Citing Obama opposition, McDowell Warns against Fairness Doctrine
-
Citing Obama Opposition, McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine
Reimposition Could Undermine Kids TV Regulations, Public Radio
John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 1/28/2009 3:27:00 PM MT
FCC commissioner Robert McDowell had a message for Democrats, or anyone else contemplating trying to reimpose the fairness doctrine: The move could undermine the justification for existing localism and children's TV regulations, and could be used against public radio.
He also suggested it would not come back wearing a big sign saying, "it's me, the fairness doctrine," but would likely instead be rebranded.
Those were some of the observations McDowell provided Wednesday in a speech to The Media Institute in Washington, which is a strong opponent of the doctrine. The fairness doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues.
In the speech, McDowell cited candidate Barack Obama's statement to B&C--through an aide--that he did not support the doctrine, adding that the new administration has a terrific opportunity to enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the fairness doctrine.
He spoke at length about the doctrine's origins and its use by both Democrats and Republicans against their opponents. He said he did not know whether recent calls for its return would bear fruit, felt it was a good time to talk to his audience--of media executives, lobbyists, journalists and others--about its creation, its historical abuses, and the legal difficulties involved with restoring it and trying to enforce it.
McDowell warned that if the doctrine were revived, it might not "wear the same label. That's just Marketing 101: if your brand is controversial, make a new brand," he told his audience.
He suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. "According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral," he said.
McDowell suggested that a stealth version of the doctrine may already be teed up at the FCC in the form of community advisory boards to help determine local programming. McDowell says he is fine with those boards if they are voluntary--some stations already seek such input. But that if they are required, as the FCC has proposed, "Would not such a policy be akin to re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"
McDowell also said that efforts to reimpose the doctrine could stretch to cable, satellite, and even the Internet. "Certain legal commentators have suggested that a new corollary of the Doctrine should be fashioned for the Internet, on the theory that web surfers should be exposed to topics and views that they have not chosen for themselves," adding: "I am not making this up."
In a move obviously calculated to strike fear into the hearts of regulatory-minded Democrats, the same ones who have meen making noises about liking the fairness doctrine when it comes to reining in talk radio critics, McDowell had this:
"Actually, in a string of media cases stretching back over more than 20 years, various judges on the D.C. Circuit - both Democratic and Republican appointees - have suggested that it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink the concept of spectrum scarcity as a justification for limiting broadcasters' First Amendment rights. A revived Doctrine would provide a big, bright bulls-eye for those who wish to make that happen. That development would have implications far beyond the Doctrine itself. Much of our content regulation of broadcasters - including most of the FCC's existing localism rules and the regulations requiring three hours a week of children's programming - rest on the spectrum scarcity rationale. If that rationale is invalidated, serious legal challenges to all those other content rules may follow."
McDowell said he was hopeful that the Obama administration understood all this.
"As I watched his inaugural address last week," he said, "I was struck by the relevance of the debate over the Doctrine to a section of his speech where he said, 'To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history ....' 'I am encouraged that President Obama can, once and for all, end the speculation of whether something akin to the Doctrine will come back to life during his term."
-
Stern? is a gross, xxx-rated shock jock.
You are comparing him to Hannity or Rush?
Is there no end to the silliness ?
When was Stern ever mentioned by Reid and Pelosi and Obama etc etc?
But Rush and Hannity have been verbally brought up again and again.
And the leftists in Congress and Obama... are serious.
I wish we had an oline course called "Logic and Analogies for Liberals" somewhere....
-
Stern? is a gross, xxx-rated shock jock.
You are comparing him to Hannity or Rush?
Is there no end to the silliness ?
When was Stern ever mentioned by Reid and Pelosi and Obama etc etc?
But Rush and Hannity have been verbally brought up again and again.
And the leftists in Congress and Obama... are serious.
I wish we had an oline course called "Logic and Analogies for Liberals" somewhere....
I wish we had an oline course called "Logic and Analogies for Liberals" somewhere....
Stern and Rush are both entertainers, nothing more. Seems perfectly analogous to me. But I'm labeled a "Liberal," so I guess I'm Retarded...
I do shop at the Co-opportunity here in town, supporting local farmers, so I can't be all bad.
-
Yeah PB&J, like these folks can find NPR on their dials. That's funny. It's a Liberal shill, anyhow...
Has anyone noticed that Cal is like the Lumbergh of the "Political Discussion" board? Whenever he is proven to be a fraud, he can be found in another thread spouting the same fraudulent shit.
-
Yeah PB&J, like these folks can find NPR on their dials. That's funny. It's a Liberal shill, anyhow...
Has anyone noticed that Cal is like the Lumbergh of the "Political Discussion" board? Whenever he is proven to be a fraud, he can be found in another thread spouting the same fraudulent shit.
mz. said:
Yeah PB&J, like these folks can find NPR on their dials. That's funny. It's a Liberal shill, anyhow...Has anyone noticed that Cal is like the Lumbergh of the "Political Discussion" board? Whenever he is proven to be a fraud, he can be found in another thread spouting the same fraudulent shit.
So is that better or worse than rooting for the quarterback who looks nicest in a thong?
But yes.
NPR is a liberal shill.
So are the Timeses
And nobody's "all" bad.
WSS
-
Rush claims that he and FOX News ARE the fairness doctrine and Libs better be wary of what they wish for.
-
Rush claims that he and FOX News ARE the fairness doctrine and Libs better be wary of what they wish for.
Rush claims that he and FOX News ARE the fairness doctrine and Libs better be wary of what they wish for.
There are only a handful of conservative talk shows on television or radio compared to all those lefty shows.
It would be nice to have a good conservative tv show come on next to the view.
It would also be nice to see the View canceled.
-
hah hah.
It's what liberals do. They demonize the opposition. Limpbergmeister is a shill for the
da that should hit the highway.
I've SAID before, I'm not a shill for Rush. He aggravates me too often, especially when he was spending a lot of air time
flappin his jaws about cigars...
But he is also RIGHT here and there.
Ask yourselves this, oh liberal sheep...
if that's all Rush is, why are the leftists and Obama freakin out about Rush, and demonizing him?
If he's "only entertainment"... why the beef with him?
Because they don't like dissent, that's why. I'd rather listen to Hannity any day.
but you libs will diss anybody in the media that opposes what Obama is, his socialist baggage from the past,
and what he's doing now.
You would be better served at working on the nads to have a critical set of eyes at Obama's actions -
especially this "bailout" package...
more billions of pork that won't help the economy than you can shake a stick at.
and Dems/Obama are now whining that the previous bailout package, that THEY
ASKED BUSH to hurry up and approve... was Bush's fault for not having restrictions...
I don't buy fake gems for investment. But that's what Dems are asking.
-
mz. said:
Yeah PB&J, like these folks can find NPR on their dials. That's funny. It's a Liberal shill, anyhow...Has anyone noticed that Cal is like the Lumbergh of the "Political Discussion" board? Whenever he is proven to be a fraud, he can be found in another thread spouting the same fraudulent shit.
So is that better or worse than rooting for the quarterback who looks nicest in a thong?
But yes.
NPR is a liberal shill.
So are the Timeses
And nobody's "all" bad.
WSS
But yes.
NPR is a liberal shill.
WSS
All of those stories on the rainforest and music and literature sure are liberal, Steve.
It's sad that "smart" is the new "evil," isn't it.
-
But yes.
NPR is a liberal shill.
WSS
All of those stories on the rainforest and music and literature sure are liberal, Steve.
It's sad that "smart" is the new "evil," isn't it.
mz. said:
All of those stories on the rainforest and music and literature sure are liberal, Steve.It's sad that "smart" is the new "evil," isn't it.
Oh sorryy.
I guess that if Pravda also ran an occasional human intersest piece it'd be straight news right?
I think Pompous must be the new Smart.
WSS
-
mz. said:
All of those stories on the rainforest and music and literature sure are liberal, Steve.It's sad that "smart" is the new "evil," isn't it.
Oh sorryy.
I guess that if Pravda also ran an occasional human intersest piece it'd be straight news right?
I think Pompous must be the new Smart.
WSS
Comparing NPR to Pravda?? Nice.
I think Pompous must be the new Smart.
WSS
It's sad that wanting to learn about shit became "pompous" somewhere along the way. Seriously.
-
Comparing NPR to Pravda?? Nice.
I think Pompous must be the new Smart.
WSS
It's sad that wanting to learn about shit became "pompous" somewhere along the way. Seriously.
mz. said:
Comparing NPR to Pravda?? Nice.It's sad that wanting to learn about shit became "pompous" somewhere along the way. Seriously.
It would be sad if it were actually true.
Learning about a subject (to me) would be trying to learn both sides realistically rather than grab a quote to use in a bickering contest.
If it makes you feel superior to pretend NPR (or the timeses) doesn't slant left you're only kidding yourself.
It appears to me the small sips folks take from that Pierian spring are barely enopugh to sound "informend."
Ideological slant does not mean bullshjt though.
WSS
-
Another great post Cal. Keep um coming. Don't let the limp wristed left wing on here get you down. You numba one!
-
mz. said:
Comparing NPR to Pravda?? Nice.It's sad that wanting to learn about shit became "pompous" somewhere along the way. Seriously.
It would be sad if it were actually true.
Learning about a subject (to me) would be trying to learn both sides realistically rather than grab a quote to use in a bickering contest.
If it makes you feel superior to pretend NPR (or the timeses) doesn't slant left you're only kidding yourself.
It appears to me the small sips folks take from that Pierian spring are barely enopugh to sound "informend."
Ideological slant does not mean bullshjt though.
WSS
Learning about a subject (to me) would be trying to learn both sides realistically rather than grab a quote to use in a bickering contest.
WSS
What is the downside to learning about some sort of traditional Portuguese music, for instance? Where is the slant there?
Sad, guys. Sad.
-
Another great post Cal. Keep um coming. Don't let the limp wristed left wing on here get you down. You numba one!
*****************************
OH. Thank goodness, I thought your avatar kid was saying something else to me all this time...
-
@danamal said:
Stern? is a gross, xxx-rated shock jock.You are comparing him to Hannity or Rush?
The comparison begins and ends with FREE speech.
If you find it ok that Stern was forced off the air by the religous right because you found him offensive and their was nothing wrong with that ,how could you be surprised that a liberal group would be offended by Hannity and Limbaugh and not want them off the air?
You cant have it both ways,where does it end?
I dont condone any of it because I can change the station whenever I want, people should be able to listen to whatever they find entertaining or informative.
Sorry Dan you are misinformed.
Stern allowed a caller to rant on and on using the word N***** about a half a dozen times.
That was what the fine was for.
He jumped to XM Sirius for the money, not forced anywhere.
Do the F bombs make his show funnier than baba booey?
I don't enjoy him but that's that.
WSS
-
Dan - having freedom means also having responsibilities to not interfere with others' freedoms.
with no responisilities/restrictions, means everybody is free to have their
freedom trampled on.
It isn't a matter of let Stern do anything he wants. People and children
should have a right to not be seriously offended by grotesque and repulsive intent
to shock audiences as a matter of feeble "entertainment".
There is no intent, nor grotesque offense in what Hannity and Rush do in exercizing
their *responsible" freedom of speech.
In that, disagreeing is not legally offensive. Putrid, obscene, grotesque verbage and actions are illegal
on the airwaves to protect the rights of those who have the right to be free from that offense.
Saying that "they can turn the channel" is like saying "they can un-shoot themselves". Once the damage
is done, it's done.
Society has a right to -legimately- protect itself from serious violations of the responsibilities
we have.
Failure to restrict others from abridging your freedom is not censorship - it's protecting your freedom.
Otherwise, others are "free" to violate your freedom.
-
Dan - having freedom means also having responsibilities to not interfere with others' freedoms.
with no responisilities/restrictions, means everybody is free to have their
freedom trampled on.
It isn't a matter of let Stern do anything he wants. People and children
should have a right to not be seriously offended by grotesque and repulsive intent
to shock audiences as a matter of feeble "entertainment".
There is no intent, nor grotesque offense in what Hannity and Rush do in exercizing
their *responsible" freedom of speech.
In that, disagreeing is not legally offensive. Putrid, obscene, grotesque verbage and actions are illegal
on the airwaves to protect the rights of those who have the right to be free from that offense.
Saying that "they can turn the channel" is like saying "they can un-shoot themselves". Once the damage
is done, it's done.
Society has a right to -legimately- protect itself from serious violations of the responsibilities
we have.
Failure to restrict others from abridging your freedom is not censorship - it's protecting your freedom.
Otherwise, others are "free" to violate your freedom.
It isn't a matter of let Stern do anything he wants. People and children
should have a right to not be seriously offended by grotesque and repulsive intent
to shock audiences as a matter of feeble "entertainment".
There is no intent, nor grotesque offense in what Hannity and Rush do in exercizing
their *responsible" freedom of speech.
It's so incredibly sad that you can't see Stern and Hannity/Rush as the same thing. Just because you like one much better than the other doesn't mean they're all not mere entertainers. Give it a rest already.
-
@danamal said:
It's a little more complicated than that Steve,but the fact of the matter is the pressure was on him and infinity broadcasting due to the religious right and they were making it impossible for his show to continue on regular radio.Hey if it makes you feel better to blame the Christians than the hypersensitive left goodie.
You're wrong but goodie anyway.
Stern knows you can't say fuk on the radio.
Sirius made a lot more millions than they paid him to afford him that right.
Big whoop.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login