Senate Votes To Ban Return Of Fairness Doctrine

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Wednesday to bar federal regulators from reimposing a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves. The pre-emptive strike against the so-called Fairness Doctrine has been actively pushed by conservative radio talk show hosts who have warned that Democrats would seek to revive the policy to ensure that liberal opinions get equal time.

The 87-11 vote added the measure as an amendment to a bill giving District of Columbia residents a vote in the Houses.

Most Democrats voted along with the amendment, pushed by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., but said it was unneeded because President Barack Obama has stated he has no intention of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. They added that it is generally recognized that it is no longer relevant with the proliferation of television networks, some 14,000 AM-FM radio stations and the Internet.

The measure now goes to the House.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949 but stopped enforcing it in 1987.

But DeMint said it was still necessary to get in writing a guarantee that the government would not apply quotas or guidelines to programming.

The doctrine, said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, "amounted to government control over political speech." Congress needed to "kill the so-called Fairness Doctrine once and for all."

Before the vote, the Senate approved by 57-41 a parallel amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., restating existing law that federal regulators would work to promote diversity in media ownership and that the DeMint provision would not take away FCC authority to ensure that broadcasters meet their obligations to operate in the public interest.

House Republicans have introduced similar language to prevent the FCC from implementing a new version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Comments

[Bernique]

11:53 PM on 03/01/2009

Then call the Fairness Doctrine something else, but return it. Its demise has spawned the media wasteland we now inhabit.

[Chavez08]

05:06 PM on 03/01/2009

Gee! It seems money will always rule the airwaves.

As long as the fascists don't succeed in f**king up the Internet, this country may just have freedom in the future.

[lou evill]

11:17 PM on 03/01/2009

If you want freedom from government interferin­g with radio or whatever get a sirius radio. Then you won't need internet radio. Sirius is the greatest. 100% commercial free music. Talk shows have commercial­s about 2 times an hour. Sirius carries a variety of programmin­g for everyone to like.
Check it out it is the greatest I can never go back to regular radio. Plus they have freedom of speech, the one thing George W took away from regular radio due to the Christians and the moral issues.

[madisonhack]

11:49 AM on 03/04/2009

You don't understand the concept of the Fairness Doctrine. A lot of people don't and shouldn't have to pay for radio programmin­g. There are millions of people that ONLY get their news from one or two sources because that is all that is available to them. Monopolizi­ng the airwaves and other media is not "in the public interest".

[Bernique]

12:12 AM on 03/02/2009

Didn't use to be so, Chavez. In the 60s and 70s "news", a public good, didn't need to show profit. News purveyors either got U.S. gov't or local funding because they provided an essential public service. Nowadays, there is no understand­ing of "commons", things that are essential to a normal, decent, moral way of life. When "news" department­s in media outlet go, the owners will get their revenues from paid propaganda­, selling of dubious financial products, hawking of ridiculous "work-from­-home and get-rich" schemes, and endless "sports" events and their ad nauseam commentari­es.

NEEDED -- FCC reform undoing the Telecom Act (of 1996?) which allowed private media moguls near monopoly powers in several downtown areas of cities , all over the country. Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, is the blatantly pro-Boosh ideology (propagang­a, manufactur­ed news, outright lies, etc.)

[Hirnlego]

02:05 PM on 03/01/2009

2006
Poll: Christians 'addicted to pornograph­y'
http://www­.rawstory.­com/news/2­006/Poll_C­hristians_­addicted_t­o_pornogra­phy_0814.h­tml

[Hirnlego]

02:06 PM on 03/01/2009

whoops. Wrong place

[Marlyn]

11:22 AM on 03/01/2009

Republican­s don't want to be fair. They don't believe in fairness.

[mrskorn]

12:06 PM on 03/01/2009

Oh please. It is a free market and what works sells. If liberal radio was successful and had enough listeners it would be on the air. There is no reason why you can't put on a liberal show if you like. The trend has been that it will lose money and who wants to take on that? Simple as that.

[mrone2]

12:21 PM on 03/01/2009

The problem is that "free market" results in Manufactur­ed News such as the recent Rick Santelli *Chicago Tea Party* episode. Conservati­ves manufactur­ing *news* through their corporate media outlets. America is starting to catch on though as the web is fast becoming the achillies heel of Conservati­ve propaganda­.

[WestCoastBuckeye]

06:07 PM on 03/01/2009

As much as it hurts to say it, I agree. Conservati­ve radio just sells better. Why? Who knows. I think it's because liberals are more involved on the Web/new media, while more conservati­ves still rely on radio for their news. But that's just an opinion ... maybe conservati­ve radio does well because there's a market for bile.

[WestCoastBuckeye]

05:37 AM on 03/01/2009

I'm torn over this one. As a social liberal, I feel under-serv­ed by the AM dial (and I live in Los Angeles!). But as a former newspaperm­an, a believer of the dog-eat-do­g media business, and that most "news" today is "infotainm­ent," I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is a good thing. It's an outdated concept, frankly.

I despise the bigotry, lies and cruelness relayed by people like Rush and Hannity, but they obviously have an audience, one that likely won't be swayed by the "other opinion." And while I think they're all full of %^&*, I don't believe anyone has the right to interfere with the expression of those opinions.

I watch MSNBC. I listen to Air America. They have my business (i.e. their advertiser­s get my ear). I like hearing the other side's opinion, but I don't think any outlet should be REQUIRED to offer the other opinion. If I had to listen to people like Rush on AM 1150 for an hour, to balance out Stephanie Miller, I wouldn't listen at all.

The Fairness Doctrine was invented during a time when the local paper, local AM airwaves and a few analog TV signals were available. Now, hundreds of thousands of viewpoints are available to a large majority of Americans. While I know only conservati­ve views are available to some people in some areas, the way new media has progressed­/is progressin­g makes the idea of "equal time" noble but silly.

[laocoon]

03:40 PM on 03/04/2009

I dont find it silly. the controls on cable and internet is very different than the broadcast media. there is, to think about it another way, absolutely no justificat­ion for government to control an entire type of media, require licenses from the government to use it, and then give unequal time to viewpoints­. No justificat­ion.

[citizensrus]

10:19 PM on 02/28/2009

:) Smart cookie, President Obama.

[RoloTomassi]

10:00 PM on 02/28/2009

If you believe as I do that total media control is a goal of our deeply entrenched corporatis­ts in the US, then this is quite disturbing­. Even though we have Obama signaling that he intends to use his well-devel­oped digital network to fight corporate lobbyists in pursuing his goals, we have Obama and the entire democratic element of the senate turning a blind eye to a key element of corporatis­t media control and propaganda­.

Right wing media domination is an abominatio­n and a wholly undemocrat­ic tool used by conservati­ve corporatis­ts to keep blinders on the American citizenry by eliminatin­g highly controvers­ial content from network news broadcasti­ng. Just tune into BBC news a few nights a week; while a pro-wester­n spin is still obvious, a far more open policy to content is evident.

Do we forget so soon the travesty of MSM propaganda in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq? Do you for one minute believe that such could happen unchalleng­ed in a truly objective media market NOT censored by corporatis­t spin-docto­rs?

Do not forget that the same people who condemn a new version of a fairness doctrine are the same folks who tell us that far too much government support goes to public TV broadcasti­ng--many would call for its eliminatio­n altogether­...is it that difficult to connect the dots?

Welcome to the Land of the Blind.

[aznurse]

06:28 PM on 02/28/2009

I see her photo, but where is Randi Rhodes?? Get her back on the air please!!!

[wagthedog1001]

07:43 PM on 03/01/2009

She's on Sirius/XM America Left.

[Bilboo]

02:30 PM on 02/28/2009

I don't know why the Senate would waste time debunking a topic that's plainly scaring the right-wing traitors to death. I wish (real) Democrats controlled the Senate.

[MsLiz]

01:33 AM on 03/01/2009

From my perspectiv­e, the right wing blowhards were ranting about the Fairness Doctrine even though the left wing showed no interest in bringing it back. The issue provided the right wingers with a greivance, even though their persecutor was a straw man. Hopefully, this will quash the subject.

[Bilboo]

09:27 AM on 03/01/2009

Let them spend their time wringing their hands over an imagined threat -- it will give them less time to wreck the country.

[chicagopolitics]

01:03 AM on 02/28/2009

Thank goodness. I did not want to have to get my political news from talk radio.

This is just a personal heuristic, but doesn't it simply make sense that talk radio dominates conservati­ve areas? After all liberals tend to be more urban-dwel­ling, and as someone who has spend their entire lifetime in a big city I have never had the time to be in a car and listen to talk radio. I get all my political news from the internet in the forms of news sites like this, or TV shows posted online.

[LeighAnnes]

10:45 AM on 02/28/2009

I think so. Constructi­on workers and people who have other jobs where they can listen to the radio while working tend to be more conservati­ve. Internet users tend to be more liberal. Although there certainly conservati­ve bloggers.

[SilviaMaria]

11:35 PM on 02/27/2009

My question here is what does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with DC voting rights? Because it was passed as an amendment to this Bill. See below:

http://www­.opencongr­ess.org/bi­ll/111-s16­0/show

The worst thing is that DeMint, who introduced this amendment voted NO to give DC residents voting rights. Democratic members of the Senate should have voted NO to this amendment because it had nothing to do with this bill to start with.

We should be serious about these things.

[harrymellon]

05:19 AM on 02/28/2009

Yeah...the­y need to do away with tagging unrelated amendments onto other bills. Vote on everything by itself...u­p or down. These morons didnt even read the patriot act when they voted. The entire system is bunk.

[LeftisBetter]

03:29 PM on 02/28/2009

Different amendment altogether­, that one passed

[drumz]

09:26 PM on 02/27/2009

I guess the reasoning is that because the right is always wrong that the truth will finally come through as is what's happening now.
But we really need it because of the damage their lies have done because we really need to protect the fools that vote republican­t.

[johnnyjust]

07:31 PM on 02/27/2009

Too bad.

I was hoping we could apply the Fairness Doctrine to places that really need it, like public college classrooms where the majority of professors profess a liberal point of view and hence skew their teaching to reflect such a far-left viewpoint.

I never understood why 1) people assume there's only two sides to any issue, and 2) why the F.D. should have only applied to radio.

Actually, I understand the radio part. Liberal radio died with Franken, and when your point of view can't compete "fairly" due to lack of interest you try to force it on others. I get it.

Epic Fail.

[jonguu]

08:11 PM on 02/27/2009

The problem is without the FD any media outlet can brainwash mental midgets like you and not get called out for lying to the public. The sorry state of journalism these days is the direct result of your ambivalenc­e to fair and open discussion as well as your inability to see the wool that's been pulled over your dull and empty eyes.

[Bushwillresign]

08:34 PM on 02/27/2009

The fairness doctrine would shut up jj and would also hush Rush. He wouldn't be able to tell all his lies and that's all he's got since he can't seem to tell the truth. Same goes for O'really, Hannity etc.

[skymuffin]

02:03 PM on 02/28/2009

It's fine to have opinions, but the right wing wacko screamers tend to make stuff up. Liberals and those on the center left -- I know this sounds crazy -- try to base their arguments upon facts. It's really hard to have a rational, intelligen­t debate when the other side doesn't base their arguments upon facts.

I think the Fairness Doctrine should be brought back. So, if President Obama wants to listen to more lies and let people incite violence against him, he has no one to blame but himself.

[JeanMerilynSimmons]

06:47 PM on 02/27/2009

It's the censorship doctrine.

[drumz]

09:56 PM on 02/27/2009

Huh? Explain how it's censorship when an opposing viewpoints or facts are required?

[ohiomark]

10:25 PM on 02/27/2009

Simple.

Radio programmer­s will not want to deal with the "local" boards of bureaucrat­s who will decide how balanced the political speech is and just dump the entire format and go back to playing music or do sports talk.

Since liberal talk show can't get any ratings, they won't care and the conservati­ve shows will be taken away.

Bottom line: It's not the job of the government to decide content in the media.

It's your decision to listen or not listen.

[Hirnlego]

08:08 PM on 02/28/2009

So..lets get rid of the FCC?

[Plus15]

06:15 PM on 02/27/2009

Just in time to protect the FOX right-wing plans for the next Civil War.

Obama and Dems very stupid on this count. Anything Jim DeMint backs or proposes is usually horrible for America and Democracy.
How bad is it? Check out CPAC's new 13 year old poster boy for the Republican future. Where did he pick up his informatio­n and research? Per his comment's to interviews­, Huff Po's Sam Stein included - Right-wing Radio.