FCC Fairness Doctrine

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think it is time to update and reinstate the FCC fairness doctrine ... warts and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

It does not operate as intended anymore for a couple of very specific reasons, mostly TECHNICAL.

The Fairness Doctrine was never an actual law, it was both an FCC policy and a gentlemen's agreement between the original "big three" radio/TV broadcasting networks, but was also honored by the Associated Press and United Press International. Reuters already had its own brand of FD in place in its original non-profit charter.

The Fairness Doctrine as Federal Communications Commission policy centered around the FCC licensing of OVER THE AIR broadcast TRANSMITTERS, which is where FCC's jurisdiction lies.
These transmitter owners had to apply for a LICENSE to propagate their signals over "THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES". ***
Transmitter licensees had to demonstrate that they were "operating in the public interest" in order to keep their licenses.

***This is where things get very specific: The public airwaves are exactly that and nothing more. They are the electromagnetic spectrum that exists in the atmosphere as well as in other physical mediums, but since FCC licenses OTA transmitters they are only allowed to regulate that part of the spectrum that exists in the atmosphere, ON THE AIR, so to speak.
If you propagate signals over the public airwaves, you must use an antenna to propagate signals (broadcasting) and viewers/listeners must use an antenna to receive those signals.

If you propagate over a WIRE, or a FIBER OPTIC CABLE, or via a SATELLITE, and your audience is PAYING to SUBSCRIBE to your service, THAT is NOT the public airwaves.
It is a PRIVATE SUBSCRIBER service and FCC can only regulate technical aspects of those services to ensure that they do NOT INTERFERE WITH the public airwaves in any manner which may cause undesired operation.

The above paragraph is FCC's only regulatory jurisdiction OVER subscriber networks on wire, cable or satellite.

Cable news channels do not USE antennas at all.
Furthermore, even IF FCC chose to shut off every radio/TV transmitter in the entire country, only about 10% of the audience would even notice because 90% or almost 90 percent use wire, cable or satellite to RECEIVE BOTH subscriber services AND the transmitter stream from their over the air channels.

The point I am getting at is, terrestrial over the air broadcasting is like ROTARY DIAL phone technology, it is old, inefficient, expensive and it is becoming largely obsolete and unnecessary.
You would have to start completely from scratch and you'd have to use an agency other than the FCC to enforce unless it was somehow possible to expand FCC's jurisdiction over these private subscriber services.

My sources include Part 95 of FCC Rules and Regulations and other sections and subsections both new and old and my own personal experiences as the holder of FCC First Class Radiotelephone Operator Permit
#P-1-16-37875 issued June 1979. That used to be the type of license a technician/engineer needed to be permitted to WORK ON commercial over the air transmitters of any kind and we had all this stuff pounded into our heads so that we could pass the FCC license exams.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In fact the campaign season should only last 4 months.

That would simply give incumbents an even larger advantage. There is obviously no way to constitutionally limit the “political speech” of those holding public office and much of what they say is considered to be ‘newsworthy’, thus giving them loads of free media coverage.

 

[Risky Thicket]

That would simply give incumbents an even larger advantage. There is obviously no way to constitutionally limit the “political speech” of those holding public office and much of what they say is considered to be ‘newsworthy’, thus giving them loads of free media coverage.

Yes, I agree. Probably you feel the same way but I am a strong advocate of term limits. Two terms and their butt is out the door.

Working together, without the ****ing politicians, adults of America, both parties and also independents can flesh it out.

We can’t continue down the path we have been on for decades. At present all us end up with scaps and leavings while corporations, dark money foreign and domestic and career politicians get 90% get all the power, control and money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, I agree. Probably you feel the same way but I am a strong advocate of term limits. Two terms and their butt is out the door.

Working together, without the ****ing politicians, adults of America, both parties and also independents can flesh it out.

We can’t continue down the path we have been on for decades. At present all us end up with scaps and leavings while corporations, dark money foreign and domestic and career politicians get 90% get all the power, control and money.

Term limits are impractical since the political (‘public service’ or governing) class (for lack of a better term) are quite mobile. They can (and often do) now serve in multiple elective (and appointed) ‘public service’ capacities within multiple levels (layers?) of government. For example, one can start in a hired or appointed ‘public service’ job (gaining ‘public service‘ experience and name recognition “points”) then be elected to even a single term (of say 2 or 4 years each) in positions A, B and C in local government, positions A, B and C in state government and positions A and B in federal government for a total of 16 to 32 years (not counting any time spent in hired or appointed ‘public service’ positions).

If it was possible (and Constitutional) to limit any individual to 10 years total in combined ‘pubic service’ employment time reagrdless of the job title or level of government then that might work. IMHO, having no more ‘public service’ careers at all for anyone would help a lot.

 

[Bear5131]

It does not operate as intended anymore for a couple of very specific reasons, mostly TECHNICAL.

The Fairness Doctrine was never an actual law, it was both an FCC policy and a gentlemen's agreement between the original "big three" radio/TV broadcasting networks, but was also honored by the Associated Press and United Press International. Reuters already had its own brand of FD in place in its original non-profit charter.

The Fairness Doctrine as Federal Communications Commission policy centered around the FCC licensing of OVER THE AIR broadcast TRANSMITTERS, which is where FCC's jurisdiction lies.
These transmitter owners had to apply for a LICENSE to propagate their signals over "THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES". ***
Transmitter licensees had to demonstrate that they were "operating in the public interest" in order to keep their licenses.

***This is where things get very specific: The public airwaves are exactly that and nothing more. They are the electromagnetic spectrum that exists in the atmosphere as well as in other physical mediums, but since FCC licenses OTA transmitters they are only allowed to regulate that part of the spectrum that exists in the atmosphere, ON THE AIR, so to speak.
If you propagate signals over the public airwaves, you must use an antenna to propagate signals (broadcasting) and viewers/listeners must use an antenna to receive those signals.

If you propagate over a WIRE, or a FIBER OPTIC CABLE, or via a SATELLITE, and your audience is PAYING to SUBSCRIBE to your service, THAT is NOT the public airwaves.
It is a PRIVATE SUBSCRIBER service and FCC can only regulate technical aspects of those services to ensure that they do NOT INTERFERE WITH the public airwaves in any manner which may cause undesired operation.

The above paragraph is FCC's only regulatory jurisdiction OVER subscriber networks on wire, cable or satellite.

Cable news channels do not USE antennas at all.
Furthermore, even IF FCC chose to shut off every radio/TV transmitter in the entire country, only about 10% of the audience would even notice because 90% or almost 90 percent use wire, cable or satellite to RECEIVE BOTH subscriber services AND the transmitter stream from their over the air channels.

The point I am getting at is, terrestrial over the air broadcasting is like ROTARY DIAL phone technology, it is old, inefficient, expensive and it is becoming largely obsolete and unnecessary.
You would have to start completely from scratch and you'd have to use an agency other than the FCC to enforce unless it was somehow possible to expand FCC's jurisdiction over these private subscriber services.

My sources include Part 95 of FCC Rules and Regulations and other sections and subsections both new and old and my own personal experiences as the holder of FCC First Class Radiotelephone Operator Permit
#P-1-16-37875 issued June 1979. That used to be the type of license a technician/engineer needed to be permitted to WORK ON commercial over the air transmitters of any kind and we had all this stuff pounded into our heads so that we could pass the FCC license exams.

View attachment 67398707

Good grief Sattilite , cable , fiber optics wasn't a norm back then, Thank God for Reagan a year after he got rid of the fairness doctrine Rush Limbaugh because a house hold name

 

[OrphanSlug]

There is no reason to consider the Fairness Doctrine as anything other than government overreach, and there is good reason why the FCC abandoned just about all of its parts somewhere around 2010 - 2011.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Term limits are impractical since the political (‘public service’ or governing) class (for lack of a better term) are quite mobile. They can (and often do) now serve in multiple elective (and appointed) ‘public service’ capacities within multiple levels (layers?) of government. For example, one can start in a hired or appointed ‘public service’ job (gaining ‘public service‘ experience and name recognition “points”) then be elected to even a single term (of say 2 or 4 years each) in positions A, B and C in local government, positions A, B and C in state government and positions A and B in federal government for a total of 16 to 32 years (not counting any time spent in hired or appointed ‘public service’ positions).

If it was possible (and Constitutional) to limit any individual to 10 years total in combined ‘pubic service’ employment time reagrdless of the job title or level of government then that might work. IMHO, having no more ‘public service’ careers at all for anyone would help a lot.

Maybe not in this thread but we may have a starting place to discuss ideas and differences.

Would you agree that what we have at present is running like a 3 legged dog? There is no quick fix. We didn’t get here overnight and we aren’t getting out overnight. Left on their own Washington is not going to fix it. Hell, they don’t want to fix it.

 

[Crovax]

Good point ... not sure. But without it the nation is spiraling into the same McCarthyism like Mania which caused the birth of the Fairness Doctrine to begin with....

What in the **** are you talking about? The fairness doctrine was started in 1949 and it roots came over a decade earlier. McCarthy gave his 1st "mccarthyism" speech in 1950

Do you make up this fake history or was it ingrained into your head?

 

[Indydave]

Okay.

I disagree with you.

Back in the 80's, people were limited in their sources of news and opinion. Broadcast and print media. Nowadays, those limits are gone. Cable and the internet essentially makes anyone in the world a news source. There is no need for the government to declare any source must abide by "fairness standards". Consumers can pick the standards they want for themselves.

yup .....and from this has evolved the Media of the Lie......'if you don't agree just say it's a lie'......there is no more truth

 

[ttwtt78640]

Okay.

I disagree with you.

Back in the 80's, people were limited in their sources of news and opinion. Broadcast and print media. Nowadays, those limits are gone. Cable and the internet essentially makes anyone in the world a news source. There is no need for the government to declare any source must abide by "fairness standards". Consumers can pick the standards they want for themselves.

That theory is fine, but ignores the all too common preference for folks to seek confirmation bias.

 

[Mycroft]

That theory is fine, but ignores the all too common preference for folks to seek confirmation bias.

That is the right that everyone has. The government has no mandate to force people to listen to whatever the government tells them to listen to.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is the right that everyone has. The government has no mandate to force people to listen to whatever the government tells them to listen to.

It’s absolutely a right, but my point was if one’s mind is made up (say on what is going on at the southern border) then they are unlikely to find anything to change it if they choose Fox News, MSNBC or CNN as their news source. Try a google search of “MSNBC southern border” or “CNN southern border” and see what you get, then try it with “Fox News southern border” for contrast.

 

[yankintx]

I think the main problem now is that conservatives don't want balance and view it as part of the loony left.
Anything Left of Hannity is now loony left and the centre doesn't exist any more.
The only news they accept has a hard right slant and even just reporting facts as they happen is suspect if it doesn't come with right wing talking points.

It's how they can complain about someone simply reporting the events of the day as part of the hated MSM and not to be trusted. Remember you shouldn't trust your eyes, just what Fox or Trump tells you what's happening.

The GOP tent has been shrinking for several election cycles.

Now you got to swear allegiance to Trump and some fictional being in the sky.

 

[FreeStorm84]

I think it is time to update and reinstate the FCC fairness doctrine ... warts and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

I'm actually of the view that the FCC is essentially Unconstitutional. Why should a govt agency of any kind regulate what is broadcast on any station? Privatize the whole damn system!