What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Pogo]

Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.

PRAVDA here we come!

Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously? No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing. Zero.

Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.

For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is. That idea is complete bullshit. FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community. HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster. There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements. And that's why the OP's not linked. Because it's made up. Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.

This thread is going straight to TBB.

Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?

I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.

 

[HenryBHough]

The usual technique was to designate for hearing (expensive and prolonged) for any station accused of violating The Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

The linked article states that only one license was ever revoked but gives no stats on how many were designated for hearing.

As to which license, it was that of WXUR, Philadelphia, PA in 1973. There followed an extreme chill and a few experiments in what was to become known as "talk radio" were shut down by local managements to avoid the onslaught of aggrieved, some of whom really were offended by something but most of whom wanted a license somebody else had.

It all came crashing down in 1987 when The Red Lion Case hit the US Supreme Court.

Myself, I could have accepted The Fairness Doctrine were it extended to newspapers and magazines. But that, of course, would have been so blatantly unconstitutional that even FDR, in his wildest moments, couldn't imagine even trying it.

 

[Darkwind]

Two questions.

Who determines what is the right programming.

Who watches the watchers?

 

[mudwhistle]

Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.

Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?

And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.

Once again, that's absolute bullshit. Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded. Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.

Link

 

[Pogo]

I recall there being a Fairness Doctrine exemption for bona-fide newcasts. For that reason the networks were careful to call certain broadcasters "commentators" and never let them be heard on any newscast. Lowell Thomas. Gabriel Heatter. H. V. Kaltenborn. Fulton Lewis, Jr. Walter Winchell (later turned gossip columnist) Drew Pearson and even Edward R. Murrow who most falsely remember as a news reporter.

I also remember strict management rules about "NO EDITORIALS" as anything resembling commentary within a newscast could get the whole broadcast re-classified and require free and equal time.

The worst part was that if one viewpoint were expressed stations not only had to allow equal time to opposing views they were at times required to search out opposing views.

Even after The Fairness Doctrine was dead and buried some station managers still would not allow anything resembling editorial content. Vividly do I recall a news producer being fired for including in a local TV newscast an ABC network story about mistreatment of an elephant at a zoo within the coverage area. In the clip - that was used by the network itself - a noted animal rights activist expressed an opinion. Despite the network having cleared it (those things were reviewed by the lawyers at that time) the local manager wasn't going to allow any opinions on anything to be on HIS air.

Apparently it's been a long time since you were behind an RE-20. Weren't they using stone tablets back then?

The bold is bullshit. FCC rules don't work pro-actively that way, you should know that. Equal time had to be requested by the involved party. You didn't have to go seek it out. That's crazy talk. Now no doubt some NDs voluntarily sought out that kind of balance just to avoid having to have an FD request put on the air. Just as they might, as you also noted, err on the side of caution as far as content. We did that too in facilities I worked that were not news-oriented (part of my jobs was to screen for non-neutral language in on-air scripts). That doesn't mean we weren't allowed to say these things.

One day one of our talent read a press release that had circumvented the screening system (me) verbatim, something about "don't get Bushwacked" inciting people to come to an anti-Bush rally. I didn't hear it air but a listener called in complaining about it. When I found out what happened I immediately wrote him a script to read on his next break, apologizing and disclaiming the press release he had just read.

We didn't have to do that; it wasn't illegal. But the station was not political in its programming and didn't wish to be. That was a management decision, strictly. FCC had zero to do with it.

 

[Pogo]

Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?

And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.

Once again, that's absolute bullshit. Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded. Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.

Link

You actually want me to link to nothingness?

I'll get right on that.

This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship. This goes back about ten years.

Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?


Zero.

Good luck.

 

[Pogo]

The usual technique was to designate for hearing (expensive and prolonged) for any station accused of violating The Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

The linked article states that only one license was ever revoked but gives no stats on how many were designated for hearing.

As to which license, it was that of WXUR, Philadelphia, PA in 1973. There followed an extreme chill and a few experiments in what was to become known as "talk radio" were shut down by local managements to avoid the onslaught of aggrieved, some of whom really were offended by something but most of whom wanted a license somebody else had.

It all came crashing down in 1987 when The Red Lion Case hit the US Supreme Court.

Myself, I could have accepted The Fairness Doctrine were it extended to newspapers and magazines. But that, of course, would have been so blatantly unconstitutional that even FDR, in his wildest moments, couldn't imagine even trying it.

Red Lion was 1969. I don't even need to look that up.
As I recall WXUR was in Media PA, not Philadelphia. I don't need to look that up either. I grew up there.

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again, that's absolute bullshit. Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded. Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.

Link

You actually want me to link to nothingness?

I'll get right on that.

This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship. This goes back about ten years.

Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?


Zero.

Good luck.

They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.

Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.

 

[Pogo]

Link

You actually want me to link to nothingness?

I'll get right on that.

This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship. This goes back about ten years.

Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?


Zero.

Good luck.

They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.

Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.

I don't need to. That would be attempting to prove a negative. What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?

Don't be absurd. If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.

As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.

 

[Pogo]

Myself, I could have accepted The Fairness Doctrine were it extended to newspapers and magazines. But that, of course, would have been so blatantly unconstitutional that even FDR, in his wildest moments, couldn't imagine even trying it.

To address the latter bullshit part of this post (as opposed to the top bullshit already addressed), what you're suggesting would be impossible by definition. The Fairness Doctrine never, and could never, apply to print, that's absurd and if you have even a day behind the mic as you claim, you damn well know that.

The whole idea of the FD when (conservatives) brought it out in 1949 was that the radio dial was limited space and only a few could have a station before that dial filled up. Therefore the FD would ensure a powerful few could not dominate the discourse.

Since newspapers and magazines are printed on wood pulp, which is a renewable resource and not finite like the airwaves, there was no basis to employ the same guideline on newspapers or magazines. A dissenting view simply printed itself. Nothing like that was ever suggested. And you damn well know this, so don't pull this bullshit. I won't let you get away with it. The OP based on nothing was bad enough without you mythmongering along.

Indeed the fact that internet resources, hundreds of channels of cable space and Twitter and the like are now commonplace is the very argument against bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. And has been for years. Because mass media is not as technologically limited as it was in 1949. And that's the entire reason the FD was there in the first place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.

Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?

And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.

Once again, that's absolute bullshit. Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded. Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.

Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?

Didn't think so.

 

[whitehall]

The only hope for the high water mark in American socialism under Barry Hussein is to confiscate liberties and pretend that fascism is synonymous with freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously? No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing. Zero.

Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.

For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is. That idea is complete bullshit. FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community. HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster. There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements. And that's why the OP's not linked. Because it's made up. Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.

This thread is going straight to TBB.

Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?

I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.

Yet you never do.

 

[Wasthatneeded]

It was resently announced that the FCC would be doing investigations into the content (and reasons behind it) of news outlets.

First Amendment breach anyone?
(Anyone else scared as all #}//)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You actually want me to link to nothingness?

I'll get right on that.

This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship. This goes back about ten years.

Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?


Zero.

Good luck.

They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.

Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.

I don't need to. That would be attempting to prove a negative. What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?

Don't be absurd. If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.

As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.

You don't know how to prove a negative?

 

[Katzndogz]

The reason is to have more diversity in the news. What they will do is stop all reporting of black on white crime as if it isn't happening. The media tried by just not reporting the race of perpetrators unless it was a white. That didn't work. Now it's going to just be don't report the crime at all.

 

[Pogo]

Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?

And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.

Once again, that's absolute bullshit. Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded. Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.

Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?

Didn't think so.

It didn't exist. Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47. The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license. It's got nothing to do with licensing.

And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a renewal denied. In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.

 

[blackhawk]

The backlash against this will stop it dead in it's tracks your going to have a very hard time saying news needs more diversity in this day and age of cable, satellite, and the internet you can find all the diversity you could ever want.

 

[Wasthatneeded]

Still, they aren't supposed to get involved at all.

Ah, but it's nice to see an optimistic person.

 

[Pogo]

Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?

I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.

Yet you never do.

I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.








Didn't think so. And this isn't my thread.
Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.

But feel free to make the case for that too.