statement that should restore our fairness doctrine.
The major reason Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine is that
the great Red Lion Supreme Ct. decision was rooted squarely on the
scarcity of airwaves. Reagan's FCC said now with cable, the airwaves
are no longer scarce. However, in the Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC
decision of 1994, the Supreme Ct. took up the issue of scarcity and
said this:
Although courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity
rationale since its inception, we have declined to question its
continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence.
The court explained that this applies only to broadcasting, not cable
and not newspapers.
Background Info:
When radio and TV first began to be aired in American homes, our
Congressmen realized that broadcasting can have tremendous influence
on public opinion and thought, giving the people a lens through which
they see issues -- shaping their worldview.
Thus, many congressmen wanted to ensure that powerful individuals did
not monopolize the media as a tool of propaganda, airing biased
information to promote their own narrow interests, telling only one
side of vital issues that affect peoples lives.
Thus Congress built a strong foundation to ensure that debate on
public issues is robust and wide open by amending 315(a) of the
Communications Act to include this sentence:
"Nothing in the foregoing [the equal opportunities provision] shall be
construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the
presentation of newscasts, news interview, news documentaries, and on-
the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon
them under this act to operate in the public interest and to afford
reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on
issues of public importance."
Also, it was established that the airwaves legally belong to the
people. Broadcasters are liscensed to use the airwaves to serve public
interest.
In the early years, the FCC did not allow broadcasters to use their
stations to promote their own political, social or economic views,
according to laywers Ralph L. Holsinger and Jon Paul Dilts.
"Rather they are to operate their stations as a sort of community
smorgasbord, laden with points of view and political arguments
representing all shades of opinion on public issues. No one opinion is
to be advanced over another, but all arguments are to be given a
reasonble airing."
This regulation came to be called The Fairness Doctrine. It had a
"profound impact on the coverage of news for 30 years," said Holsinger
and Dilts.
The Supreme Ct. upheld the Fairness Doctrine in 1969 in the Red Lion
vs. FCC decision which emphasized that the airwaves are to be "an
uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately
prevail rather than to countenance monopolization of the market."
In a blow to free speech, Ronald Reagan's FCC declared the Fairness
Doctrine obsolete after receiving a complaint the administration did
not wish to resolve made by the Syracuse Peace Council pertaining to a
broadcast in which arguments in support of nuclear power outnumbered
arguments against it by ten to one.
One of his main reasons for doing so was that the Supreme Court
explained in the Red Lion decision that the Fairness Doctrine is
justified because of "the scarcity" of radio frequencies. The Reagan
administration said that now that we have cable and Internet, it is no
longer justified.
However, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of scarcity in 1994 in
the Turner Broadcasting Decision Vs. FCC. In this decision, the court
said: "Although courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity
rationale since its inception, we have declined to question its
continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence."
The court explained that while it would be unconstitutional for the
government to intervene to enforce fairness on cable news or in
newspapers, the opposite is true in regard to broadcasting. Since the
airwaves legally belong to the people, are a scarce public resource
and broadcasters are licensed to serve public interest, the government
may intervene to make broadcasting serve "the ends and purposes of the
First Amendment" by preventing "monopolization of the market."
However, the FCC has not resumed regulation to ensure that all sides
of controversial issues are aired.
No one in Congress or the FCC seems to realize that the Supreme Court
ruled on the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and overturned Reagan's
justification for abolishing the Fairness Doctrine.
Below are longer excerpts of the two Supreme Court decisions mentioned
above:
Red Lion vs. Federal Communication Commssion -- 1969:
"Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the government is
permitted to put restrictions on licensees in favor of others whose
views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a
hole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their
collective right to have the medium function consistently with the
ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the
viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters which is
paramount. ... It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an
uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately
prevail rather than to countenance monopolization of the market,
whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. ... It
is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social,
political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is
crucial here, that right may not be constitutionally abridged either
by Congress or FCC."
Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC -- 1994:
"It is true that our cases have permitted more intrusive regulation
of broadcast speakers than of speakers in other media. But the
rationale for applying a less rigorous standard of First Amendment
scrutiny to broadcast regulation does not apply in the context of
cable regulation. The justification for our distinct approach to
broadcast regulation rests upon the unique physical limitations of the
broadcast medium. As a general matter, there are more would be
broadcasters than frequencies available in the electromagnetic
spectrum. And if two broadcasters were to attempt to transmit over the
same frequency in the same locale, they would interfere with one
another's signals, so that neither could be heard at all. The scarcity
of broadcast frequencies thus required the establishment of some
regulatory mechanism to divide the electromagnetic spectrum and assign
specific frequencies to particular broadcasters. In addition, the
inherent physical limitation on the number of speakers who may use the
broadcast medium has been thought to require some adjustment in
traditional First Amendment analysis to permit the Government to place
limited content restraints, and impose certain affirmative
obligations, on broadcast licensees. As we said in Red Lion, '[w]here
there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than
there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an
unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the
right of every individual to speak, write, or publish.' Although
courts and commentators have criticized the scarcity rationale since
its inception, we have declined to question its continuing validity as
support for our broadcast jurisprudence. The broadcast cases are
inapposite in the present context because cable television does not
suffer from the inherent limitations that characterize the broadcast
medium."
When abolishing the Fairness Doctrine, Reagan's FCC also argued that
the Fairness Doctrine has a chilling affect on free speech, that the
FCC should allow one-sided, bias reporting because if you mandate that
all sides be told, the broadcasters would simply avoid certain issues
and say nothing.
However, the court ruled on this in the Red Lion decision and said:
"The Fairness Doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect.
That this will occur now seems unlikely, however, since if present
licensees should suddenly prove timorous, the Commission is not
powerless to insist that they give adequate and fair attention to
public issues. It does not violate the First Amendment to treat
licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as
proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and
attention to matters of great public concern."
Moreover, the Red Lion decision makes it clear that the people have a
First Amendment right to a Fairness Doctrine, that monopolization of
the radio by one point of view violates that right and that our right
to receive full information -- full access to the country's rich
diverse dialogue -- "can not be abridged by Congress or the FCC" (The
Federal Communications Commission):
Here are the court's exact words explaining this: "But the people as a
whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their
collective right to have the medium function consistently with the
ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the
viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is
paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an
uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately
prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market,
whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is
the right of the public to receive suitable access to social,
political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is
crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either
by Congress or by the FCC."
After Reagan's wrongheaded destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, the
nature of radio changed. About 2000 programs became yellow journalism
-- conservative propaganda of the rich with no effort at balance, in
complete abdication of the Red Lion Supreme Ct. decision and Section
315 of the 1959 Communication Act.
"People from other industrial democracies are shocked and puzzled by
our right wing propaganda machine," said Dr. Ben Bagdikian, former
dean of the graduate school of the University of California, Berkeley
and author of the book, "The New Media Monopoly."
Here's a typical example of conservative radio propaganda. A
broadcaster said, "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are coming after your
pensions and health care!"
That one stung, for just the opposite is true.
While 2000 programs are now conservative, only 50 are liberal.
A broadcaster on Fox News, which is a tireless enemy of the Fairness
Doctrine, said: "It's a free market. If people want liberal talk
radio, they'll turn in to it. Why would lawmakers think about forcing
it on stations when the free market has said, 'We don�t want to hear
that.'"
Is it really true that people don't wish to hear liberal viewpoints?
Not too many years ago, for decades on end, most Christians, from one
end of the Bible Belt to the other, called themselves "liberal" and
voted a straight party ticket for the Democrats.
Today, conservative radio has convinced them they are not liberal, but
when you sit them down and ask them what they believe about policy
issues, polls repeatedly show that their views are liberal.
Liberal approaches are "super majority issues," said Dr. Eric
Alterman, a columnist for the Nation Magazine, a professor of English
and journalism, at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and
a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. I
found this when looking at "a series of polling data that goes way
back and focuses on the same questions," he said.
Dr. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Princeton
University and columnist for the New York Times says something
similar: "When self proclaimed moderates are questioned about their
views on actual policy issues, those views turn out to be
indistinguishable from self-proclaimed liberals."
The problem is that without the Fairness Doctrine, the fears of our
Congressmen who established broadcasting regulations has come true.
The rich have monopolized the airwaves and brainwashed the people.
Democracy has been overturned as millions of people vote for
congressmen who stand against their interests -- against controlling
healthcare costs, against protection of social security -- against
revoking tax breaks for those who send jobs overseas -- against
renewable energy -- against decent minimum wages -- against better
fuel efficiency standards -- against higher taxes on the rich --
against the day to day fight of EPA lawyers trying to keep our water
clean and more and more.
However, the laws we need to restore the foundation stone of
broadcasting and the health of our democracy are all there. We need to
write our Congressmen and the Federal Communications Commissioners and
tell them this is our priority issues.
The FCC is there to hear your complaints.
If you hear a broadcaster airing false information or not giving full
information, you can file �a petition to deny� or an informal
objection against the renewal of the license of the broadcaster. You
file these with the Federal Communications Commission.
If you live in Alabama, you must file your "petition to deny" by March
1, 2012, since their licenses expire April 1, 2012.
Send your petitions to deny to this address:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Atten: Audio Division,
Processing Team
Mail Stop 1800B
Or, Video Division, Liscense Renewal\
Processing Team
Room 2-A665
If you wish to hand deliver your petition:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
C/O Natek, Inc.
236 Massachusetts Ave. N.E.
Suite 110
Washington, D.C. 20002
The FCC says they no longer regulate to ensure that all sides of
issues are told. However, you can also make complaints and tell them
your legal rights to f
Annie Birdsong
205-588-5782
annie@anniebirdsong.com
See my website at:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment