Just to note a couple of things about the Fairness Doctrine: it was abolished by executive order, and therefore can be reinstated without need of any action by congress --- just another executive order signed by the president. It was in effect for approximately 35 years, and was upheld by the Supreme Court, in 1969.

Wasted effort.

1. Obama will not do anything contrary to the wishes of our lords and masters.

2. Trust-busting and similar quaint liberal pastimes are now just that... past times. Our owners will not permit any real efforts along those lines to proceed.

3. The current Supreme Court will gladly take on the issue just as they took on the Citizens United issue... and with the same result.

Rather than pursuing such an elusive chimera you perhaps might want to follow up on
the NH GOP plans to restrict voting by college students and other undesirables.

http://www.fosters.com/a...rticle?AID=2011701139913

Very interesting point from John Iocavelli about the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine by executive order.

What if the Congress would pass a resolution requesting that the President reinstate the Executive Order on the Fairness Doctrine?

I think there are several other aspects that have to be dealt with:

1. The Fairness Doctrine existed at a time when broadasting was limited to the airwaves. Now we have cable and the ability to greatly expand opportunities to be heard, so the rationale is a little different.

2. Media ownership used to be limited in a particular broadcast market. Now, the concept of a geographic broadcast market has more to do with content than actual location, again due to cable and satellite, I think geography still relates to concentration of media ownership, but it does not completely address "media isolation" to one point of view.

Perhaps we should be looking at the socioeconomic isolation as well as geographic isolation from diverse points of view. What points of view are represented in each type of cable package? Does the cheapest basic cable package provide one point of view and the more expensive package provide another? Does the way channels are relegated to packages determine who gets to be exposed to what point of view? This analysis is harder to accomplish, but isolation and "information deserts" now can be virtual, not merely geographic.

The proliferation of opinion programming presented, sort of as news and information may also be a current roadblock in addressing speech with a high heat to light ratio. If it's an opinion show, are they held to the same factual standards?

Finally, in an age where cause and effect can be so geographically far flung from one another, perhaps we need to augment the model of "shouting fire in a theatre". (A legal mind could say more on this topic than can I). There are two aspects I feel should be addressed:

1. The "shout of fire" can be heard across continents, and the connection between the shout and the theatre may remain undiscovered, or the connection may cross boundaries that make legal remedies impractical.

2. As has been pointed out here by Ernest Canning and perhaps Brad and others, with 24/7 broadcasting, the propaganda model for the sequencing of a series of suggestions (first demonize/dehumanize, then suggest that the unworthy should be treated a certain way) and the use of multiple media to accomplish an intended propaganda effect may make responsibility for a result harder to assign to one particular broadcaster, station, or program.

Whereas "shouting fire in a theatre" is an image that calls up one specific action by a seen person in a limited, defined location, we may not see the person, we cannot see all who hear the person, we are far flung from the direct ability to measure the truth of what they are saying, and attempts to measure the impact of what is said oten may only be possible to measure indirectly, by statistical implication.

Even the very act of taking the time to spell out the nature of the broadcaster's responsibility would be worthwhile. When Christiane Amanpour brought together a person perhaps deeply traumatized as a victime of a mass shooting on the same show with gun rights advocates to mix it up, she acted as if the only reality for her and these people was inside the studio walls. This sort of clueless broadcasting can lead to "If I can't see it, I'm not responsible for it" mentality.

I could easily be as discouraged as Zapkitty, and in fact ofen am. However, it costs me less to keep on pushing for these changes than to grieve that I did nothing later --- but will in fact check out the Z's NH link. (As they have a very liberal law about changing parties and voting the same day, and also a very loose same-day registration law where apparently individual towns get to name what the proof of eligibility is, this is an interesting apparent shift for the first-primary state.)

OFF TOPIC CORRECTION: THe NH law does not permit "changing parties" for registered voters, but rather changing from unaffiliated to a party, voting in a primary, and changing back to unaffiliated the same day. (This relates to my side note on Zapkitty's comments, not to the Fairness Doctrine topic.)

Re CTWATCHER @3:

With Republicans in control of the House, there is no realistic prospect that Congress will pass either a resolution or law, restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

I'm inclined to agree with ZAPKITTY that we can't rely upon an executive order from Obama, who also promised to protect net neutrality, then sat by as the three Democrats on the FCC voted to undermine it.

re: Ernest Canning @5:
I would be very surprised if your assessment proved incorrect. Having said that, proposing and voting on legislation is what track records are made of. Let the record show who proposed a solution, and how his/her colleagues voted on it.

If the link between violent actions and inciting type rhetoric is real, sadly, it will be replicated. The chance to revisit such legislative inaction at whatever next instance of violence occurs will be part of everybody's next campaign record.

If those in Congress want the public to scrape together some faith in the ability of elected officials to govern, then excuses won't cut it. Legislators will have to find SOME way to produce some results that pass muster with their constituents as actually responsive to intolerable situations. Inability to produce results in and of itself will increase both the disaffection for incumbents and the public's belief that "nothing can be done legislatively," so get cracking, Congress...

Suggestions: We've seen "limited" extensions of the tax cuts --Since I know some legislators read bradblog, I will ask: if Obama won't reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, why could not Obama sign an executive order designating a "trial period" of Fairness Doctrine, in the interest of "cooling things off"?

What we CAN say is that the known availability of a means of addressing this issue (executive order) means Democrats cannot merely handwring behind the majority vote excuse in claiming what can and cannot be done.

Legislators who concur that a majority will not mustered behind restoration of the Fairness Doctrine might simply get together and sign a petition of conscience to send to the President, asking for the President's action, as a gesture of respect toward the concerns expressed by their colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, about the impact of violent rhetoric and rhetorical symbols.

Either it would work, or it wouldn't. If not, it then would go on record that both Congress and the President were asked to take a step within their power to address responsible rhetoric, and they declined to do so.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General might want to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigation of a program with organized and deliberate intent to incite violence and destabilize the government.

Enjoyed the radio interview http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8308

Simply awesome.

I'm very much enjoying the various and interesting discussion on this thread (as I'm otherwise distracted with a few "off-blog" items at the moment). To that end, a very few thoughts in response for the moment...

ZapKitty said @ 2:

Trust-busting and similar quaint liberal pastimes are now just that... past times.

I'll assume the "liberal" part there is for irony's sake. If not, the great "Trust Buster", the "liberal" Teddy Roosevelt, would be somewhat puzzled today (as I suspect he would be, no matter what!)

Thanks for the link to the NH crazy people article. They certainly are a threat to democracy and all that this nation stands for. That said, there wouldn't have been so many disinformed people filling that room, taking action on their misinformation, if not for the mainstream media purposely disinforming them over our public airwaves in the first place.

While true reform on this front may be a "chimera" as the ZKitty suggests above (and as Ernie goes on to underscore), I'm with ctwatcher in regard to "proposing and voting on legislation is what track records are made of."

But I will go broader still in that even discussion of these issues --- along with public pressure brought to bear on elected officials (and the FCC, for example)-- brings pressure as well on the disinformants and may, just may, help them think twice before their next lie, their next violent incitement. We've got to start somewhere. Giving up before beginning is not unlike those who used to say, in regard to federal Election Reform bills, "We can't include a DRE ban in such a bill because it's just a non-starter among those in Congress."

That was true, of course, right up until the time that it wasn't. (I'm sure ZapKitty understands the allusion). So rolling over in the first place, under the notion that it was the right thing to do, but a political "non-starter", would have gotten us nowhere there.

Finally, for now, a challenge, of sorts, to ctwatcher who contends that some kind of "fairness doctrine" could, should also be considered for cable, satellite outfits (if I understand the arguments made above). The fact is, restoring fairness/balance by regulating the public airwaves is a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned, in that they are limited and owned by the people (facts which have been underscored by SCOTUS decisions over the years).

Therefore, like the limited resources of our National Parks system, they should be protected by the federal government, in my opinion. (Note to the unimaginative and/or brainwashed: No, that doesn't require censoring anybody's voices or opinions). But ctwatcher seems to extend the argument beyond the easily-arguable responsibility for protecting the broadcast airwaves by looking at similar regulation for cable and satellite somehow.

So I would ask under what legal or Constitutional authority could the federal government do so? (I have some thoughts in answer to that question, but I'd prefer to hear from others before offering my own here.)

Curmilus Dancy II @ 7:

Thank you muchly! Mostly for taking the time to listen!

Brad, basically we have all of them on record as breaking their words on even more vital subjects. Now you want to carefully capture them breaking their word again on this particular subject?

And then what?

People are still going to vote for them... as the gopbaggers are going to give a carefully staged performance over the next two years that will reinforce the idea that they really are the worst of two evils and that dem-led corporate slavery is a preferable option to the mindless shrieking lunacy of the only other choice.

That is a battle that has already been lost.

The barbarians have smashed the gates.
The fascists have arrived wrapped in their flags and bearing their crosses.
The terrorists have won.

We're fighting a different battle now.

Awright Zap.
How do you propose we fight this battle?

shw

First we acknowledge that politicians are effectively free to break their word as often as they wish, or as often as they are coerced (that option included for the sake of the diehard romantics).

In other words politicians under the current setup can not be held accountable by the voters, only by our lords and masters.

The hot air being blown on the blogs about Lieberman "retiring" is a classic example. "The voters have run him out of office before the elections have even started!" and similar BS.

In fact Lieberman has performed admirably the job that our owners wished and Obama etc placed him to do. He will be richly rewarded and will be allowed to further serve in any of a variety of positions both political and corporate (big difference, right?)

Unaccountable. They all are. There's no way the common folk can match the buying power of the elite and the elite will see too it that it stays that way. When you acknowledge that, you will understand the extent of the problem.

It cannot stand, of course, and the oncoming disasters already triggered by the awesome greed of our lords and masters will ensure a reckoning much sooner than they expect... but do you expect them to stop at that reckoning and say "Sorry! We were wrong! Here's the reins of power back!"

...?

You know that's not going to happen. Or you should know by now. Instead they will try to contort the situation to best serve themselves and to hell with the rest of the planet.

We must fight whenever and however we can, but it's a lost cause until the overt influence of the oligarchs can be checked and their legislative shopping expeditions in DC at least driven back underground.

Perhaps Brad's radio career makes the Fairness Doctrine loom in his vision as a place to stage one of our fights to hold the line... but as I've said: you just can't get there from here.

OK Zap. Lost cause till the oligarchs can be checked. Pretty dark. Do we keep flailing at windmills? I'm pleased that you still do. You're here. And Brad still fights. But here in TN, where we have NO assurance that any election is free and fair, some of us are about to just give up and try to help where we can locally. Help each other. Spread goodness on a personal and generational level. Maybe that's all we can do.

Or, can we all jump in with a third party somewhere, one that is not connected to corporate bosses? How do we get there? How do we disengage from the ever-biggering system? I got no answers...

I do believe that we're far better off with Obama than with the Pubs. And that is worth something...

Fight where you can fight. The problem is getting those who want to fight to think about fighting on more than one front at once. It's not easy and just commenting on a blog alone won't do it.

And there is no one solution. The government is broken, has been broken deliberately, and cannot cope with what's coming. The bureaucracy will do what it can but it cannot govern.

People want to take at least a decisive action somewhere but all the attempts at decisive action have failed so far because the pols that were being relied upon to keep their promises folded like cards upon command from above... even when it meant political suicide.

But there will come a time, and as I said it will be much sooner than our lords and masters think, where the reality of what they've done will be obvious even to a Fox News addict. And they will be ready to play the shock doctrine card one last time in order to escape responsibility, accrue greater power and loot what little we have left.

(The fact that humanity becomes extinct in the process will not faze them... as with all aristocracies they live in a world of their own.)

The crux will come. And when it does that's when we'll have to be ready, and be ready in advance, with a set of governing solutions and options that make sense and at the same time deprive the oligarchs of their stranglehold on power.

And it must be organized within the law and eschew any rhetoric of violence... even when citizens are dying in the streets. It must be presentable as an appropriate series of reforms to a political process gone amok.

When the lords and masters appeal to their deluded and often unknowing subjects to follow them into fantasy-land for one last fatal trip something's going to snap and that's when we must be ready to take action... and this is the hard part, the very hard part... take action with proposals and options that make sense, curtail the oligarchs, and give power back to the "lesser people"...

.... at least for a while...

As for Obama... Shannon, that's the point. That's how Obama is supposed to make you feel. Safer than with them. Even in spite of his betrayals you feel safer with him.

There's a variety of terms from across the ages to describe Obama and his function and none of them are kind.

He does his job well, though, in passing off our status as serfs as the natural order of things.

Back to Brad on the question of constitutionality of Fairness Doctrine for cable TV. I am familiar with the original arguments (at least as offered in university) but got nothing for you on expansion of applicability, Brad, except the contention that something has to be done to ensure diversity of opinion is part of our democratic decision making system, and to stop dehumanizing and suggesting death or violence to those who do not agree with some particular policy or point of view. I am under the impression that said limited airwaves are not really used anymore to transmit except in the AM/FM part of radio --- am I wrong? Many of those stations are also available on the internet. Thus, I am wondering if an argument can be made that addresses 1) the vital-to-democracy aspect of diverse opinion, 2) the FACT of limited availability of opinions, even though the MECHANICS (limited radiofrequencies) that create limited availability are different.

Also, legal minds might consider the extent to which the "fire in the theatre" analogy (which is not incitement to murder, it is incitement of chaos) applies or should be further articulated and applied to present circumstances.

I also think media ownership and even foreign interference with governance in the form of media ownership might be examined. When I think about TV shows about what the CIA has done in the past to destabilize other governments, some of this stuff doesn't seem very different from how other countries have been destabilized.

Since I read Brad's comment and thought about a reply, I have read about the pipe bomb in a backpack along a Spokane MLK parade route, and I read the interview with Rep. Giffords' husband, where he says she said at least 10 times that she feared assassination at a public event, and wgere he also questions whether it is appropriate for her to continue in public office.

In terms of addressing challenges that seem impossible in the darkest days I can remember in this country, I don't have a magic answer. Just because one cannot see around a bend in a tunnel does not mean that light is not just beyond the bend --- it means one cannot see it. I agree that diversity of approaches is a good idea.

In the age of sound bites, I like to slow down, take the time to understand how the inside of the issue's clock works, in detail and in specific, rather than accepting memes and constructs handed to me, even if the memes are appealing, popular, or seductive or appear correct in general.

Because media is fast moving and repetitive, doing the opposite of what media is doing often reeveals that what moved by fast doesn't hold up well when played in slo mo.

In my limited experience, such geeky detailed collection of facts will go unheard repeatedly and for some time, maybe years, apparently for naught, till the event or moment in which people are ready to listen, The saying is, "when the student is ready, the teacher appears." The fact that the argument has been made and developed over time will make it familiar, if not fully comprehended until the "click" moment.

The echo chamber is exactly that. It's appearance of veracity depends upon the absence of REAL issues and REAL logic being used. It's like rhetorical studio wrestling --- fake adversaries, fake issues. Fake arguments may inflame when examples of true leadership are absent, but they don't resonate the same way when contrasted with actual logic and reason. (I would offer the viral phenomenon of Bernie Sanders' "filibuster" going viral as one such moment of sanity).

FWIW, folks. If it helps somebody fake it til you make it, so be it.

The drafters of the Constitution relied on a relatively new technological innovation called the "Press." They built in all the safeguards that they could to protect this vital resource for the people but eventually, just a couple of centuries later, the ultra-elites had bought up all of the "Press" that really mattered.

This is the issue that needs addressing.

What right(s) can be formulated that provide the same protections as "Freedom of the Press" but that fit in today's world?

ZapKitty @ 16:

This is the issue that needs addressing.

That is the issue we have been addressing...

What right(s) can be formulated that provide the same protections as "Freedom of the Press" but that fit in today's world?

We needn't "formulate" any rights. The rights already exist. They simply need to be enforced. To that end, enforcing them on the people airwaves --- where the "ultra-elites" have been allowed to believe they have "bought up" the airwaves (they can't be "bought", they are licensed, by we the people) --- still remains the key, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how insurmountable that task may seem.

AhhhhhhOOOooo! I am literally bathed in relief to once again see a comment thread so chock full o' worthwhile insights, here!

CTWatcher & Shannon W. - thank you for raising the bar and asking such fine questions. I was beginning to think no one asked stuff anymore...just regurgitated their latest mainlined mainstreamed non-substanitive corporate trash talking points all over me.

(A good shot in the arm for my ebbing brave face; so discouraged living through this 'Age of Duh' I feel it's cold effects metastasizing somewhere in me like a giant goiter. Not sure what a goiter is, but I'm pretty sure I've got one and that Sarah Palin is causing it to swell.)

Zap @ 12 - felt like a champagne bath to read, in spite of the stark; every smart word a mirror of the Big Truths that have long been fomenting in my sad and tired psyche.

So many possible tracks to explore and consider, but I'm hooked on your last:

What right(s) can be formulated that provide the same protections as "Freedom of the Press" but that fit in today's world?

Love the question. Thinking on it now. Will think more on it, later.

Initial thoughts:

--Wikileaks is proving beyond anyone's capacity to imagine just how far the Fourth Estate has fallen into the intractable mire. Some Gonzo journos left (ie Mark Crispin / Greg Palast / Matt Tabbai / Glenn Greenwald / our own Brad Friedman) - but since the Justice Dept. is currently pre-selecting a (loaded) Grand Jury in D.C. to codify the criminalization of journalism - I couldn't more that The Fairness Doctrine may as well be the Magna Carta for all it's modern day potency. (Not to mention the right wing frothing on the subject has muddled it's branding, a la ACORN; they've demonized The Fairness Doctrine on our very own airwaves to the point that it will never get any play.)

-There can be no guaranteed Freedom of the Press, even in theory, under these new and mortifying criterion. At least, not here in the U.S. (Especially after unholy COMCAST / NBC merger.)

Here's where I'm taking a small amount of hope: WIKILEAKS as Guerrilla Journalism, spawning a million lil' sister info-revolutionaires and they are manifesting super-human changes in the world.
Fast.

Tunisleaks, for example, their Tunisian sister-co. (and oddly enough FACEBOOK) had a huge hand in fanning the efforts of / helped to mobilize the massive protests that shook the middle-east. (Egypt is seriously freaking out!)

I agree (can't remember who said it up thread) that any kind of New Fairness Doctrine would have to be Internationally policed. The U.S. just can't moderate our own dis-info drip-feed, anymore. We need an international info intervention - stat.

...miss you around here, Zap.

Jeannie Dean @ 18 - thanks for kind words and thank YOU for thinking along with us --- and also thanks for all YOU do (you don't know me, but I have read about your work). Cheers/over and out/back to reading (gets out popcorn)

Brad @ 8 ~

Giving up before beginning is not unlike those who used to say, in regard to federal Election Reform bills, "We can't include a DRE ban in such a bill because it's just a non-starter among those in Congress."

That was true, of course, right up until the time that it wasn't...

Love the reference. And a good thing to bear in mind for so many reasons...

That debate was an in-house rift(so to speek) re: the best way to effectively legislate around the dastardly FEDERAL attempt to implement vote-stealing software in jurisdictions over the country. That debate as action splintered the Election experts into several heavily fortified camps; a circular firing squad from which the Election Integrity community never recovered it's coherence.(That and an uncanny inability / refusal to circulate, or even pay mind to, the myriad of effective new ways to get their well researched information out to millions of people. Still baffles.)

The debate we're having now re: the best way to enforce the Fairness Doctrine under new specs for cable and internet, is a different whale of a beast, to my mind. It's fighting UP & DOWN - punching unilaterally (wheras the former is a lateral side swipe)requiring a fundamentally different skill set. As Zap points out, it demands coherency of a Grand Plan with a capitol 'G' and 'P. It requires unity of purpose. And some ego-less-ness. And Twitter. (Sorry, but it does.) Oh, and it involves strategy sessions that *don't* include stopping our progress every two seconds to slow down n' "book larn" the tea-people, who are unwittingly eating the paste just to distract the rest of us. (Sorry, but yes, we CAN just ignore them. Or at least we can *try trying*.)

Yes, DRE's were banned, Brad. Yay us. AFTER years of all our nasty infighting and AFTER new and worse voting systems had already been implemented everywheres. And tragically, AFTER we no longer had a unified voice to help us soldier on and win the greater war. (INTERNET VOTING NOW?! Are you effin' kiddin' me?) So yah. Not trying to shit all over our limited victories, Brad. But it was just great how that hard-won DRE ban made voting so much more secure.

I agree with Zap. This is a hard, stony, way-high-up-in-the-air castle to storm. You're talking about slow, incremential change in response to a malicious, intentionally sent, info-war Tsunami.

...Must be a way to fight smarter and harder that doesn't involve being manhunted.

@ CTWatcher - I know you, CT! I remember you from your other (equally sharp) posts over the years.
Please. Post them here more often.
Relishing.

xoxo!