The Fairness Act. New Tool?

Hey folks,

Good to be back in the chair. Happy Hump day to you. Thank you again for both Prof. Darko for his expert analysis of the Fort Dix Six, and DS Harford for filling in yesterday. I HAVE to comment on this one folks. I heard about it briefly in the car on Monday and HAD to comment. Fret not, I will be back up to speed tomorrow. But, even know this is "old news," this just goes to show you how juvenile the Democrats really are.

For those of you who may not know, the "Fairness Doctrine" has been put on the front burner in Congress. We’ll get to that in a second. For those of you who do not know what the "Fairness Doctrine" is. According to The Museum of Broadcast Communications, MBC -Fairness Doctrine.

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

So basically folks, it was a space issue. In a matter of speaking. Give everyone a fair chance to be heard. This is an important point. Remember this.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

And would happen again. But that is what they actually WANT.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

I’ll be right back, for part two. The Juvenile Democrats.
Peter

Source:
MBC -The Fairness Doctrine

The Democrat Party To Sacrifice The Troops.

Hey folks,

I have now about had it. It was fun to point out to you the lunacies of the Liberal Leadership in the House and Senate until now. Now it is REAL. All the things I and others warned you about leading up to the election is coming true. All the things I and others told you would happen, are and are about to. But now there is no doubt about it. The Democrat party wants to sacrifice the troops out of their pure hatred of President Bush. I told you that they would anything to make sure we lose this war.

Now if they actually have the votes, or if they actually will attempt to carry this through or not, isn't the whole issue. This statement from Sen. John Murtha says it all.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

There is no comedic translation for this one. There is no satire of the idiocies of Murtha the traitor of this one. We are in a war. All we keep hearing form the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} is that they support the troops. Let me re-post what Murtha the Traitor said.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

One more time in red.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

He and others in the new Liberal Democrat party want to cut the legs off of our men and women fighting this war. They already want to undermine the Commander and Chief, in essence, hijack this war. They will, if successful, KILL American soldiers by cutting the funds and supplies they need. They will, if successful, surrender to our enemy. They will, turn over Iraq and Iraqi resources to another one of our enemies who has repeated time and time again, "Death to America." They will open our door and welcome into our country more terrorists to kill more Americans. Worse than all this, they do not care.

They are either too stupid, or just so obsessed with the President’s down fall, OUR President’s down fall, that they would cut a deal with the devil himself. They have all but declared war on this country. I told you this before. To hell with the country. To hell with you. They do not care about you. All they care about is being in power. That’s it. Plain and simple. Now that the sheepeople voted them in, they will do ANYTHING to stay there. Even if it means sacrificing our men and women. Sons and Daughters. American lives. Tomorrow will truly be a sad day.

The above went out to various places. Now to continue more in-depth for you true OPNers. Tomorrow they are set to vote on the "Non-binding resolution." Just the concept of doing this in a time of war, will make tomorrow a truly sad day. But this statement by Murtha the traitor?

What President Bush said, is not only right, but there is no other sane way to look at it. He said,

"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission. Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."

Then House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.

"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.

Well said. Unlike Murtha the traitor.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work,"

Then Reuters reports that,

A new poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are increasingly skeptical about success in Iraq, with 47 percent believing the United States is likely to achieve its goals and 46 percent disagreeing. Three months ago 53 percent thought success was probable and 41 percent did not.

Of course the number went down. All they do is get hammered day in and day out by the MMD, about how bad everything is. Now with all this talk about undermining the effort, of course they are going to think we cannot win.

Then you have Pelosi getting into the mix yesterday.

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Uh, OK? Could you tell us what you are referring to? Just because you state it, sorry, that doesn’t mean it is accurate. Maybe a little more detail? {Sigh} I forgot for a second who I was talking about there folks. Sorry about that.

This little tidbit is a gem. From the President himself.

"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle,"

That is because this is the first time in the history of the United States Congress is being run by absolute lunatics. Completely ignorant. Unable to run this country. Blind to ANYTHING other than "Getting" the President of the United States of America. They are showing themselves to be too stupid to run a lemon aid stand, let alone the country.

This is getting serious folks. For any of you out there that may be a parent of a soldier. I encourage you to write to your Representatives and tell them, "If you put my Son or Daughter in harms way to play politics, you’re done. You will NEVER hold office again." For the Republicans that chose to go along with this, I say to you, we see you as we see them, traitors to your country. You will suffer the same result. And it IS, just that simple.
Peter

Sources;
Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran
Reuters-Democrats step up pressure on Bush troop buildup