« The first thing the Obama Administration shoud do in Afghanistan. | Thabo Mda's Blog | The Republicans unbending wish for America's failure »
Obama, the Republican Talk Radio, and the Fairness Doctrine.
President Barack Obama is reportedly unsupportive of the Fairness Doctrine which is supposedly a tool for the enhancement of equity and fairness with respect to the use of public airwaves as they relate to the preclusion of monopolistic behavior in radio broadcating. If it in fact it turns out that it is indeed true that Obama does not support the doctrine, one would wonder if the Republican fringe Talk show hosts who dominate the airwaves would, at the very least, feel morally obligated to tone down their rhetovic of hate toward Obama. Afterall their only chance of survival rests with Obama's non-support of the doctrine in the face of overwhelming Democratic efforts to revive it.
Advertisement
Hannity's head is gonna explode. He has been barking about the "plot" to reinstate the Doctrine for months. (Mainly as a self-aggrandizing move, since "Obama wants to put" him out of business, according to Sean)
More jujitsu from the Prez - and a smart move.
Simply say, "If people want to hear LIES, let them hear LIES."
And then, let others (TMP, NewsHounds, and dozens of others) point out the lies.
You will never be able to stop the false rhetoric from the Right...and trying to do so only plays into their (paranoid) hands.
February 18, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take it from the post that you're supportive of the fairness doctrine? Is that because the Internet doesn't have enough liberal content? Oh please, the fairness doctrine is so outdated I can't believe someone is writing a post on it.
Here's the question for all you Liberals (Progressives??) - If Rush applied for a job on NPR, what would happen?? Either NPR hires him and all of a sudden the radio station would be profitable OR NPR could refuse to give Rush a radio show. That would show that liberals don't really care about free speech. They just want to shut Rush up.
February 18, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, I know you are just a troll, but you display a lack of knowledge about the topic. Under the old FCC regime, licensees were granted *temporary* licenses to use the public portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcast licensees (radio and TV station transmitter owners) to devote a portion of the broadcasting they did on pubic airwaves to public affairs content, and to give reasonable exposure to competing viewpoints.
Now the corporate cronies have a different concept. They are lining up to permanently buy frequencies of the EM spectrum. No more licenses. The FCC of the past is no more; we are moving to a model where public airwaves can now be bought and sold privately.
The Internet is not subject to the old license regime. It is not EM broadcast. Where local governments create wireless infrastructure and license transmitters it is well within reason that they could regulate in the public interest. Cable and telephone companies that have effective monopolies in a given area because of ownership of a copper backbone are usually required to provide public access channels as part of their responsibility to the community they serve. They are utilities and are regulated as such.
NPR is a content producer, not a transmitter licensee. Under a reinstated Fairness Doctrine similar to what we had before, the various licensees such as the corporate radio and television station owners and the public radio and television station owners (universities and public school systems) would indeed be required to present opposing viewpoints on topic of public interest - they would not be required to hire Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh is not a public affairs commentator - he SELLS PRODUCTS. He takes sensational positions to attract listeners who will sit through his product pitches to hear him pontificate. Public radio, OTOH, is a not-for-profit system; it does not sell products. It therefore has no interest in hiring a product pitchman, and it has no need of a sensationalist who can attract listeners willing to sit through commercials.
February 18, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
how do you define a "troll"? Someone who disagrees with you?
Maybe you didn't appreciate my NPR joke. But if you are some how in favor of the FD, then that's even funnier. If talk radio needs to have a balance of liberal and conservative views, then so should newspapers, movies, television, youTube and college classrooms.
February 19, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still don't get it -
Newspapers are privately owned and do not require public infrastructure to operate; movies are likewise; YouTube, ditto (you should understand that word being a Limbaugh fan).
Broadcast television (not cable) WAS subject to the FD.
College classrooms are not FCC licensees, so the FD did not apply; other principles do apply, such as students being engaged in an open objective discussion on whatever topic, but it has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
One more time, MCB, the FD applied to licensees using the public airwaves for transmission of radio and television signals.
February 19, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you. But it doesn't make sense in today's modern age. It might have made sense to ensure "balance" back when there was no Internet or Cable TV. But in the 21st century it makes no sense.
February 19, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes sense in the context that given the relaxation of rules concerning concentrated ownership of media outlets in a given market, it is possible for one corporation to own, and thus control, virtually all of the broadcast media in an area. When that happens, if the owner sees fit to slant coverage one way or the other, the audience in that area has no opportunity to gain a sense of opposition viewpoints on any issue.
Yes, the Internet can provide broader coverage, but a significant portion of the population still gets their news and opinions from broadcast sources.
In any case, I still consider the ether, the electromagnetic spectrum, to be a commons - some people disagree and see it as a resource for the government to auction off to the highest bidder. If we as a nation still control the EM as a commons, then it must be regulated in the public interest to preserve free speech, a condition that is chilled when business interests are free to determine content with no consequences for abuse of the commons.
February 20, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A significant portion" you say gets their news and opinion from broadcast sources. How would you define significant?
February 20, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last numbers I remember seeing is about 60% of the nation's adult population.
February 21, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see your source because that sounds very suspect...
February 22, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cursory Googling reveals this link:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1066/internet-overtakes-newspapers-as-news-source
I don't have time right now to find more.
February 23, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you posted just says "television". And my guess (until you can show otherwise) is that most people get their news from CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, etc. Not the local CBS affiliate but cable.
So I still don't understand why you're in favor of the FD when it's so irrelevant in today's society. It would be very different if people relied upon broadcast tv or radio for their news.
February 23, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And my guess (until you can show otherwise) is that most people get their news from CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, etc. Not the local CBS affiliate but cable."
No, now it's time for you to show otherwise. Back up your claim that more people get their news from the cable channels rather than the big three. That would be a significant change from the past, and you need to back it up, because it's the crux of your biscuit.
February 24, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also the crux of your biscuit. And if you can't prove it either. But somehow the FD is critical to maintaining balance?
February 24, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again:
Back up your claim that more people get their news from the cable channels rather than the big three.
February 25, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Thabo. I am sorry but I do not remember reading you before. This is a complicated issue. I think Bwak or somebody was asking how the ratings were going in talk radio. I have seen a transformation in the the approach to 'the news' on cable--except for Fox of course--and the newspapers. There is a shift out there and the market is worried like they were by 2002.
This Web, of course, is how the Dems came thru in two elections in a row. Wow!!! And the reps are trying to make inroads into it and not getting too far.
We Shall see how the market goes. I understand there is a legal basis for FAIRNESS since the air and the airwaves are owned by US in the U.S.A.
But the polling keeps going down for the Repubs.
The more they talk and are quoted on cable, the lower the polls take them.
We shall see.
February 18, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two aspects to what we usually mean by Fairness Doctrine. There is the obvious one of stations being required to provide equal time for opposing views to partisan programming.
But there used to also be requirement for community-service broadcasting, which included educational programs. Stations often gamed this by counting children's morning shows, even cartoons, as such. But it was still somewhat effective, and meant they maintained effective news divisions, since that counted toward license renewal.
Equal-time could be gamed, too, but was still somewhat effective. Obama is more likely continuing the strategy of making the GOP look bad, when he makes significant, but not really necessary, offers. When the opposition is still uncooperative, they will lose respect among voters.
In any case, it is low-priority as a specific issue. I think Obama is playing a larger game, of restoring the sense that we, government, have standing to regulate the commons, whether airwaves or breathable air.
February 19, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Father OKC gave a very informative explanation on what the Fairness Doctrine is. Thank you.
We still have the myth that media is dominated by left wing entities. And I know why right wing media folks fear the return of the Fairness Doctrine. And I do think that the internet , and the opportunities there , help to bring resolution because it provides for more balance. It can't be dominated by either side; yet!
It just seems that their will always be this "push and pull" effort back and forth between the two opposing sides in the American information field. To apply the Fairness Doctrine in it's most fair fashion would mean that discretion and real fairness would have to be realized. We don't have that currently in today’s America. We have ad hoc war going on currently in a battle for power and we're just going to have to continue to fight it out.
I didn't see any problem with the Fairness Doctrine , personally , and I'm somewhat surprised with Barack's position on this.
February 19, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good move.
Of course, Representative Henry Waxman (probably up to #3 on my list of the Ten Worst People Who Are Sort of Famous) still wants it reinstated and even applied to the internet.
Imagine the shock and awe if conservatives showed up around here!
February 19, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink