We Need the Fairness Doctrine

With the recent debate over the possibility of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and Republican attempts to outlaw such a doctrine, it is important to look at what the Fairness Doctrine really is.

In the extended post, I discuss what the Fairness Doctrine is, what it would really mean for existing programs, its constitutional basis, and why we need it.

What It Is

Let us look at what the Fairness Doctrine would really do.

The most recent attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine was the unsuccessful "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005." Its "Fairness in Broadcasting" section had only one operative sentence. It stated:

A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

Is that going to end talk radio? What is wrong with an opportunity to discuss conflicting views?

Effect on Existing Programs

The Fairness Doctrine as defined by this act would not get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck. Nor would it get rid of Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, or Thom Hartmann. Each would be able to continue their show without change.

The Fairness Doctrine would only come into effect if a licensee (that is, something like Fox or Clear Channel) only provided one side and not the other throughout its lineup. They don't have to give equal time. They do not have to make every show be balanced. They only need to give a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of conflicting views on at least one show.

Legal Basis

The Fairness Doctrine has been well received by the Supreme Court. The Court upheld it in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). It has limited the doctrine to requiring balanced debate, as in CBS. v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), in which the Court affirmed the FCC's refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364, the Court reaffirmed the right to ask for a balanced presentation under the Fairness Doctrine while overturning a different regulation that prevented editorials on PBS.

In the League of Women Voters case, the Court wrote,

Our prior cases illustrate these principles. In Red Lion, for example, we upheld the FCC's "fairness doctrine" - which requires broadcasters to provide adequate coverage of public issues and to ensure that this coverage fairly and accurately reflects the opposing views - because the doctrine advanced the substantial governmental interest in ensuring balanced presentations of views in this limited medium and yet posed no threat that a "broadcaster [would be denied permission] to carry a particular program or to publish his own views."

We give away a government guarantee of a monopoly on a particular frequency range in a particular location. The government will fight pirates who try to infringe on broadcast or satellite frequencies. The government will prevent competitors from laying cable. The government will protect copyrights.

In exchange for government protection, isn't it only fair that we ask those beneficiaries of this protection that they do public service by allowing ideas to be fairly debated?

Dealing With Scandals

We have seen terrible scandals in which lobbyists have bought our politicians. When faith in our electoral process seems like it can't get any lower, it manages to do just that. We must always run fair elections. Elections cannot be fair if the candidates cannot get their message to the voters. It is simply part of the cost that any democracy must pay to run fair elections to provide the means for candidates to be heard. The biggest bribes that contribute to the destruction of our political process are campaign contributions. We must enact Clean Money. We must make it irrelevant whether a candidate or the lobbyists in his or her pocket have the money to win office.

But we must do more.  To avoid ever getting back into this mess again, we must always ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard. We must not listen to just one side. We must replace partisanship with cooperation. To accomplish this, we must restore the Fairness Doctrine, ensuring that those media corporations that use government protected monopolies over broadcast and cable frequencies will always allow both sides to be heard. In this way, we can restore civil debates over the tough issues we face.

•  The Fairness Doctrine is surprisingly a

  popular topic in the right wing media.  I don't think we need the fairness doctrine reinstated at all.

  I think we need the limitations on media ownership reinstated.

  by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:10:13 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    And we need our elected reps and our electorate to support our own version of the message achine. Our elected officials should be going on their local shows at least once a week.

    by Mike S on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:15:28 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    We are listening mainly to what a few corporations would like us to listen to.

    Change that, and there will be little call for a "fairness doctrine".

    But it would still be helpful if the courts would decide that FOX cannot decide to not tell the truth.

    by EvilPaula on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:14:00 PM PDT

•  It's back on the table

  Bernie SandersBernie Sanders has been a leader on this for a while, and announced to Vermont press last month that he would work to get a bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
  (legislation page here.)

  by kamarvt on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:10:59 PM PDT

•  Cable made the Fairness Doctrine a dead letter.

  When television meant broadcast, signal was scarce. The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to ration it--to make a scarce resource available to all.

  First cable TV and then satellite radio ended the signal shortage. There is absolutely no rationale for rationing a resource in abundant supply.

  by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:15:07 PM PDT

  •  scarce competition

    There is still scarce competition for signals. The vast majority of the channels are all owned by the same few companies. On what channels do you listen to political discussions that are not owned by Time Warner, NewsCorp, Disney, GE, Tribune, CBS, Cox, Gannett, and Clear Channell?

    We should deal with this by restoring media ownership rules, but we should also deal with it by refusing to enforce the monopoly over bandwidth unless that bandwidth is put to good use for the public interest.

    by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:40:19 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      Is there any evidence that a group of people interested in dispensing alternative political opinions have been thwarted by the lack of available bandwidth? Has that actually happened?

      Or is this more about using the levers of government to force existing owners to broadcast the Democratic message until "fairness" is achieved?

      by 1918 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:09:36 PM PDT

    •  "Scarce competition" is an antitrust matter.

      Scarce frequencies are a rationing matter. There's no hope of a coherent discussion until these 2 concepts are decoupled. Otherwise we're just banging our little fists and shouting, "It's not FAIR! It's not FAIR!"

      by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:12:35 PM PDT

      •  I disagree

        with both statements.
         First of all, the Fairness Doctrine did nothing to stifle debate or hinder profits.
         Secondly, the monopolies of the media are already complete. Unless you are planning on breaking companies apart (and I don't see how that would fix anything) then anti-trust action is already too late for the MSM.

        by gjohnsit on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:30:54 PM PDT

        •  Fine, but don't deny these facts:

          1. The Fairness Doctrine was from a time when television meant broadcast. Today only 1 household in 6 relies solely on broadcast to view television.

          2. "Breaking companies apart" is EXACTLY how you "fix" the monopoly conditions alleged. Although if there are multiple companies, then what you have is oligopoly, not monopoly.

          by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:25:01 PM PDT

•  For what purpose?

  What message have Democrats been unable to get out through the media?

  The problem with the Democrats isn't that their message has not been heard.  It is that their message is one of compromise and capitulation.  They don't need to amplify the message. They need to change it.

  I'm not going to ignore the conservative slant of the corporate media, but a Fairness Doctrine is not a substitute for having the backbone and conviction to stand up to corporate interests.

  by space on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:17:04 PM PDT

  •  not just Democrats

    You seem to think that there are only two points of view. Think of environmentalists, social justice advocates. Right now even with all the various choices the owners choose to limit what is presented to conservative and so called centrist views.

    by danmac on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:34:08 PM PDT

  •  Message?

    What message have Democrats been able to get out through the media?

    Democrats are unfairly portrayed in the media as week on national security, even though 9/11 happened under a completely Republican government that has failed since then to find the top guy behind the attack and that has failed to execute a competent war in Iraq.

    Democrats in Congress are unfairly portrayed as not able to get anything done, even though it is Republicans that are filibustering.

    Many experts have said that impeachment is legally a slam dunk, but you will never hear that in the mainstream media.

    I don't want to excuse the lack of backbone in Congress, but their job is made more difficult by the fact that any reasonable action they take to counter the abuse of power by the president is unfairly portrayed in the media.

    by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:46:28 PM PDT

    •  Give an example of "unfair" portrayal of Dems.

      Government regulation is a sledgehammer. I'm not seeing a case for it, not just yet.

      by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:07:35 PM PDT

      •  licenses

        The existence of the license is already an example of government regulation. The media companies want the licenses, so they can protect their bandwidth from others.

        Once you have licenses, enumerating the rules of the license cannot be called a sledgehammer.

        by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:23:57 PM PDT

        •  Licenses? Bandwidth? My goodness gracious,

          things don't seem to be getting any more coherent.

          by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:26:58 PM PDT

    •  Democratic message

      Democrats do not have a problem getting their message out.  They have a problem having a message to get out.

      Democrats are unfairly portrayed in the media as week on national security, even though 9/11 happened under a completely Republican government that has failed since then to find the top guy behind the attack and that has failed to execute a competent war in Iraq.

      Yes, and for years the refrain from D.C. Dems was that Bush was strong and popular leader and they had to join him to appear strong.  That was the DEMOCRATIC message.

      Democrats in Congress are unfairly portrayed as not able to get anything done, even though it is Republicans that are filibustering.

      And?  I have yet to hear a peep from Harry Reid about the GOP being obstructionist, other than the single time he forced the "sleepover"  And even then he screwed up by calling it a "stunt".  If the guy was saying it and it wasn't being reported that would be one thing.  But where is the effort to get the message out?

      Many experts have said that impeachment is legally a slam dunk, but you will never hear that in the mainstream media.

      And you will never hear that from most Democrats.  At most, they will concede that "arguably" impeachable offenses occurred...but the timing is wrong to exercise that option.  CNN could give Harry Reid an open mic 24/7 and you wouldn't hear crap about impeachment.

      I concede that the media kicks the Dems when they are down, but until they demand respect they won't get it.

      by space on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:27:13 PM PDT

      •  Speaking of mixed messages, what kind of Dem

        acknowledges the Republicans as a "grand old party" by invoking the talking point GOP?

        by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:29:33 PM PDT

      •  Thanks

        Thank you for proving my point. You write, "I have yet to hear a peep from Harry Reid about the GOP being obstructionist." He has said that. You have not heard it. His message is not being covered by the supposedly huge variety of media outlets.

        In particular, he said on June 30,

        But Republican obstruction has gotten so bad that now they’re blocking bills that they actually support.

        Or on July 26:

        Throughout this war, Democrats have had to force the President and Congressional Republicans to provide our troops adequate body armor, well-earned pay raises, and the health care they deserve when they return home... It is time for the President and the Republicans to do more than just say the right thing – it is time they worked with us for the good of the country and our security.  If the President and Republicans were as committed to this priority as they profess to be, they would not have placed our troops in harm’s way without a strategy for success or the equipment and support they need to do their mission.

        Or on August 9:

        In the last month alone President Bush has signaled that he would block Democratic legislation to strengthen homeland security, provide healthcare for children and decrease America’s dependence on oil.

        Or on August 2:

        The President has stood in the way every time. His comments today once again made clear that he is more interested in picking fights than problem-solving.

        Or on August 3:

        Rather than pass [the Rockefeller-Levin] bill, my Republican colleagues chose to rubberstamp a flawed Administration proposal that fails to provide the accountability needed in light of the Administration’s repeated past mismanagement of key tools in the war on terror.

        I have not exhausted the list of Reid quotes that you apparently never heard.

        Then there is impeachment. You say, "you will never hear that from most Democrats." You do hear it from both Democrats and Republicans. Where in the media do you hear quotes like these?

        I feel the most patriotic action that I could take today is to be here in support of impeachment and especially impeachment of the poster boy for what is wrong with this administration, Dick Cheney  -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), July 4, 2007

        And that is the quintessential example, in my view, of the kind of abuse of power that if the political alignment in the country were otherwise would be a no-brainer for an impeachable offense. -- Larry Tribe, Harvard law professor, Feb 20, 2006

        I myself have no doubt that Bush has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses, and that for each Bush "high crime and misdemeanor," Cheney's culpability is ten or twenty times greater. -- John Dean, Richard Nixon's lawyer, Dec 15, 2006

        On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. -- Bruce Fein, Reagan's Deputy Attorney General and author of part of the articles of impeachment against Clinton, Dec 20, 2005

        Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran. -- Paul Craig Roberts, conservative economist, July 15, 2007

        by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:51:24 PM PDT

        •  Where in the media? Here:

          Rep. Waters' quote: FinalCall.com, a website founded by Minister Louis Farrakhan.

          "Larry" Tribe: ACLU conference

          John Dean: findlaw.com

          Bruce Fein: "The Diane Rehm Show," Dec. 19, 2005

          Paul Craig Roberts: counterpunch.org

          • - - -

          Diane Rehm. Gosh, she's, like, a broadcaster, isn't she?

          And Rep. Waters. Now there's someone who NEVER EVER gets airtime. Where oh where is the fairness in that?

          by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:41:44 PM PDT

        •  You've got a bunch of Republicans and

          Maxine Waters.  Not exactly evidence of support for impeachment from Democratic leaders is it?

          As for Reid, I'm sorry, but his half-assed efforts at standing up to the Republicans as MAJORITY leader really don't impress me.  The August 3, 2007, quote is particularly pathetic.  How on Earth can the minority "rubberstamp" anything?  Reid certainly couldn't when he was the Minority Leader.  But suddenly the Republicans can pass bills overnight in the face of Reid.  And the best he can come up with is that lame-ass whining?

          How about something like this:

          The Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proven himself to be either the most forgetful man in history or incapable of testifying honestly under oath. In any case, I have called for his resignation and others have called for his impeachment.  

          It is widely acknowledged that, due to the cloud of scandal that hangs over  the Attorney General, the Department of Justice cannot function as intended.  And as the American people are entitled to expect it to function.

          In the days ahead, the Senate will have to address the problem of Mr. Gonzales that the President either ignores or supports.  However, the idea that, today, Congress will give Mr. Gonzales more power -- unchecked and unmonitored power -- is a non-starter.  The President's bill is dead on arrival.

          I look forward to working with the Director of National Intelligence to craft a bill that will address perceived weaknesses in our intelligence capabilites.  And I look forward to accomplishing that goal without undermining the rule of law.  Without removing vital checks and balances.  And without giving Mr. Gonzales a drop of additional power.

          I submit that a statement such as that is actually interesting and would have no problem getting plenty of airtime.

          by space on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:36:58 PM PDT

          •  Many Democrats

            There were actually two Democrats and three Republicans on my list of impreachment advocates ignored by the mainstream media (though I am not sure that Dean counts as a current Republican), but who's counting.

            I figured that the list of Democrats is easy, so I didn't want to overwhelm you with those. The growing presence of Republicans for impeachment is strong evidence that there is a real story brewing that is being ignored by the mainstream media.

            There are at least 67 members of Congress who have sponsored or cosponsored impeachment resolutions in the current congress or in the previous one:

            Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
            Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
            Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24]
            Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2]
            Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31]
            Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1]
            Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1]
            Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]
            Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1]
            Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1]
            Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23]
            Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8]
            Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6]
            Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11]
            Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
            Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9]
            Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
            Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7]
            Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4]
            Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5]
            Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17]
            Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]
            Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]
            Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
            Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
            Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22]
            Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
            Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]
            Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5]
            Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1]
            Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
            Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]
            Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4]
            Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]
            Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9]
            Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
            Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14]
            Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4]
            Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
            Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
            Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4]
            Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3]
            Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4]
            Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
            Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8]
            Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8]
            Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1]
            Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11]
            Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4]
            Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10]
            Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7]
            Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
            Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9]
            Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5]
            Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT]
            Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
            Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32]
            Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
            Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10]
            Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6]
            Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3]
            Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]
            Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35]
            Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33]
            Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]
            Rep Wu, David [OR-1]
            Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4]

            by Richard Mathews on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:49:12 PM PDT

  •  Why do you think netroots have taken off?

    If the progressive message was getting out in the MSM then DKos would be just another web site that didn't get any traffic.
     The Democrats have been corporatized just like the GOP has. That's the problem.

    by gjohnsit on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:32:26 PM PDT

    •  We all agree

      that the thousands, if not millions, of progressive activists in this country have a message that is largely not addressed by the media.  Sure, the internet has been an incredible tool for us to communicate.

      But a Fairness Doctrine isn't going to ensure equal time for Digby or Glenn Greenwald.  It is going to ensure equal time for Harry Reid.  For Hillary Clinton.  For Chuck Schumer.  For Rahm Emanuel.  These are people who ALREADY have access to the media.  Indeed, their access to it is predicated on their refusal to rock the boat too much.

      I love the internet.  Fairness Doctrine?  Not so much.

      by space on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:45:14 PM PDT

•  Some form of fairness doctrine should be passed

  but antitrust is even more important. Media share of any given market has to be controlled. There also needs to be a firewall between defense contractors and public "message".

  by java4every1 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:50:03 PM PDT

  •  If I supply chocolate-chip cookies to Fort Dix,

    I'm a "defense contractor." I don't see why that should bar me from owning shares in Time Warner.

    by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:05:02 PM PDT

•  How old are you folks?

  There will be no such thing as the main stream media in 15 years, promise.  It's this new age right now thats very young called the information age.  Someday   everyone will get there political commentary from whatever blogsite they want to use.  Let's not let the government ever regulate any media ever from tv to comic books to the internet to video games.

  by phirephli on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:52:36 PM PDT

  •  The idea is not to regulate media but to regulate

    ownership. Too large a market share of any media imbues too much power. And don't think for one minute they won't try tirelessly to gobbleup the internet as well. Net neutrality will keep coming up.

    by java4every1 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:57:06 PM PDT

    •  What glitters isn't always gold

      Good intentions do not always lead to positive results.  I think we should stick to strict constitutional principles.  I don't see how big business can stifle a blog like this unless you let the gov't regulate the media.  The internet is the great equalizer.

      by phirephli on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:06:32 PM PDT

      •  faith

        You have too much faith in the Internet.

        I have been a developer and user of the Internet and its predecessor the ARPAnet since about 1980. I know the power of the 'net.

        I also know its limitations.

        There is still a large class of people in this country, primarily within the Democratic base, that cannot afford Internet access.

        There is still a large class of people in this country, primarily within the Democratic base, that has not had the opportunity to learn how to use the 'net.

        Relying on the Internet does deny Democrats the ability to communicate with their base.

        by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:18:34 PM PDT

        •  You have too little faith in people. n/t

          by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:24:38 PM PDT

      •  We've already seen what happens when

        government stood aside and allowed consolidation. The airwaves belong to the public, there is no constitutional issue at all. No one has an unencumbered right to monopolize the airwaves or any other bandwidth. The real owners "all americans" have every right to regulate the use of "public" resources. Blogs have been very good but so were radio, tv and newspapers in the past.

        by java4every1 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:29:50 PM PDT

        •  The "airwaves" are a very small element of media.

          And I've yet to see a case for public ownership of "bandwidth."

          by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:08:55 PM PDT

          •  Think about that the next time you access the

            net through your blackberry.

            by java4every1 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:19:40 PM PDT

            •  Go ahead, hotshot. Text in your case

              for public ownership of "bandwidth."

              by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:21:49 PM PDT

              •  Privately owned satellite communication is

                licensed through specific bandwidth otherwise everyone would be stepping all over each other's signals.

                by java4every1 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:26:45 PM PDT

                •  Now cable. n/t

                  by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:27:48 PM PDT

                  •  Much of cable originates from satellite and then

                    is distributed through cable. The cable operators purchase a good portion of their content from shared satellite communication.

                    by java4every1 on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:32:29 PM PDT

                    •  Today, perhaps. 3 words: fiber optic cable.

                      by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:19:14 PM PDT

                  •  Cable is a monopoly

                    In most locations, only one company is allowed to lay cable. The company may then get to split up its bandwidth, but no other company can lay a parallel cable.

                    Where cable companies enjoy a guaranteed monopoly (or even duopoly) over the cables, they should be required to use some of that bandwidth for public good.

                    In fact, that is already a requirement. That is why we have public access channels. Since public access channels have failed to fulfill their purpose, we should try something different that will ensure fairness on the main channels. A variant on the Fairness Doctrine is that new approach.

                    by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:57:18 PM PDT

                    •  No, C-SPAN is voluntary, not mandated.

                      Further, cable is NOT, repeat NOT, a monopoly because of alternate delivery systems including satellite and in some cities phone lines.

                      USDTV even tried delivering cable channels over unused HD channels leased from broadcasters. Freeview in the UK is another example of over-the-air delivery of so-called cable channels.

                      Monopoly? Show me how and perhaps we can move to the next step.

                      by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:28:34 PM PDT

                      •  definition

                        By "monopoly," I mean that they are given guaranteed exclusive access to some bit of turf. If you try to interfere on that turf, the Feds are going to come and get you. The government will provide protection for the private property interests that the government created.

                        For broadcast, it means the exclusive right to use a range of frequencies in a given location.

                        For satellite, it means the exclusive right to use a range of frequencies and a given orbit.

                        For cable, it means the exclusive right to lay cable in a certain place and to put a signal on that cable.

                        In exchange for these exclusive grants and for the government protection of those grants, why shouldn't the companies give something back to the government and the people?

                        by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:54:12 PM PDT

                        •  By that definition, Coke has a monopoly

                          because it has negotiated exclusive access to bits of turf called supermarket shelves. Also cold-drink machines.

                          If you want to pretend that the media landscape hasn't changed in the last 20 years, that's your business. But if you insist that government act in accordance with that outdated worldview, that's my business.

                          by ticket punch on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 06:22:21 AM PDT

                          •  bull

                            Coke has not had the government guarantee that it gets on those shelves. I won't go to jail for putting only Pepsi in my vending machine.

                            I will go to jail if I interfere with Disney by transmitting even a fairly weak signal in Los Angeles at 175 MHz (ABC7).

                            Now, if you want to consider this to be a negotiation betweeen a licensee and the government, fine. Just as the supermarket can negotiate with Coke for the best terms, why can't the government negotiate the terms of the agreement with the licensee?

                            The Supreme Court has already answered the question. The government can include the Fairness Doctrine in the terms of the agreement.

                            by Richard Mathews on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

                            •  What's so special about 175 MHz?

                              Most people in L.A. are not watching KABC during a given quarter hour.

                              by ticket punch on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:46:26 AM PDT

      •  strict constitutional principles

        What do you mean by strict constitutional principles?

        Does the government have the authority to guarantee monopolies over bandwidth? Or should broadcast pirates be dealt with only through market forces?

        If the government has the authority to issue a license, and thus to give a monopoly over bandwidth, it clearly has the authority to put limitations on that monopoly.

        The Supreme Court held in Red Lion that

        No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." [quoting NBC v. US]...

        It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount...

        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...

        There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. "Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests." [quoting AP v. US]

        by Richard Mathews on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 04:31:14 PM PDT

        •  Hold on. Guarantee? Monopolies? BANDWIDTH?

          There seems to be some trouble on the network. The problem is not with your set. Please stand by.

          by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 05:10:48 PM PDT

          •  A trollrate? That's all you got? I win. n/t

            by ticket punch on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 06:26:18 PM PDT