Paid Public Relations Hacks on Usenet -- Fairness Doctrine

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

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Paid Public Relations Hacks on Usenet -- Fairness Doctrine

Paid Public Relations Hacks on Usenet -- Fairness Doctrine [message #38432]

Do, 19 Mai 2005 08:19

John Shocked

[This message is so accurate and appropriate to the critical
issues discussed on the Usenet, it deserves a wider audience.]

===================================
Fourth in a series of pieces telling the truth about
corruption in the entertainment business and about
the scam on the Usenet where paid public relations
hacks who work for the companies or organizations
whose business is discussed in particular Newsgroups
posing as 'just another Newsgroup member'.

====================================

From the very inception of the United States, there
was a recognition among the Founding Fathers that
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 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 Billionaires.

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 alt.battlestar-galactica 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 carried out by paid
public relations hacks who pose as 'just another
Newsgroup member' have succumbed
to the attacks and have been coopted 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/fairnessd
oct/fairnessdoct.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

Re: Paid Public Relations Hacks on Usenet -- Fairness Doctrine [message #39251 ]

Do, 19 Mai 2005 18:28

hondainsightful

ABUSE REPORTED.

John Shocked wrote:
> [This message is so accurate and appropriate to the critical
> issues discussed on the Usenet, it deserves a wider audience.]
>
>
> ===================================
> Fourth in a series of pieces telling the truth about
> corruption in the entertainment business and about
> the scam on the Usenet where paid public relations
> hacks who work for the companies or organizations
> whose business is discussed in particular Newsgroups
> posing as 'just another Newsgroup member'.
>
> ====================================
>
> From the very inception of the United States, there
> was a recognition among the Founding Fathers that
> 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 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 Billionaires.
>
> 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 alt.battlestar-galactica 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 carried out by paid
> public relations hacks who pose as 'just another
> Newsgroup member' have succumbed
> to the attacks and have been coopted 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/fairnessd
> oct/fairnessdoct.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

Re: Paid Public Relations Hacks on Usenet -- Fairness Doctrine [message #39252 ]

Do, 19 Mai 2005 18:31

John Shocked

Let us know what response you receive to any false complaints you file.

Politics

<hondainsightful [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116520117.731354.11280 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ABUSE REPORTED.

> John Shocked wrote:
> > [This message is so accurate and appropriate to the critical
> > issues discussed on the Usenet, it deserves a wider audience.]
> >
> >
> > ===================================
> > Fourth in a series of pieces telling the truth about
> > corruption in the entertainment business and about
> > the scam on the Usenet where paid public relations
> > hacks who work for the companies or organizations
> > whose business is discussed in particular Newsgroups
> > posing as 'just another Newsgroup member'.
> >
> > ====================================
> >
> > From the very inception of the United States, there
> > was a recognition among the Founding Fathers that
> > 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 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 Billionaires.
> >
> > 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 alt.battlestar-galactica 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 carried out by paid
> > public relations hacks who pose as 'just another
> > Newsgroup member' have succumbed
> > to the attacks and have been coopted 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/fairnessd
> > oct/fairnessdoct.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
>

Vorheriges Thema:	What a shame
Nächstes Thema:	OT - Got a secret?

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:10:45 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04937 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.