For GOP only

[kapkomet]

The Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Doctrine are two completely different things.

How so? Edumacate me.

[Rex Kickass]

IIRC: (its been a while since I left the broadcasting industry) the Equal Time doctrine only applies within an election window - within 45 or 60 days of an election - when candidates who receive a specific amount of time of coverage on a radio or tv station (say, an interview or some such thing that is exposure but not paid advertising.) At that point, should another candidate ask, he is to be granted a similar amount of time for exposure on the air.

 

So if NBC or WLS radio does an interview with Giuliani 10 days prior to the Primary, it would be obligated to either offer an interview or give a requested interview to Mitt Romney or John McCain or generic GOP primary candidate. This doctrine still exists and can be enforced but rarely is.

 

The Fairness doctrine is an old regulation that would ensure multiple points of view were broadcast. With this regulation, if a broadcasting entity were to offer a viewpoint on a specific political issue, it would be required to offer an opposing viewpoint as well, if an individual or organization requested the station to air it. The station will weigh the request, and offer an adequate amount of time to that airing. However, if it wants to deny the request - it can petition the FCC to do so, who would then rule on whether or not FD is appropriate here or not.

 

It's important to note that there is no provision of equal time. For example, lets say that WGN offers an hour long documentary about it being cruel to drown kittens at 8PM on Monday night. The National Kitten Drowning Council thinks that there should be an opposing viewpoint portrayed. WGN is not required to offer an hour program in primetime on Monday night. The opposing viewpoint could be as little as a 60 second editorial reply aired at 3 AM on Sunday morning between infomercials. The timeframe that the response is given is not what's important. The fact that the station offers voices of different viewpoints is what's important.

 

The motivation behind this is that the radio and TV stations do not own the frequencies which they broadcast over but rather lease the rights to use those frequencies from the people of the US. As such, they are duty bound to showcase a diversity of public opinions. These rules were rolled back starting in the Carter administration and eliminated in the Reagan administration and that's why you never see things like "Editorial Replies" anymore on TV or hear them on the radio anymore. They used to be commonplace, and fairly unobtrusive to regular programming and satisfied the Fairness Doctrine quite handily.

[kapkomet]

OK, so wait...

 

We have these blowhards like Rush, Hannity, et. al... who discuss "right wing" values. Of course, two things come to mind right away. First, it's entertainment, if that's what floats your boat. Second, "liberals" (sorry, but I have to differentiate) could get whatever time they wanted (you say 3AM in your example), but what if they sold? If they sold, they would be on during the days in place of the right wingers, right?

 

So why is this a big deal?

 

In my mind, it's because the "right wingers" dominate, because they have found a message that resounds to more people then the "liberals".

 

By the way, I do say "right wingers" as opposed to "conservatives", because they are WAY different people.

[Rex Kickass]

It's a big deal because major corporations will have to start offering matching viewpoints. Eventually, what will end up happening is for every 24/7 right wing station, you'll have so many people demanding their viewpoint heard that eventually, there will be representation on the other side in the form of a show. When that happens, the fairness doctrine is more satisfied than before.

 

BTW: you can make the argument that right wing radio sells because the talent pool of conservative radio folk is deeper. IE since the genre has been there for 20 years and mostly consists of failed DJs who at least know how to communicate via radio (aka Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) As a result, they tend to be on stronger signals and have better market reach.

 

Left wing radio tends to be filled with hacks who don't understand the concept (Hightower, Sam Seder, Mike Malloy) and who are on much weaker signals.

 

For example - the way it is now, WABC is the second strongest signal in NYC (behind WFAN in signal reception) and is the right wing talker. WWRL is the left wing talker. If it was dominating its signal area in NYC, it has a weak signal in market and at best could grab half the ratings WABC would have in a down book.

 

Still, Rhandi Rhodes has between 1 and 2 million listeners nationwide per day. Al Franken was closing on 3 million til he left to run for Senate. Stephanie Miller and Lionel do well for themselves. These shows can sell, they just aren't put in positions to make lots of money - honestly. The signal just isn't there for them.

[mr_genius]

It's a big deal because major corporations will have to start offering matching viewpoints. Eventually, what will end up happening is for every 24/7 right wing station, you'll have so many people demanding their viewpoint heard that eventually, there will be representation on the other side in the form of a show. When that happens, the fairness doctrine is more satisfied than before.

 

BTW: you can make the argument that right wing radio sells because the talent pool of conservative radio folk is deeper. IE since the genre has been there for 20 years and mostly consists of failed DJs who at least know how to communicate via radio (aka Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) As a result, they tend to be on stronger signals and have better market reach.

 

Left wing radio tends to be filled with hacks who don't understand the concept (Hightower, Sam Seder, Mike Malloy) and who are on much weaker signals.

 

For example - the way it is now, WABC is the second strongest signal in NYC (behind WFAN in signal reception) and is the right wing talker. WWRL is the left wing talker. If it was dominating its signal area in NYC, it has a weak signal in market and at best could grab half the ratings WABC would have in a down book.

 

Still, Rhandi Rhodes has between 1 and 2 million listeners nationwide per day. Al Franken was closing on 3 million til he left to run for Senate. Stephanie Miller and Lionel do well for themselves. These shows can sell, they just aren't put in positions to make lots of money - honestly. The signal just isn't there for them.

 

IMO, a fairness doctrine will hurt liberal causes more than it will help. The major newsrooms are dominated by Democrats, so if there is going to be a 50/50 split of opinions the Dems will lose their formittable advantage in news coverage.

 

This would just end up being another huge thing for politicians to fight over. Imagine the political battles over nominating the people that would have authoritarian control of political content on the airwaves. I think the open market is working fine. Why does FOX news get big ratings? Because people that want to hear news that back their world view will watch it seeing that this view is largely ignored in the MSM. If there is a market for a Liberal talk radio network, it will happen. Business people and advertisers know Democrats buy things too, so I think it's just a matter of time before it happens. The Air America radio network just picked the wrong personalities IMO

Edited July 7, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

IMO, a fairness doctrine will hurt liberal causes more than it will help. The major newsrooms are dominated by Democrats, so if there is going to be a 50/50 split of opinions the Dems will lose their formittable advantage in news coverage.

 

Fairness doctrine does not equal a 50/50 split of anything. Unabashed bias would still appear.

 

This would just end up being another huge thing for politicians to fight over. Imagine the political battles over nominating the people that would have authoritarian control of political content on the airwaves. I think the open market is working fine. Why does FOX news get big ratings? Because people that want to hear news that back their world view will watch it seeing that this view is largely ignored in the MSM. If there is a market for a Liberal talk radio network, it will happen. Business people and advertisers know Democrats buy things too, so I think it's just a matter of time before it happens. The Air America radio network just picked the wrong personalities IMO

 

Air America made a lot of foolish moves, but I'd say by 05, they had a solid lineup - actually. Marc Maron wasn't bad in the morning, Jerry Springer can actually be a good, engaging talk show host, Al Franken has a significant following and Randi Rhodes (love or hate her) is the prototype for a successful liberal talk show (although some guidance for her would be nice). Their problem was business model and perception about their offerings.

[mr_genius]

Fairness doctrine does not equal a 50/50 split of anything. Unabashed bias would still appear.

 

Well, Kucinich and other Dems seem to want major changes on talk radio and FOX news, and they is citing the fairness doctrine.

 

If it's just a "letter to the editor" type thing, i'm sure FOX and whatever stations have R.Limbaugh on wouldn't mind doing that. Then you could also have it CNN and CBS or whatever, doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

[kapkomet]

it actually is. if you read the fine print, they are basically trying to shut traditional "right wing" shows down.

[Rex Kickass]

What fine print?

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Wasn't sure where to put this, not worth its own thread, but something worth noting...

 

President Bush will hand power over to Dick Cheney for a few hours on Saturday while Bush undergoes a semi-routine medical procedure which requires anesthesia. During that period, Mr. Cheney will be the acting President of the United States.

 

[BigSqwert]

Wasn't sure where to put this, not worth its own thread, but something worth noting...

 

President Bush will hand power over to Dick Cheney for a few hours on Saturday while Bush undergoes a semi-routine medical procedure which requires anesthesia. During that period, Mr. Cheney will be the acting President of the United States.

I was under the impression he handed over the job to Cheney back in January of 2001.

[southsideirish71]

Secret Squirrel is spying on Iran

 

[mr_genius]

Any of you see how the Dems are trying to slam this bill through congress that will give all illegal aliens, under the age of 25, free universal health care?

[NorthSideSox72]

Any of you see how the Dems are trying to slam this bill through congress that will give all illegal aliens, under the age of 25, free universal health care?

Huh? I've read some articles on the bill and have seen nothing of the sort. Link?

 

[Balta1701]

Huh? I've read some articles on the bill and have seen nothing of the sort. Link?

The Dems are trying to push through an expansion of the SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to allow the popular and effective program to provide insurance to every uninsured child in the U.S. (naturally, Bush has threatened to Veto, can't be showing that government run healthcare actually works or giving the Dems a policy victory.) In this version, the Dems have removed the requirement that people provide proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the program, at least according to this report.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Dems are trying to push through an expansion of the SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to allow the popular and effective program to provide insurance to every uninsured child in the U.S. (naturally, Bush has threatened to Veto, can't be showing that government run healthcare actually works or giving the Dems a policy victory.) In this version, the Dems have removed the requirement that people provide proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the program, at least according to this report.

Ah. Well in that case, I tend to agree with Bush. though one would think that if the relationship between Congress and the White House wasn't so adverserial, they could compromise and have that removed in order to pass the rest of the bill. Too bad we have the uniter and the 2 carpet baggers in charge of the branches right now.

 

[mr_genius]

The Dems are trying to push through an expansion of the SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to allow the popular and effective program to provide insurance to every uninsured child in the U.S. (naturally, Bush has threatened to Veto, can't be showing that government run healthcare actually works or giving the Dems a policy victory.) In this version, the Dems have removed the requirement that people provide proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the program, at least according to this report.

 

everyone under 25 is a child now? no one objects to continuing the SCHIP, what is unacceptable is giving free health care to every 25 and under illegal. Basically, the Dems are trying to attach a huge socialized health care program to a popular health care for children law. They just want to cry "see, they hate..... THE CHILDREN!". They will scream this even though they know that funding for medical care for children is not the problem.

Edited August 3, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

everyone under 25 is a child now? no one objects to continuing the SCHIP, what is unacceptable is giving free health care to every 25 and under illegal. Basically, the Dems are trying to attach a huge socialized health care program to a popular health care for children law. They just want to cry "see, they hate..... THE CHILDREN!". They will scream this even though they know that funding for medical care for children is not the problem.

I have to agree. One would hope they could compromise on this, lower the age and keep the ID restriction.

 

[Rex Kickass]

The version of the bill does not provide any more actual access to the insurance than what was already there actually. The objections to the bill, according to the NPR report I heard earlier this morning were on language that enabled states to determine eligibility requirements (IE what constitutes financial hardship enough to qualify - but only after getting approval from the Federal government for a income limit waiver) and documentation required to enroll in SCHIP. (The program currently requires original documents proving citizenship - which if IIRC is actually more difficult to obtain than the citizenship proof required to get a passport.)

[mr_genius]

and documentation required to enroll in SCHIP.

 

 

Yea, thats a big time thing. The dems want an expansion of the system to cover illegal immigrants, therefore they don't want people to have to produce documentation to enroll. So your claim of "this version of the bill does not provide any more actual access to the insurance" is way off.

Edited August 5, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

Nice spin. The bill lets states determine what kind of identification is needed to enroll in the program. So California may require an original birth certificate, but Nevada may decide to require a certified copy of one. Other states may require merely proof of residency.

 

From what I understand, the reason this change was made was because there was never any real problem with undocumented immigrants trying to get this coverage as much as there was with US Citizens unable to get this coverage because the documentation requirements were unreasonably strict.

 

There is nothing in this bill that would require any state to provide SCHIP to an undocumented immigrant.

[Cknolls]

New York wants the eligibility to be 84000 for a family of four. some hardship. I know states make their own guidelines, but who subsidizes the states?

[Cknolls]

Minnesota and Wisconsin both have over 50% adult enrollment in their respective programs. If any of you think this program will stay on budget or under budget I want what your smoking. Once expanded, its never going to regress.

[Cknolls]

Het how about the Dems committing vote fraud in the House on Thurs. night. I'm glad they are upholding their pledge for a new way to do business, i.e. ehtics.

[NorthSideSox72]

Het how about the Dems committing vote fraud in the House on Thurs. night. I'm glad they are upholding their pledge for a new way to do business, i.e. ehtics.

What are you talking about?