FairnessDoctrineinBroadcastingSupporters] presidential candidates ARE INVOLVED + the fairness doctrine HISTORY 1960'S TO 2007

They you me we want fairness and don't want radio
stations educating one sided where people in rural
america are getting a distorted picture of life.


DANIELLE:
Below you can read on the history and HOW PRESIDENTAIL
CANDIDATES  affected this doctrine.

SITE:
>>>>>FAIRNESS DOCTRINE =
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

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.<<<<<






DANIELLE:
Discussions of candidates are of great importance.

My post giving the last 50 yrs of presidential
candidates controlled by the bilderberg group have
influenced what is aired and has allowed propaganda in
isoltaed regions of the usa. I have traveled the usa
in a Rv from 2000 to 2004 and listened to talk radio
all across the usa. It depends where you live what you
get. Many ares of the usa have control over what is
spoken and what is allowed to be spoken through
ownership of those radio stations like clear channel
which from 1999 took over many rural and middle states
and took control over what people though and how they
voted.


REFERENCE SITE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications

>>>>There are two sides to every issue. Unless, of
course, you're a conservative.

For conservatives, there's only one side to every
issue -- and only one point of view that should ever
be
heard on the airwaves.

Conservatives, in fact, are panicking over a talk
radio study released by the Center for American
Progress that shows that there are nine hours of
right-wing talk radio for every one hour of
progressive talk.

Nobody disputes the accuracy of the Center's findings.
But now that the cat's out of the bag, conservatives
are afraid the FCC might take action. So Indiana
Republican Rep. Mike Pence has introduced in Congress
what he calls the "Broadcaster Freedom Act" -- which
bans the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine --
and he claims to be picking up lots of cosponsors
among fellow Republicans.

As a nationally syndicated liberal talk show host, I
want to know: What are they afraid of?

The Fairness Doctrine would not censor anybody. It
would not require Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to
have a liberal co-host. It would not shut anybody
down.

All the Fairness Doctrine would do is require
stations, or station owners, to present more than one
point of view. To offer a variety of voices. In other
words, to provide a little "balance" in talk radio
where there is none today. It can't be all right-wing,
all the time, which is the case with most stations
today.<<<<<<<<<



DANIELLE:
They you me we want fairness and don't want radio
stations educating one sided where people in rural
america distorted picture of life here in america.

You all have to understand that this war has been
going back and forth for many many yrs.

many years ago we were all basically pretty
conservative. Then came vietnam (which i am a veteran)
then came hippies doing drugs to keep them docile.
There were also tru hippies who did actions like the
antiwar marches that stopped vietnam war.

Nixon wanted to allow new fairness because everyone
was doing drugs and playing rock music and well that
took over. Soon reagan was elected and drugs were evil
but actually they allowed more drugs to come in to
keep the hippies stoned or over dosed on cocaine and
in many areas of the usa reagan started JUST SAY NO.
this was trying to stop the population outside of
cities where the neocons could get control over people
through religion. In the mean time the cities were
filled with many types of people and changing them was
hard. so there were enough varied stations to give
fairness but reagan knew that he could get control
over most of the rural area of the usa which is the
red states etc` except for cities which have blue
states. Others knew this but decided they didn't want
fairness out there in redstate land so reagan didn't
want the fairness doctrine enforced and so next came
bush sr and his 1st iraq war and then came clinton to
mess everything up by being the person who was
disgusting and so we have bush jr. In 2004 we had so
many right wing radio stations feeding america and
then we had the religous movie of jesus christ which
again brought many even in cities and also clintons
dirty deeds to turn even city people right wing and
well the iraq war didn't go so well and the old tru
hippies didn't do drugs and they are the ones now
fighting for fairness.

So what we have is presidential candidates who do
alter what we think and these candidates are
controlled by the group bilderberg.
........................ .........................
IRAQ WAR Background who is fighting + why = how Barack
Can bring Peace

Brief:

1st you get who is attacking us.

2nd you get proof to who is attacking us.

3rd you get the reason why we have them attacking us.

4th you will see who started this whole chain that
lead them to want to attack us.

Full spectrum dominance.(America's Oil Wars)( Century
of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World
Order)(Book Review)
From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) | Date: 6/22/2005 |
Author: Bevan, Brock L.

Stephen C. Pelletiere. America's Oil Wars.

William Engdahl. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil
Politics and the New World Order, (Ann Arbor: Pluto
Press, [1992] 2004). 312 pp.

****see bilderberg listed here****

(18.) Ibid., pp. 268-269. Engdahl argues that the oil
shock in 1973 was rigged at Saltsjobaden, Sweden
during at meeting of the """"Bilderberg group"""". The
jump in oil prices had the result of creating a huge
pool of so-called 'petrodollars' that could not be
invested in the countries that accrued them. Thus,
they were invested in Europe and the United States
instead of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Besides
strengthening the dollar in the wake of the decoupling
from the gold standard, the price shock had the effect
of placing developing countries in a perpetual debt
cycle since their raw materials did not rise in price
as the cost of dollar-denominated petroleum did. See
pp. 130-141.

........................ ..........................



"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean
that the voters are ordering a change in national
policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have
occupied the White House for 16 years, and four
democrats have held this most powerful post for 17
years. With the exception of the first seven years of
the Eisenhower administration, there has been no
appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy.
There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no
change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years,
Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson
Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy.
When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced
by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David
Rockefeller protégé.

BILDERBERG CANIDATES =
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Crpz

................. ....................... ........

PLEASE READ MY SITE ABOVE WHICH GIVES YOU THE FULL
TRUTH TO THE HISTORY OF BILDERBERG
......................................................

MY SITE BELOW GIVES YOU THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF IRAQ
WAR AND HOW IT WAS PLANNED IN THE 70'S

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Cthg

FairnessDoctrineinBroadcastingSupporters@groups.democrats.org

Subject: [FairnessDoctrineinBroadcastingSupporters]
Re: Fairness Doctrine
    The Fairness Doctrine is not just about campaigns.
It applies to issues, as well.

It used to be coupled with Equal Time Protection
requirements. The basic argument is that (1) the
airwaves belong to the public, (2) use of these
airwaves is granted to private business under the
condition that the use serves the greater public good
and (3) the greater public good is best served in a
democracy by giving citizens all sides of public
issues because a functional democracy requires an
informed citizenry.

Imagine if we had a real, open public debate on Iraq
before Bush invaded that presented all sides of the
issues involved. The FCC once required it...... before
Reagan.



VOTE AT WWW.CAPITALNEWS.ORG EVERYDAY

http://www.capitalnews.org

JOIN http://www.barackobama.com and change the world

Life here on earth is but a dream of the true spiritual world from
whence we came and to where we will return

For as you have cared for others so have you cared for me. Love jesus