Talk radio to be regulated?

Over-the-air radio already is regulated by the FCC and has been for decades.

Why do you think Stern went to satellite?

 

This is completely different than Stern, they are talking about a "fairness doctrine" to "require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues".

 

Funny Trent Lott didn't bother to propose "fairness doctrine" when his party was in control of the White House and both chambers of the Congress.

 

I know what they're talking about, I also know that airwaves have always been subject to content-based regulaition as a public resource.

 

This is only a simple issue if you are content with letting big wealth drown out the message of those without as much wealth. It is more similar to current S.Ct. law (I believe) which allows say an insurance industry group to vastly outspend opponents to push for a referendum that favors their industry at the expense of the general public.

A purist "free" sppech approach to such ultimately political/commercial speech raises questions. It would be sort of like allowing unlimited private spending on campaign contributions. It reduces to a sham the concept of "one person one vote." There is only a very truncated "war of competing"ideas with the one side drowning out the other by sheer money. It is certainly not healthy for a democracy.

Similarly with abolishing the old doctrine that used to require all radio to have at least a little bit of news.

 

It is still a democracy, as you can simply turn off the radio that you don't agree with. If enough people turned them off, there won't be a market. You are voting by listening to it.

 

Amazing how people's views seemingly change depending on the politician sponsoring the bill.

 

It was mentioned in the story, but there used to be a 'fairness doctrine' so this is not a totally alien idea. It was ruled as constitutionally acceptable by the Supreme Court on the grounds that "because [radio stations] were granted government licenses on a scarce radio spectrum, they could be regulated to preserve openness in covering news by the FCC."

Part of me absolutely hates the idea on principal, but another part of me thinks the political discourse in this country has gone in the toilet since the doctrine was eliminated.

 

I agree but that is not what Red Lion and Pacifica tell us, even though I think the cases are wrong.

In any event if the FCC is going to be active in policing the content of the airwaves like it has in the area of protecting the nation from bad words, and the horrors of a glimpse of nipple- why not have it actively promote fairness?

I suppose in an ideal world I'd abandon all content based regulation but if you're going to vouch for one, I don't see how you can vouch against the other because the "public resource" theory is the same for both.

 

Its one thing to ban certain words from the airwaves, its another to determine if a talkshow host is leaning a little/a lot/completely towards one side. You want FCC to determine the fairness of the many daily talk shows?

Let the market(people) decide.

 

i agree. i think its a little silly, to be honest. Didnt this topic sort of restart b/c some were unhappy with the spin that the immigration bill was getting put on it? So once again, they ignore the very important issue to quibble over something else that not many people really care about.

 

But it's not one thing and another - this distinction you are drawing is fake- both the forms of regulation are based on the same principle from which the FCC and the legal regime draws its power. If the airwaves are public property and the FCC can reglate them, and , in the course of discharging what it sees as its duty, feels it is obligated to all americans to safeguard them - like how they protect me from evil nipple slips, then why don't they have a corresponding obligation to provide equal time and fairness? They are my airwaves jsut as much as they are neal boortz.

Again, I am not a fan of FCC content regulation, but if it is going to be hyper agressive in one way (going above and beyond what would be constitutionally permissible from state actors in the non-broadcast area) - why should it stop there? Why can't the free market choose if we want howard stern to say dirty things?

The FCC feels that the market isn't allowed to decide the fate of the airwaves. Part of this is based on economics because the airwaves are a common resource where unfettered competition would lead to a wasteful outcome. But part of it is what the FCC and its current leadership feels is some sort of stewardship obligation. If they are goinmg to be stewards and censor content for one set of agitators, why are they not going to do it for others?

 

So by extension public indecency laws are a false distinction from political speech and should be repealed? I have difficulty seeing how you can consider one to be a false distinction without considering the other one as well.

 

No because I am speaking exclusively about the FCC context - the analyses are completely different because the regulatory authority derives from different places and has different considerations according to Red Lion and Pacifica. Anyway the amount of content-based regulation that the FCC is allowed to get away with is totally different when it comes to the airwaves (and IMO impinges on the first amendment, that's why I think Red lion and pacifica are crap) - that's why the FCC is always cracking down on broadcasters but not on cable outlets.

 

My understanding is that the airwaves are considered a public domain environment, while cable, by its nature, is private and only available as part of a private contract. Under this logic I can appreciate a distinction, and even though I would agree that the logic is a bit of a strech it doesn't strike me as totally insane. Rules of conduct in a public place, like Tranquility Park are different from rules of conduct in a private establishment, like 'The Men's Club' or whatever the hip tittie bar is. If you flash your junk in Tranquility Park, I will call the cops and expect that you will be locked up. If a young lady flashes her coochie in a tittie bar, I will give her a dollar.

Am I way off base, or do you just not agree with the idea that the airwaves are a 'public environment'?

 

Trent was quite contend when the Rush, Michell Malikan and Michal Savage of the world, all of whom never been to VietNam political party, Swiftboated the opposition.