Fairness Doctrine and Ethics Reform in Broadcast
UPDATE. Got Gadgets under the Tree this year? Buy a Book that can actually HELP. Get "Yes, I'd Like to Thank the Academy: How to Tame the Red Carpet in YOUR Office."
Born of the fact the Broadcast is REALLY my family business & the fact that I have not profited one Iota from this, "Yes, I'd Like to Thank the Academy" is a Sociological analysis of the effects of Broadcast in Politics, in HealthCARE & in the daily lives of all of us.
$7 Digital Download. Buy NOW & Read Below
UPDATE. This is my Uncle Jack outside his Radio Station that he OWNED. I'm sure he is rolling in his grave over the vicious BULLYING in TV & Radio these days. This is a direct result in the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine, implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, was overturned in 1987 & completely removed in August of 2011.
Why would Legislators dismantle the Fairness Doctrine?
Who could possibly be against FAIRNESS?
It's HOW & WHY a BULLY is in Washington. #ImpeachDonaldTrump
More on the Fairness Doctrine soon
Mandatory Ethics Certification is a REQUIREMENT for Insurance Agents like myself to be licensed. It is stunning that Individuals like myself are held to a higher ethical standard than our Elected Officials. It is stunning that individuals like myself are held to a higher ethical standard than BROADCASTERS, who like Insurance Agents have to be licensed .
What people may not understand when they turn on their TV & the "News" magically appears, is that TV Stations have to apply for a Broadcast License from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC.)
It is no secret that I have been calling for the Impeachment of what I deem to be a Fake President. There is one & only one issue that I am in 100% agreement with him on & that is THE CROOKED MEDIA.
He is right on this point.
Ironically hypocritical as the Crooked Media is how he got "elected" - people voting for a Cartoon Character after 8 years of watching The Apprentice on TV.
The Media Circus that created him, gave the lion's share of airtime in the 2016 Presidential Debates to a bully because the public could not look away from the Train-wreck that is the #ApprenticePresident.
This in turn, enabled Media Outlets to charge premium prices for the Advertising.
This is one of the many reasons I've been calling for complete & total ETHICS REFORM in this country at all levels of Government INCLUDING BROADCAST.
Today is 8/14/2019 - August 14, 2019.
In my opinion, WOMEN as a Class of People are SLANDERED EVERY DAY when people turn on their TVs.
The reason the viscous in the "News" has gotten so bad is the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, overturned in 1987 & completely removed in August of 2011. (See below)
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission(FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest,equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the
language that implemented the Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be
done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials.
The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposedto a diversity of viewpoints.
In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.
The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access the airwaves, created a need for the
Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, publicaccess channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the equal time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.
More thoughts soon.