ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

gr8oldies · Feb 18, 2010

When the Fairness Doctrine comes up, it is always thought of as Republican vs. Democrat. What about Ron Paul supporters? If the Tea Party becomes a third party? 9/11 Truthers? Socialists who think BHO is a right winger?

Goat Rodeo Cowboy · Feb 18, 2010

gr8oldies said:
When the Fairness Doctrine comes up, it is always thought of as Republican vs. Democrat. What about Ron Paul supporters? If the Tea Party becomes a third party? 9/11 Truthers? Socialists who think BHO is a right winger?

I don't have a copy of what was the Fairness Doctrine when it was what it was. ;D

My memory is that it did not speak of political parties, it did not speak of conservative and liberal. I think it attempted to address "issuesand discussion of public interest that were controversial" and it also addressed the issue of "personal attack upon individuals" with some loose language about people of high prominence and high profile being expected to tolerate and accept a certain amount of abrasive and harsh descriptive language. For instance, a senator or a mayor could be referred to as being corrupt and the FCC referees would not throw a flag. John Q Smith, spokesman for the Belle Meade homeowners association, could demand that a station provide time for a response and defense if he was called a corrupt person in matieral broadcast on the station. There was also some exemption for "legitimate News" broadcasts. When I was News Director and covered city council, I could report on Tuesday morning "that during discussion of zoning issues at the city council last night, the developer accused the spokesman for the Belle Meade HOA of lying during his presentation." Under that scenario my station was not obligated to go through the formality and bureaucracy of notifying John Smith that he was entitled to equal time for response. If the DJ did a promo ten minutes because the newscast in which he said "Will it never end? John Smith went before the council last night with a bunch of lies again." Uh, oh! Roll out the lawyers. Get the letters in the mail.

What I find amusing is that back then when we had all those requirements, we didn't need them very badly back then. I would have been on the phone at 10:30 P.M. asking John Smith if he had a response that I could include in my newscast.

Apparently today's broadcasters are offended that anyone would think they should have a news person ask someone if they would like to respond. They take the attitude that TheBigA expressed two messages ago. "I own this frequency and I will do as I please with it. It is MINE!"

To which I respond: What pitiful stewardship of an asset that belongs to our civilization.

With all the furniture arranged on the stage as I see the drama, let's go back to the last message and the reference to Demos and Repubs, Libs and Conservs. We have dust-ups from time to time. But after a season of bickering we revert to a two party system sooner or later. Most third-party movements are seen as a boil on the butt of one major party or the other and the party will make adjustments to accommodate and then heal the sore place. In my lifetime we have worked our way through the Dixiecrats, the John Birch Society, the Greens, and now the T-baggers are at center stage. And yes we have had Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Ron Paul do their ballerina across the stage.

Hopefully broadcasters are smart enough to deal with these butt-boils from time to time that come and then they go.

TheBigA · Feb 18, 2010

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
They take the attitude that TheBigA expressed two messages ago. "I own this frequency and I will do as I please with it. It is MINE!"

To which I respond: What pitiful stewardship of an asset that belongs to our civilization.

You sound like Newton Minnow. The government, who is in charge of that asset, long ago decided it wanted to turn it over to private enterprise. It didn't have to do that. Other countries have made other decisions. But this country didn't want to own the airwaves. It's not the station owners' fault that the government made a bad decision. It's my view that it's the government and the FCC that has done such a pitiful job of stewardship. And it's not getting better.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy · Feb 18, 2010

TheBigA said:
You sound like Newton Minnow.

I like the line a supervisor gave my daughter one day: (Minor parapharse) "I grew up across the street from Disneyland. I can sound like anyone I want to."

Talk to us BigGuy. Are you supportive of the status-quo that exists in the U.S. today as it affects broadcasting, public discourse and politically oriented influences?

Have the private stewards of broadcast allocations acquired ownership via something comparable to "adverse possession" of the public discourse of political discussion since "the government and the FCC that has done such a pitiful job of stewardship."

In your view, is there a problem in how partianship and poliitical debate is handled by broadcasters... or everything just hunky-dory?

If indeed the Congress and the FCC no longer have the authority to regulate (and define what is) inappropriate speech, does someone else now own that authority? The NAB? The Supreme Court? Pat Robertson? Gene Robinson? Grover Norquist?

If broadcast licenses have to be renewed every eight years, and the holder of that license must apply for renewal, What is being approved by the FCC? Does the FCC have any authority to do anything but "rubber stamp" the application? If private enterprise now owns the spectrum, what are all these push-ups called license renewal? If I own it, what's to renew?

TheBigA · Feb 18, 2010

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Are you supportive of the status-quo that exists in the U.S. today as it affects broadcasting, public discourse and politically oriented influences?

I'm very fatalistic about it. There's nothing we can do. And those who make the decisions seem unable to do what's right.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Have the private stewards of broadcast allocations acquired ownership via something comparable to "adverse possession"

Interesting use of that term. I don’t know.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
In your view, is there a problem in how partianship and poliitical debate is handled by broadcasters... or everything just hunky-dory?

There is an inherent contradiction in having something deemed a public service, but funded by advertising. Those two things conflict. The system is flawed, but it’s our system. At the same time, the politicians are competing for the same audience attention and financial support, so they’re also not operating in the public interest. It’s a huge mess, and the broadcasters are just one small part.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
If indeed the Congress and the FCC no longer have the authority to regulate (and define what is) inappropriate speech, does someone else now own that authority?

I’m not sure the first part of what you say is correct. The FCC still feels it has authority here. Although it’s still being battled in the courts.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Does the FCC have any authority to do anything but "rubber stamp" the application?

Depends on who you ask. If you ask Michael Copps, he’d say no. If you ask me, I’d say look at history and tell me how many stations have had their renewals rejected in the last 90 years. That suggests to me that it’s always been a rubber stamp.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
If private enterprise now owns the spectrum, what are all these push-ups called license renewal? If I own it, what's to renew?

It’s a license and therefore needs to be renewed. I never used to word “own,” but I said they’re responsible. I have a driver’s license. That allows me to operate a vehicle on the public highways. I have to renew it. I am responsible for my operations on that highway. But I don’t own the highway. I own the car, and broadcasters own the transmitter, tower, and the facilities. The idea that a licensee has an obligation to air all sides of an issue is outside the responsibilities of the licensee. He just has to obey all rules. If airing all sides of an issue isn’t in the rules (and it’s not), then that’s the end of the discussion.