Fairness Doctrine dead ... for now

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
So the FCC has taken the fairness doctrine -- also known as the "Anti-Conservative Talk Radio Doctrine -- off of the table.

While this may seem to be a cause for celebration of freedom there are likely far more sinister ideas in the works as this is written.

SOURCE

FCC Agrees to Take 'Fairness Doctrine' Off the Books

By Stephen Clark

Published June 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Under GOP pressure, the Federal Communications Commission has agreed to strike from its books an outdated yet still controversial regulation of political speech on the airwaves known as the Fairness Doctrine.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a letter to a House Republican leader this week that the agency's effort to identify and eliminate "antiquated and outmoded rules that unnecessarily burden business, stifle investment and innovation, or confuse consumers and licensees" will include a recommendation to delete the Fairness Doctrine.

"I fully support deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead," Genachowski wrote to Rep. Fred. Upton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. "I look forward to effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the process can be completed in the near future."

The Fairness Doctrine has been on the books since 1949. The regulation sought to ensure that discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view by threatening to strip the licenses of broadcasters who provide diverse opinions. At the time, only 2,881 radio stations existed, compared with roughly 14,000 today.

The regulation was abolished in the 1980s, but the doctrine is still technically on the books. Upton and Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the subcommittee on communications, applauded the news that it would be eliminated.

"We are heartened by your continued opposition to the Fairness Doctrine because of its chilling effects on free speech and the free flow of ideas," Upton and Walden said in a joint statement. But they wrote back to Genachowski Wednesday asking him when the regulation will be eliminated and whether he has the support of his fellow commissioners.

In an email to FoxNews.com, a spokesman for Genachowski would not say when the doctrine will be taken off the books and deferred to the other commissioners for their take.

Genachowski's letter was in response to a request from Upton and Walden last month to remove the regulation from the books. Despite the White House's and FCC's repeated statements that there were no plans to reinstate the regulation, Republicans have sought to make sure it never becomes a possibility.

Since taking over the House this year, Republicans have vowed to bury the regulation once and for all and introduced a bill that would have prevented the FCC from reinstating it. The bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is under review in Upton's committee.

The Supreme Court in 1969 upheld the constitutionality of the regulation largely on the grounds that there were so few stations at the time. But the FCC abolished the doctrine in 1987, casting its requirement that broadcasters devote equal time to all points of view an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech. Rush Limbaugh debuted on the nation's airwaves the following year, and conservatives have dominated talk radio ever since.

But talks of reinstating the doctrine never quite went away. As recently as January, when six people died and 13 were wounded in Arizona's mass shooting, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, called for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

"Free speech is as free speech does," Clyburn told a local newspaper. "You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and call it free speech. And some of what I hear, and [what] is being called free speech, is worse than that."

But FCC Commissioner Mignon (Filet?? - j) Clyburn – the congressman's daughter – said she opposes the regulation.
Click to expand...
 
More on that.

SOURCE

Opponents Praise End of FCC's Fairness Doctrine, but Some Worry About Similar Tactics

By Shannon Bream

Published June 09, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Just as opponents of the so-called Fairness Doctrine are applauding efforts by the FCC to fully eliminate the regulation that once mandated political diversity on the airwaves, some are warning that the doctrine's proponents could pursue the same goals without the measure.

"There is no case for reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, it would be a bad idea," Steven Waldman said Thursday, making recommendations to FCC commissioners after a two-year study. Waldman is a former journalist tapped by the FCC to spearhead the study, entitled "Information Needs of Communities."

When talk of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine -- which would allow the government to regulate the content of radio and television outlets around the country -- surfaced in recent years, skeptics quickly sounded the alarm. Many feared the two-year study would result in support for bringing back the controversial policy.

The release of today's findings may come as some comfort to critics, but Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, is urging caution.

"I think what happened today at the FCC is positive, but folks shouldn't be popping any champagne corks just yet,” he said. McDowell warns that traces of the Fairness Doctrine "are still on the books" and it will take some time to truly eliminate them. He says his goal is to get that done by the end of the year.

However, McDowell cautions that even if the Fairness Doctrine is permanently dismantled, "There are many different ways to try to accomplish the same goals."

One of the proposals that has sparked controversy is the concept of so-called "localism." Under an FCC proposal, local media outlets across the country would have to set up permanent advisory boards to keep tabs on what those local stations air. The FCC noted the importance of making sure communities have forums to debate issues relevant to residents, but skeptics worry that localism would simply be the Fairness Doctrine in different clothing.

Those who fear the localism angle got welcome news today as well. Waldman told the commissioners, "We are recommending that the FCC consider terminating the localism proceeding."

The comments about both the Fairness Doctrine and localism simply constitute staff recommendations at this point, and any concrete changes would require further action by commissioners.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, is among those who will likely oppose Waldman’s recommendations. Today, he said the report was "not the bold response for which I hoped and dared to dream."

Copps was especially disappointed in the recommendation regarding localism, which he said is based on the principle that local communities "have available programming to reflect the needs, interests and cultures of the diverse people living there, and that those views have some opportunity for expression on the airwaves."

Copps had hoped the new study would support that ideal, and said he was instead stunned by the staff recommendation to shut down the localism proceeding.

It's clear there are still many internal battles to be fought at the FCC about the ultimate fate of today's recommendations.
Click to expand...
 
The Fairness Doctrine is equal to Nazi book burning?

This whole idea is so anti-American that it
doesn't even warrant attention.

And they keep saying it can't happen here?


book-burning-in-the-ussr-and-nazi-germany.gif
 
eliminate "antiquated and outmoded rules that unnecessarily burden business, stifle investment and innovation, or confuse consumers and licensees"
Click to expand...

The tax code is next?
 
Not much. We po' folx sure do 'preciate your excessive outlays, though. Mebbe I'll go git me one o'dem newfangled gubmint food credit cards.
 
well since the unions are busted and your wages are likely to go down, you might be lookin' into that.
 
Since I haven't been union for about 4 years, was for about a year and never set foot into a union hall, except to resign, that will have little to do with me
 
do we have to review this again?

it doesn't matter if YOU are in a union.

unions poop out, and there is downward pressure on ALL wages.

okay got it?
 
You say that like it's a bad thing. Too many people are paid far beyond their ability,drop minimum wage too.

Maybe we can get Americans back to work. :wink2:
 
no, i don't say it like it's a bad thing, but that's what you are reading into it because you still think i'm some kind of commie. get over it. i am all for paying the worthless what they are worth. :wink2:
 
long live censorship

and he alone has to bear the heavy burden
of being the only one that knows the truth
shmph.gif


the rest of us are ignorant and worthless
 
Gonz said:
*hangs head in shame*

We aren't worthy
Click to expand...

well, you kinda aren't.

if you don't see how your ability to support a family and raise a smart kid was positively impacted by unions, then yer an ignoramus. you hardly understand the hand you've been dealt, and you're unwilling to broaden your knowledge.

don't be such a

dud_small_smaller_images.jpg
 
half-skilled labor...

with unions: $20/hr
without unions: $9/hr.
coming soon: $12/hr

and this is a good thing.

but you sure can't raise a rugrat on it. unless you're a total dirtbutt.
 
Handed me? Sorry son, I decided hanging out with chumps like you was just too irritating for words. I am where I am by choice. Stuff just ain't that important.

As for union scale...I grew up in a right to work state. Union scale means nothing to me. I make more, non-union, than I ever had in a union. It meant a lot to many people around me. Peope who didn't understand that getting that extra sixty cents an hour over the scabs meant we all pay more, which, in essence, lowers the value of the dollar made by the non-commie bastard laborer.

We should all be making about 1/3 of what we make. A majority of my income is nothing but inflation.
 
In fact, the union job that I had for 8-hours before telling them I refuse to do their brand of shit work (ABF), has taken several pay cuts since Obama took over. They are one of the leaders in the field. The real leaders (Roadway/Yellow/USF) are on the verge of collapse.

We only lost money in one quarter in the last 12.

The difference? We aren't union. Oh, and we make more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top