or "Rich Media, Poor Democracy"????
That little fat guy that works for the republicans, the guy that studied televisions effects on people and is some sort of campaign manager gave A demonstration on how they formed thoughts in unsuspecting peoples minds-He used Tide soap as an example, planting words in peoples minds, and it was freaky...Most American voters are not in the same league as those on this CD site- If they were we could get A real Human Being elected....
The Fairness Doctrine being eliminated is HUGE, HUGE,HUGE...That piece of shit Reagan knew this and so did every scumbag President since...This is the near equivalent of Citizens United and the Patriot Act combined when it comes to CONTROL....MIND CONTROL...
I know, I know! That is why I believe walking away from this technological brain washing is best for all. If you're not standing in front of the shit, you don't get shit stuck in your head. Maybe? I don't know.
Thanks for "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" or "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" I will check them out.
You won't be disapointed with either of these Docs.-especially with "Orwell Rolls in His Grave"-
"Free Documentarys" even lets you download them....
And yes,I totally agree, watching that T.V. is about the worse way one could spend their day...
Weird, On Free docs Orwell's running time is 106 minutes. On youtube it is 3hrs long! What is the difference?
The verison I downloaded was 143minutes and 40 seconds, and was the same version/length of the film I watched on LINK TV...I looked up the link for you below:
http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=87
I am glad that you are showing the interest in this film, and even though it is A few
years old it hits you like A ton of bricks as being so revealing about the insidious agenda of the EVIL ONE"S...I wish every American would watch this and also the sequel: "Rich Media-Poor Democracy"...The people that put it together are true patriots and the best in their field-They all gave up lucrative careers with "prestigous" News Agencys {Corporate MSM} so that they could speak truth to power...I hold them all in high esteem...
Another film I watched on LINK was called:
"The Warning" And what Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, Robert Kennedy Jr., Joe Conason, and A few others had to say was disturbingly enlightening ar best..Not sure if this one is available yet as A "Free Documentary"...
Good luck doggone!!!!
That "little fat guy" I was referring to is Frank Luntz...And just A sample of how voters are tricked by slick changes in policy description:
James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60 Plus Association, described Luntz's role as being that of pollster and popularizer of the phrase "death tax".
Martin gained an important ally in GOP pollster Frank Luntz, whose polling revealed that "death tax" sparked voter resentment in a way that "inheritance tax" and "estate tax" couldn't match. After all, who wouldn't be opposed to a "tax on death"? Luntz shared his findings with Republicans and included the phrase in the GOP's Contract with America. Luntz went so far as to recommend in a memo to GOP lawmakers that they stage press conferences "at your local mortuary" to dramatize the issue. "I believe this backdrop will clearly resonate with your constituents," he wrote. "Death is something the American people understand." Apparently, he's right. Spurred by Luntz, Republicans have employed the term "death tax" so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon. Nonpartisan venues like newspapers and magazines have begun to use it in a neutral context--a coup for abolitionists like Martin.[6]
Without the "Fairness Doctrine" who on earth can reach out to the American populace and tell them what A conniving, deceptive ploy this is by the Republicans...
This is the kind of shit that big money will be smearing all over the airwaves in the upcoming elections...Sneaky little word games and half truths to get people to buy into their agenda-and that is what people like Frank Luntz are all about-Smoke and Mirrors deception...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
"Except that you live in a society where 99% of the citizens ARE programmed by these media messages, and therefore the indoctrination DIRECTLY influences culture, mores, rules, and the state of the nation. --------------------------------------------------- I turned my TV off 5 years ago... do you think that changes the nation?"
SR-You said here what needs to be said...All of these independent, I know where the truth can be found folks just don't get it that most Americans barely have time to even turn on the TV...The National Vote is ruled by Television and in A small way Radio, then the Net...That one eyed Bhudda has much control...
At the end of each of your paragraphs hit the "shift" key-then type in the symbol<
{Next to the M on my keyboard} Then with the "shift" key still down press the P
Then while still holding the "shift" key down hit the > symbol {next to the ?}
I KNOW that you as A finicky, perfectionist speller, that this paragraph stuff must bug the sh- - out of you...
Try it out, it is easier than you think....Just < then P then > after each paragraph to make A paragraph *** you also must hit the "Enter" key after > as you would anyhow to go to A paragraph.........{Thanx 2BSmarter} < P > {easy!}
You are obviously libertarian, for that is one of their favorite remarks to parrot. It assumes that "the people" always have considerable finances to even /compete/ with powerful corporate entities. But that is clearly not the case, thus there is no fair playing field. Most of the time, not only do "the people" lack adequate funds to even get to square 1, the funds don't even exist!
Libertarians may as well scream at infants, claiming they should put their money where their mouths are, or stop wailing. 'Cause that's how crude and selfish is the libertarian ideology. They punish and criminalize anyone who lacks the $$$ to purchase a yacht, an island, or their very own lobbyist.
All the quality 50,000 watt radio stations are monopolized by giant corporations and their broadcast licenses renewed without question.
Same with free television.
Please explain how I can compete in these marketplaces when I'm locked out?
Thanks Pollyanna. Listen, your brother Horatio Alger got hit by an uninsured motorist and he lost his insurance when he lost his job. He's sitting in the emergency room waiting for an ambulance to take him to a different hospital. Go over and cheer him up.
Turns out the guy behind the wheel was Jack Armstrong. And he was texting his broker at the time.
The corporations and their government and media spokes people have too many lies to maintain all the time.
The last of Regulations. Well back in 1972-73 there was a Station WXUR Am-Fm near Media, Pa just outside Philadelphia. It was a religious Station and broadcast issues at the time were considered outside the main stream. The FCC charge the owner Rev. Carl McIntyre for not have opposing interest in his news programs. He refused the FCC Request. When it came time to renew his License "Rev. Carl's" renewal was declined by the FCC because he violated the Fairness Doc. Rev. Carl then moved his station aboard a WWII Mine Sweeper and anchored 12 miles off the Coast of Cape May, N.J. His station lasted for a few days before being charged with interfearing with stations on shore. Back then Rev. Carl was very radical. Today he would proabably be working for Fox News. Don't forget history.
Now it's official: the official view is the only one that counts.
They used to call it fascist propaganda, but that's officially discarded as a term for official control of the public information channels for private gain. Get real, it's “a healthy climate for private investment and job creation.”
Genachowski said in a statement that the move was aimed at promoting “a healthy climate for private investment and job creation.”---- Genachowski is just another free-market fundamentalist who believes the sacred public airwaves (the medium for the free-flow of information essential for maintaining a democracy) should be surrendered to the corporo-fascists. He then shamelessly trots out the in vogue lie that handing over this multi-trillion dollar public subsidy to the fascists will create jobs. Shameless and nauseating.
CITIZENS! Do not be misled! There is only one truth and that is presented in your media. Ignore, or better yet report, any two-siders attempting to obscure the truth.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.