|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » BSG HHs vs. The Fairness Doctrine --and your free speech
| BSG HHs vs. The Fairness Doctrine --and your free speech [message #143617] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 04:00 |
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone [at] saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote in message
> There is not even a whiff of homosexuality on BSG.
> Anyone with two eyes and a brain who watches the show knows that, Fred.
> Oh, and the ACLU is your best friend. If not for them,. people like me
> would make you STFU. Instead of criticizing your friends at the ACLU
> you should be groveling in gratitude before them.
Wrong. ACLU is against free speech as most people would understand it.
The ACLU was against the Fairness Doctrine which I described earlier.
ACLU believes that the owner of a TV or Radio station should have unencumbered
rights to say anything on his station and that others have no rights.
This ignorant statement again magnifies the effect of the con the Hollywood Homosexuals
crooks in the News media are putting over on the public.
Politics
============================================================ ==
============================================================ ==
From the very inception of the United States, there was a recognition among the Founding Fathers
that the dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information about important issues was critical
to democracy. Hence the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
However, as the TV and Radio age approached it was clear that there was economic scarcity of
access to the media and only wealthy people could afford access to the media to present the other
side to an issue which the Billionaire owner of a station puts forth. The answer to this was the
Fairness Doctrine, which became a regulation of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
It required that if a station broadcast an opinion on one side of an issue of "public
importance", it would be required to allow, on request, a voice representing the other side of
that issue to also be broadcast over the same channel, regardless of whether the person was
wealthy enough to be able to buy access time on that station or not.
For several decades this policy held the Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives in check, to the
point that, as an echo of what is happening on this Newsgroup over the past few weeks, they would
rather Not Speak themselves at all, rather than allow someone on the other side of a particular
issue to speak. As wealthy fatcats often say: "a little bit of information is a dangerous
thing". Even a little bit.
However, during the 1980's with a venal crook (Reagan) in the White House who had made his personal
fortune making movies in Hollywood, the Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives finally had a man
in power who would appoint more crooks to the FCC to deregulate the Fairness Doctrine. This
finally occurred in 1987, President Reagan's 7th of 8 years in power.
In response, majorities in Congress then codified the Fairness Doctrine as law and sent the bill
to President Reagan but he vetoed the bill. Congress achieved the necessary 2/3 majority in the
House but was a handful of votes short in the Senate in their attempt to override the veto. Later
that year this same legislation was attached to the Appropriation Bill as the Congress remained
in session for various reasons. However, days before Christmas 1987, Reagan declared essentially
"I will only sign this bill if the Fairness Doctrine is not in it". The Congress then gave up on
the Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment rights for the average citizen died with it, for
the time being.
It was assumed that the next time a Democrat entered the White House that the Fairness Doctrine
would be reinstated. However, Clinton was also bought and paid for by the Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives. And thus when Clinton entered office the main item on his mind was "Gays In
The Military" in 1993. After the US public's violent reaction to that crazy "Gays In The
Military" issue, whatever mandate Clinton claimed to bring to office mandate was dead in the
water, and in the midterm elections of 1994 the Democrats lost both houses of Congress (and have
not regained either one since). Consequently, the issue of the reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
never even came up during the Clinton Presidency.
The loss of the Fairness Doctrine has led directly to the Right Wing media situation we have
today: most broadcasters presenting the news from a center to right political posture and
numerous outlets like Fox News, Russ Limbaugh etc, not to mention numerous conservative
newspapers, often owned by the very same billionaire Media Barons.
Against this backdrop, wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals who own the media see the Usenet as
one of the few uncontrollable elements of the media. If they could wave a wand and destroy the
Usenet altogether and force people to use web sites or Blogs that they control, their problem
would be solved. This is because the Usenet is not a moderated medium in which they can Banish
people like me from the public forum and Delete any messages Speakers like me might send.
However, that is yet to happen. That leaves them with a serious 'Usenet Problem' of how to stifle
the dissemination of accurate information on the Usenet which could endanger their selfish
interests (mainly Sodomy and spreading Hate for and Murdering Arabs/Moslems).
And that forces Hollywood Homosexuals to hire paid mouths to wage the battle that the Hollywood
Homosexuals surrogates working this Newsgroup have been waging over the past month since I came
to this Newsgroup. People who express views with which their Hollywood Homosexual masters
disagree, must be opposed with the following tactics.
As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup are desperate to put
out the fire, any way that can be accomplished. 1) Insults, threats and other attempts to
intimidate me did not work. 2) False Complaints to my ISP did not work. 3) Now, the only other
choice they have is to exploit the weakness and loneliness of the few true viewers of the BSG
series who are left here leveraging their fake friendship with those left as a bargaining chip to
dissuade them from responding to my messages.
Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups after all of these
personal attack campaigns are either still speaking up and attacking whatever they think is
important or they have succumbed to the attacks and have been co-opted by the BSG public relations
hacks, sheep to herded whichever way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead..
And there is nothing accidental about this development. Usenet is the one loose end they do not
control. You better believe Hollywood Homosexuals right now are trying to find a way to destroy
the Usenet.
Again, Sodomy has nothing to do with the Left. It is being pushed by wealthy fatcat Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservatives who are just as hostile to groups on the Left like The Poor,
Blacks, Unions, Women as regular Conservatives. Heck, they do not even film their movies and TV
series in Hollywood anymore because they can avoid giving jobs to their own Union workers and
Blacks by filming in Canada and Australia. But they are the Media: they can always claim they
are on the Left, and a lot of people will believe them.
Neo-Conservative are similar to Conservatives in every way except they love Sodomy and Hate and
want to Mass Murder Arabs/Moslems worldwide.
Politics
============================================================
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairn essdoct.htm
============================================================
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE U.S. Broadcasting Policy
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the
"Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a
broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees
were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for
discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The
Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance
to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep
of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio
station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make
sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather,
they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited
editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade,
allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's.
During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the
doctrine.
In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining
such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set
requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and
address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of
Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which
required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for
any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt
was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and
documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be
noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC
policy.
The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion
Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co.,
had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook
requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal
to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to
meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and
eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness
doctrine.
The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First
Amendment rights of free speech /free press which should allow reporters to make their own
decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In
order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in
a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This
"chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public
trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels
available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas,
there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era
of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an
unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by
President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its
intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First
Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not
mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the
doctrine in August of that year.
However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to
put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to
enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his
long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the
legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make
the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation
was vetoed, this time by Bush.
The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and
cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation.
Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the
fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own
reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience
over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do
provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities,
including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and
special programming.
-Val E. Limburg
FURTHER READING
Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the
Public Interest." Journal of Communication (New York), Summer, 1990.
Benjamin, Louise M. "Broadcast Campaign Precedents From the 1924 Presidential Election." Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1987.
Brennan, Timothy A. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1989.
Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents,
1989.
Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The
Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California),
October, 1994.
Donahue, Hugh Carter. "The Fairness Doctrine Is Shackling Broadcasting." Technology Review
(Cambridge, Massachusetts), November-December, 1986.
Hazlett, Thomas W. "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment." Public Interest (New York),
Summer, 1989.
Krueger, Elizabeth. "Broadcasters' Understanding of Political Broadcast Regulation." Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991.
Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness
Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.
Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press, 1978.
Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical
Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.
See also Deregulation; Federal Communications Commission; Political Processes and Television
============================================================ ========
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG HHs vs. The Fairness Doctrine --and your free speech [message #143620 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 04:52 |
|
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:00:41 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone [at] saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote in message
>> There is not even a whiff of homosexuality on BSG.
>> Anyone with two eyes and a brain who watches the show knows that, Fred.
>> Oh, and the ACLU is your best friend. If not for them,. people like me
>> would make you STFU. Instead of criticizing your friends at the ACLU
>> you should be groveling in gratitude before them.
>
>Wrong. ACLU is against free speech as most people would understand it.
>The ACLU was against the Fairness Doctrine which I described earlier.
>ACLU believes that the owner of a TV or Radio station should have unencumbered
>rights to say anything on his station and that others have no rights.
>This ignorant statement again magnifies the effect of the con the Hollywood Homosexuals
>crooks in the News media are putting over on the public.
>
>Politics
>
>
> ============================================================ ==
> ============================================================ ==
>From the very inception of the United States, there was a recognition among the Founding Fathers
>that the dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information about important issues was critical
>to democracy. Hence the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution:
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
>exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[Mindless Yammering Snipped]
Man, you just get funnier all the time. And all this twisting of
facts to fit your argument - in the words of Marcus Cole "Is there
some sort of martial arts class ... ?"
I fail to see how anything anyone broadcasts on TV, or Radio violates
YOUR rights, as long as they are not talking about YOU by name. You
have the ability to type (copious amounts, it would seem), so by
extension you surely must be capable of turning off a television.
There is nothing, not one single thing, in the Constitution of the
United States, which gaurantees that only things you agree with will
be presented in the Press (including but not limited to TV, Radio, and
the Internet.)
You do have the right to start a newspaper, a website, or radio or
television station to present your views. For that matter, you can
have a cable access show. I'm not sure about fees and such, but based
on the whack-jobs that I've seen on cable, they can't be much. (BTW,
you can thank the ACLU for that, as they are one of the principal
entities that have ensured over the years that cable access is pretty
much not subject to prior restraint.)
You left that part out of this weeks manifesto.
And your attack on the ACLU is just silly.
|
|
|
| Re: BSG HHs vs. The Fairness Doctrine --and your free speech [message #143661 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 08:47 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:ra39k1tek664cb2a9j0h9bd3p1f7cp5ip0 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:00:41 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone [at] saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote in message
>>> There is not even a whiff of homosexuality on BSG.
>>> Anyone with two eyes and a brain who watches the show knows that, Fred.
>>> Oh, and the ACLU is your best friend. If not for them,. people like me
>>> would make you STFU. Instead of criticizing your friends at the ACLU
>>> you should be groveling in gratitude before them.
>>Wrong. ACLU is against free speech as most people would understand it.
>>The ACLU was against the Fairness Doctrine which I described earlier.
>>ACLU believes that the owner of a TV or Radio station should have unencumbered
>>rights to say anything on his station and that others have no rights.
>>This ignorant statement again magnifies the effect of the con the Hollywood Homosexuals
>>crooks in the News media are putting over on the public.
>>Politics
>> ============================================================ ==
>> ============================================================ ==
>>From the very inception of the United States, there was a recognition among the Founding Fathers
>>that the dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information about important issues was critical
>>to democracy. Hence the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution:
>>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
>>exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>>peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> [Mindless Yammering Snipped]
> Man, you just get funnier all the time. And all this twisting of
> facts to fit your argument - in the words of Marcus Cole "Is there
> some sort of martial arts class ... ?"
> I fail to see how anything anyone broadcasts on TV, or Radio violates
> YOUR rights, as long as they are not talking about YOU by name.
> You have the ability to type (copious amounts, it would seem), so by
> extension you surely must be capable of turning off a television.
Democracy depends on all citizens being aware of the facts which affect the issues and what is
clear is that there is a Hollywood Homosexual filter on the information which is available
for average citizens with which to make basic judgments about the biggest issues in the nation.
For instance, right now, we have the jewish reporter Judith Miller being lionized as being a great fighter for the
right of the people to know the truth about the issues, who spent some time in jail recently because she would
not give the prosecutor investigating the criminal divulging of the name of an undercover CIA operative by
the White House the name of the source who committed that crime.
This undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame, whose life was unnecessarily put in danger by this divulging,
was married to the former State dept worker and former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who performed an investigation
of the pre-war allegation that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were seeking nuclear weapon materials in Niger,
and declared that the allegations were false.
It is believed that the White House divulged his wife's name to spite Wilson and to shut him up,
while they continued to con the country into this disastrous Iraq Massacre mass murder.
This same reporter was responsible for many of the stories claiming weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which
turned out to be false. That is, she was a pro-war reporter, like Ted Koppel, and numerous others.
Thus, it is quite likely right now that there are people who consider what the US is doing in Iraq to be a serious
crime who are being conned by the Hollywood Homosexual news media machine into supporting this reporter,
because they simply are not being presented with the full set of crimes of which this reporter is guilty.
> There is nothing, not one single thing, in the Constitution of the
> United States, which gaurantees that only things you agree with will
> be presented in the Press (including but not limited to TV, Radio, and the Internet.)
The US public must have access to all of the information available about all of the issues of public importance.
That is what the Fairness Doctrine guaranteed, since guys like me tend to speak up when a deception is going on
and would have petitioned the radio stations and tv stations involved in the deception on the issue of public importance
for the right to present the opposing viewpoint, with the facts which had been left out.
The US Congress and the US people control the airways over which the radio and TV stations broadcast and we have
the right to pass any laws to ensure the public has access to the core information necessary to run this democracy.
The Fairness Doctrine must be re-instated.
> You do have the right to start a newspaper, a website, or radio or
> television station to present your views. For that matter, you can
> have a cable access show. I'm not sure about fees and such, but based
> on the whack-jobs that I've seen on cable, they can't be much. (BTW,
> you can thank the ACLU for that, as they are one of the principal
> entities that have ensured over the years that cable access is pretty
> much not subject to prior restraint.)
> You left that part out of this weeks manifesto.
> And your attack on the ACLU is just silly.
What I say about the ACLU is the truth. You have to learn to think for yourself, analyze the issues they
are interested in generally and stop listening to Hollywood Homosexuals in Hollywood and the Press
talk about and praise themselves.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: BSG HHs vs. The Fairness Doctrine --and your free speech [message #147564 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 06:38 |
|
In article <fx%0f.13009$lq6.12796 [at] fed1read01>,
"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> said:
> Wrong. ACLU is against free speech as most people would
> understand it.
I love you, Sodomy John. Who else could be so good at being
wrong about *everything*?
--
William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com>
|
|
|
| Re: BSG HHs vs. The Fairness Doctrine --and your free speech [message #147576 ] |
Di, 11 Oktober 2005 12:10 |
|
"William December Starr" <wdstarr [at] panix.com> wrote in message news:diffk3$8dn$1 [at] panix1.panix.com...
> In article <fx%0f.13009$lq6.12796 [at] fed1read01>,
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> said:
>> Wrong. ACLU is against free speech as most people would understand it.
> I love you, Sodomy John. Who else could be so good at being wrong about *everything*?
> William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com>
You have to prove me wrong. Then you win the championship.
You have yet to win a single point here.
============================================================ ==
Wrong. ACLU is against free speech as most people would understand it.
The ACLU was against the Fairness Doctrine which I described earlier.
ACLU believes that the owner of a TV or Radio station should have unencumbered
rights to say anything on his station and that others have no rights.
This ignorant statement again magnifies the effect of the con the Hollywood Homosexuals
crooks in the News media are putting over on the public.
============================================================ ==
============================================================ ==
From the very inception of the United States, there was a recognition among the Founding Fathers
that the dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information about important issues was critical
to democracy. Hence the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
However, as the TV and Radio age approached it was clear that there was economic scarcity of
access to the media and only wealthy people could afford access to the media to present the other
side to an issue which the Billionaire owner of a station puts forth. The answer to this was the
Fairness Doctrine, which became a regulation of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
It required that if a station broadcast an opinion on one side of an issue of "public
importance", it would be required to allow, on request, a voice representing the other side of
that issue to also be broadcast over the same channel, regardless of whether the person was
wealthy enough to be able to buy access time on that station or not.
For several decades this policy held the Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives in check, to the
point that, as an echo of what is happening on this Newsgroup over the past few weeks, they would
rather Not Speak themselves at all, rather than allow someone on the other side of a particular
issue to speak. As wealthy fatcats often say: "a little bit of information is a dangerous
thing". Even a little bit.
However, during the 1980's with a venal crook (Reagan) in the White House who had made his personal
fortune making movies in Hollywood, the Hollywood Homosexual Neo-Conservatives finally had a man
in power who would appoint more crooks to the FCC to deregulate the Fairness Doctrine. This
finally occurred in 1987, President Reagan's 7th of 8 years in power.
In response, majorities in Congress then codified the Fairness Doctrine as law and sent the bill
to President Reagan but he vetoed the bill. Congress achieved the necessary 2/3 majority in the
House but was a handful of votes short in the Senate in their attempt to override the veto. Later
that year this same legislation was attached to the Appropriation Bill as the Congress remained
in session for various reasons. However, days before Christmas 1987, Reagan declared essentially
"I will only sign this bill if the Fairness Doctrine is not in it". The Congress then gave up on
the Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment rights for the average citizen died with it, for
the time being.
It was assumed that the next time a Democrat entered the White House that the Fairness Doctrine
would be reinstated. However, Clinton was also bought and paid for by the Hollywood Homosexual
Neo-Conservatives. And thus when Clinton entered office the main item on his mind was "Gays In
The Military" in 1993. After the US public's violent reaction to that crazy "Gays In The
Military" issue, whatever mandate Clinton claimed to bring to office mandate was dead in the
water, and in the midterm elections of 1994 the Democrats lost both houses of Congress (and have
not regained either one since). Consequently, the issue of the reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
never even came up during the Clinton Presidency.
The loss of the Fairness Doctrine has led directly to the Right Wing media situation we have
today: most broadcasters presenting the news from a center to right political posture and
numerous outlets like Fox News, Russ Limbaugh etc, not to mention numerous conservative
newspapers, often owned by the very same billionaire Media Barons.
Against this backdrop, wealthy fatcat Hollywood Homosexuals who own the media see the Usenet as
one of the few uncontrollable elements of the media. If they could wave a wand and destroy the
Usenet altogether and force people to use web sites or Blogs that they control, their problem
would be solved. This is because the Usenet is not a moderated medium in which they can Banish
people like me from the public forum and Delete any messages Speakers like me might send.
However, that is yet to happen. That leaves them with a serious 'Usenet Problem' of how to stifle
the dissemination of accurate information on the Usenet which could endanger their selfish
interests (mainly Sodomy and spreading Hate for and Murdering Arabs/Moslems).
And that forces Hollywood Homosexuals to hire paid mouths to wage the battle that the Hollywood
Homosexuals surrogates working this Newsgroup have been waging over the past month since I came
to this Newsgroup. People who express views with which their Hollywood Homosexual masters
disagree, must be opposed with the following tactics.
As I have stated, the BSG public relations hacks working on this Newsgroup are desperate to put
out the fire, any way that can be accomplished. 1) Insults, threats and other attempts to
intimidate me did not work. 2) False Complaints to my ISP did not work. 3) Now, the only other
choice they have is to exploit the weakness and loneliness of the few true viewers of the BSG
series who are left here leveraging their fake friendship with those left as a bargaining chip to
dissuade them from responding to my messages.
Generally in situations like this the people who are left on these Newsgroups after all of these
personal attack campaigns are either still speaking up and attacking whatever they think is
important or they have succumbed to the attacks and have been co-opted by the BSG public relations
hacks, sheep to herded whichever way the BSG Hollywood Homosexual hacks lead..
And there is nothing accidental about this development. Usenet is the one loose end they do not
control. You better believe Hollywood Homosexuals right now are trying to find a way to destroy
the Usenet.
Again, Sodomy has nothing to do with the Left. It is being pushed by wealthy fatcat Hollywood
Homosexual Neo-Conservatives who are just as hostile to groups on the Left like The Poor,
Blacks, Unions, Women as regular Conservatives. Heck, they do not even film their movies and TV
series in Hollywood anymore because they can avoid giving jobs to their own Union workers and
Blacks by filming in Canada and Australia. But they are the Media: they can always claim they
are on the Left, and a lot of people will believe them.
Neo-Conservative are similar to Conservatives in every way except they love Sodomy and Hate and
want to Mass Murder Arabs/Moslems worldwide.
Politics
============================================================
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairn essdoct.htm
============================================================
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE U.S. Broadcasting Policy
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the
"Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a
broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees
were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for
discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The
Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance
to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep
of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio
station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make
sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather,
they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited
editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade,
allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's.
During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the
doctrine.
In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining
such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set
requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and
address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of
Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which
required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for
any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt
was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and
documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be
noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC
policy.
The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion
Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co.,
had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook
requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal
to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to
meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and
eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness
doctrine.
The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First
Amendment rights of free speech /free press which should allow reporters to make their own
decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In
order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in
a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This
"chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public
trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels
available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas,
there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era
of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an
unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by
President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its
intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First
Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not
mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the
doctrine in August of that year.
However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to
put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to
enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his
long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the
legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make
the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation
was vetoed, this time by Bush.
The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and
cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation.
Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the
fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own
reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience
over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do
provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities,
including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and
special programming.
-Val E. Limburg
FURTHER READING
Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the
Public Interest." Journal of Communication (New York), Summer, 1990.
Benjamin, Louise M. "Broadcast Campaign Precedents From the 1924 Presidential Election." Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1987.
Brennan, Timothy A. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1989.
Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents,
1989.
Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The
Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California),
October, 1994.
Donahue, Hugh Carter. "The Fairness Doctrine Is Shackling Broadcasting." Technology Review
(Cambridge, Massachusetts), November-December, 1986.
Hazlett, Thomas W. "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment." Public Interest (New York),
Summer, 1989.
Krueger, Elizabeth. "Broadcasters' Understanding of Political Broadcast Regulation." Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991.
Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness
Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.
Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press, 1978.
Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical
Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.
See also Deregulation; Federal Communications Commission; Political Processes and Television
============================================================ ========
Politics
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 19:02:43 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02914 Sekunden |
