S.34: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009

[Bob Jentges]

Do you favor the U.S. Senate taking an up or down Roll Call Vote on S.34, or do you favor the repromulgating of the mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine or something similar to it?

[Bob Jentges]

Do you favor the U.S. Senate taking an up or down Roll Call Vote on S.34, or do you favor the repromulgating of the mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine or something similar to it?

When I started this thread 13 days ago, considering the number of Forum members involved in media (admittedly mostly print media) I expected there would be some posts offering opinions on the subject. I was wrong. Although not directly on-point with the thread question Tim Krohn's Sunday article in The Free Press i.e. "Forget TV and iPods; radio offers uniquely empowering experience" moved me to offer my own opinion on the thread question.

I do not favor congress or the FCC imposing restrictions on what programing commercial AM radio broadcasters put over the airwaves, so long as it is not pornographic.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

The concept of the Fairness Doctrine at one time was something the public embraced, it seems to me. It carried an implied threat of sanctions against broadcasters for not being fair or giving public access to "airtime" which, in fact, was, the theory goes, granted by the government because there were only so many broadcast frequencies.

Thus broadcasters were thought to be "using public airwaves" for which they had to apply to the government to have access to. The thought was since the public via the government was granted the access, the public should have a say in how their "asset" was used.

The case for newspapers was entirely different. We didn't get anything from the government. We bought our own newsprint. As an aside, we allow the public to comment in our letters to the editor and other ways because we think it's good business.

But I digress. With technology, the airwaves aren't as limited as they once were. (That was also an earlier premise: that since there were only so many frequencies, the access to airwaves was finite and the public should be granted some space).

Now, there is great deal of access to broadcasting methods via regular frequencies, the Internet etc. The thinking is now that the marketplace is capable of granting access to the public.

I'm no expert on this. I always err on the side of the government having less involvement in the media, than more. It seems technology also has created a marketplace of media where many voices can be heard without the government getting involved.

[Robert Redding]

I agree wholeheartedly. Media and government involvement should be mutually exclusive. Broadcast media content should only be regulated to the point of what's implied as non-protected speech in the 1st Amendment. The FCC takes that a bit further with content that might reach a "captive audience," such as a radio tuned to "Rush Limbaugh" and piped into the elevators at a DNC convention (or NPR for the RNC, etc...).

That said: Current technology and physics limit the amount of available broadcast spectrum, which is why the FCC exists. Without spectrum regulation in the form of controlled allocation of frequencies, commercial broadcast outlets could pick their own "channel" or channels and monopolize available airwaves in any given market by "washing-out" lower-powered competition. At best a given channel might sound like the opening scene in the movie "Contact." There's also the need for essential emergency services to use part of the spectrum. Imagine a first-responder hears the house number for a fire, with the street name washed out by "Stairway to Heaven."

I'll ramble-on for a moment then quit (no pun intended). The Fairness Doctrine had a place (I guess) when choices were limited. As Joe mentioned, they're less and less limited with each new iteration of communication technology.

With that said, not everyone has access to the wide range of technology available. Should they have the right to all sides of an issue? Perhaps if it were actually possible to know all sides, let alone find them on the airwaves (but that's a different philosophical rant).

Personally, I think one should get their news from as many sources as possible -- agreeable or not. That's what free speech is about: an open marketplace of ideas that's supposed to reveal the truth through a cacophony of opinion. I guess I'd vote "no" to any broadcast content regulation beyond protected speech for that reason. But that leaves the potential for high offense to some. And they might vote. Or misunderstand. Or sue the broadcaster. I could go on, but that might also offend. Thanks for looking in! :)

[Bob Jentges]

Is the Obama White House using the presidential bully pulpit in an attempt to de-legitimize Fox News? Is it working? If they are and if it is working (I do not think it is based on viewership statistics) might their efforts be some sort of precurser to trying to implement the Fairness Doctrine, or some version of it?

[Dan Conner]

When I started this thread 13 days ago, considering the number of Forum members involved in media (admittedly mostly print media) I expected there would be some posts offering opinions on the subject. I was wrong. Although not directly on-point with the thread question Tim Krohn's Sunday article in The Free Press i.e. "Forget TV and iPods; radio offers uniquely empowering experience" moved me to offer my own opinion on the thread question.

I do not favor congress or the FCC imposing restrictions on what programing commercial AM radio broadcasters put over the airwaves, so long as it is not pornographic.I don't see how you can restrict pornography when you won't restrict anything else. There is speech more injurious than pornography.

[Dan Conner]

Is the Obama White House using the presidential bully pulpit in an attempt to de-legitimize Fox News? Is it working? If they are and if it is working (I do not think it is based on viewership statistics) might their efforts be some sort of precurser to trying to implement the Fairness Doctrine, or some version of it?I think the administration is trying to bring attention to the bonafides of FOX as news. That's their right. Afterall, bush did this many many times referring to the "liberal media", putting un-friendly, but senior Washington news reporters from the front to the back row during press conferences, by restricting access to certain networks, etc. How about bringing non-press people into press conferences to ask "softball questions?" Why are you so aghast now?

[Bob Jentges]

I don't see how you can restrict pornography when you won't restrict anything else. There is speech more injurious than pornography.

Looks like you went back a ways to pull-up my post #2 in this thread. No objection from me.

I can not restrict pornography, but the U.S. Supreme Court can and has.

But I do think that comparing broadcasting by commercial AM radio stations to "pornography" is quite a stretch. The FCC does not even allow cursing over AM airwaves!

[Dan Conner]

Looks like you went back a ways to pull-up my post #2 in this thread. No objection from me.

I can not restrict pornography, but the U.S. Supreme Court can and has.

But I do think that comparing broadcasting by commercial AM radio stations to "pornography" is quite a stretch. The FCC does not even allow cursing over AM airwaves!THat's right. Then, you better check what you are saying about abridging any freedoms of speech. It is hypocritical to censor some speech YOU DON'T APPROVE OF, but allow all that which you approve of.

[Bob Jentges]

THat's right. Then, you better check what you are saying about abridging any freedoms of speech. It is hypocritical to censor some speech YOU DON'T APPROVE OF, but allow all that which you approve of.

Your above quote has very little with what I said in my post #8.

Having said that the final sentance in your above post makes the exact point I have been trying to make with respect to the so-called Fairness Doctrine and/or the Obama Administration's recent attack on FOX News!

You seem to be talking in circles; maybe you need a time out.

[Matt Christianson]

So Dan, are you for or against the fariness doctrine?

[Bob Jentges]

So Dan, are you for or against the fariness doctrine?

Matt, it has been about a day without your "for or aginst" question being answered so I thought I would post this "Net neutrality is: 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet'" article. Will they ever stop with their censorship attempts?

It was published in The Hill on 10/20/09 so it may go off-line soon.

[Matt Christianson]

i think you meant to post this...
http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq

[Bob Jentges]

i think you meant to post this...
http://thehill.com/hillicon-valley/605-technology/63875-blackburn-net-neutrality-is-qfairness-doctrine-for-the-internetq

Yes I did! The weather is so bad there is nothing for me to do outside, and I have nothing important to do inside so I should not have been in such a hyrry as to leave off the link. Thanks Matt.

[Dan Conner]

So Dan, are you for or against the fariness doctrine?I really don't have a strong position on that right now, but I will tell you that the quality of news reporting has drastically deteriorated since the "fairness doctrine" was removed. We now have networks no longer pretending to be neutral and overtly biased. This has lead to a very adversarial atmosphere in the media and politics. Also, it has polarized the nation. That surely isn't very constructive.

[Matt Christianson]

I really don't have a strong position on that right now, but I will tell you that the quality of news reporting has drastically deteriorated since the "fairness doctrine" was removed. We now have networks no longer pretending to be neutral and overtly biased. This has lead to a very adversarial atmosphere in the media and politics. Also, it has polarized the nation. That surely isn't very constructive.

I believe that your so-called adverarial atmosphere is essential to a sustainable healthy democracy. There hasn't been a truly objective news organization in this country...ever, with the exception of the Mankato Free Press in the those 233 years, of course.

[Bob Jentges]

Holly Cow! Out of the 13:03 CBS "60 Minutes" segment Sunday dedicated to the new book "Game Change" on the 2008 presidential election campaign, 7:04 was dedicated to Sarah Palin---0:58 was dedicated to Barrack Obama---who won?

I read this morning that Sarah Palin has signed-on with Fox News Channel as a "contributor". This could be a brilliant business move by Fox. I understand FNC already has more viewers than the other cable news outlets combined, and this move may bring MSNBC & CNN viewers with "Palin Derangement Syndrome" over to FNC just to feed their anger.

I have no idea how this might effect Democrats movement toward or away from the "Fairness Doctrine", if at all, but I may even check the listings and tune-in FNC when Palin is scheduled on a show---provided it does not conflict with a good ball game! :)

[Bob Jentges]

Air America announced (not unexpectedly) yesterday that they are finally closing shop i.e. going off the airwaves, and filing for bankruptcy. They gave the reason as "poor economy", not Bush or global warming.

But since it seems conservative talk radio seems to be flourshing in the same economy maybe their downfall was due to lack of listners/advertisers. Maybe even the fact that former "star" Al Franken is now representing the Great State of Minnesota in the U.S. Senate (ha ha).

We do not need the so-called Fairness Docterine or anything like it. The free market will determine what people want to listen to and what sponsors want to support!

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting poll as to who is most trusted TV news outlet. Looks to me like their are a sufficient number of options so one can watch whichever outlet suits them ideologically, or whichever they feel is most balanced and/or factual.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_126.pdf

[Bob Jentges]

The far Left is back pushing the so-called Fairness Doctrine again. Within the last couple day's MSNBC flame thrower Ed Schultz and enviromental extremist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have come out against talk radio.

It seems to me now that the citizenry is finally becoming informed and active with respect to what politicians are trying to, do those with extreme agenda's want to put us "in our place", at least as they see it!

[Bob Jentges]

The far Left is back pushing the so-called Fairness Doctrine again. Within the last couple day's MSNBC flame thrower Ed Schultz and enviromental extremist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have come out against talk radio.

It seems to me now that the citizenry is finally becoming informed and active with respect to what politicians are trying to, do those with extreme agenda's want to put us "in our place", at least as they see it!

With their attack against Talk Radio apparrantly on the back burner, at least temporarily, Senator Chuck Schumer (D NY) is sponsering a bill called the "Disclosure Act". Some of those that have read the bill say it will restrict (if not eliminate) Twitter, Face Book, My Space, etc., including blogs where many people get their news from in this day and age. Those liberal/progressive Democrats never seem to stop trying to limit free speech in one way or another.

I have read some Elana Kagen quotes that seem to indicate she might favor greater limitations on free speech than what the Supreme Court recently ruled.

[Bob Jentges]

With their attack against Talk Radio apparrantly on the back burner, at least temporarily, Senator Chuck Schumer (D NY) is sponsering a bill called the "Disclosure Act". Some of those that have read the bill say it will restrict (if not eliminate) Twitter, Face Book, My Space, etc., including blogs where many people get their news from in this day and age. Those liberal/progressive Democrats never seem to stop trying to limit free speech in one way or another.

I have read some Elana Kagen quotes that seem to indicate she might favor greater limitations on free speech than what the Supreme Court recently ruled.

Article: "An Open Conspiracy to Slant the News"

http://article.nationalreview.com/438552/an-open-conspiracy-to-slant-the-news/jonah-goldberg

This is a surprise?:rolleyes:

If Congress and/or the Supreme Court will not limit free speech, let's us in the MSM conspire to feed the masses of people not as smart/enlightened as we are, what we think they should know!:mad:

Darn that Fox News.:D