Talk:Fairness doctrine

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Radio Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Collaboration of the Week : Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues, a public-domain report commissioned by Congress from the Congressional Research Service. ‌

Anyone that follows politics hears about this constantly. Therefore, I believe it is important. Saksjn (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I believe this should be a candidate for limited editing. I've seen three malicious posts that had to be removed with regard to President-Elect Obama's intended legislative actions. I believe this will be a major subject as Congress had signaled its intent to implement most of its edicts.Mastercare (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn few articles are without bias but this one is golden. Good job.

--149.152.34.128 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I will go as far as to say the most articles on wikipedia regarding anything political is fiecely biased to the left. This article is strikingly centered. I guess it would be ironic if the article ON the fairness doctrine were biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.44.199 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. I hope that recent changes will not embolden people to edit this article to be biased like most others. Fool4jesus (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discourage anyone else from adding anything, but I'm writing an extensive paper on the Fairness Doctrine this month, so this should be quite a lengthy and complete article by the time I'm done. —Postdlf 7:21 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the article is broken... It looks like a massive chunk of Talk: page got dumped into the end of the External Links section.

I am going to excise that and place it into its own section here on the Talk: page for somebody (possibly me, but not right now) to sort through later. --AStanhope 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following text appeared to have been accidentally placed in the External Links section of the main article. Some of it, at least, appears to have come from either this talk page or some users' misunderstanding of how Wikipedia editing works. --AStanhope 17:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 vowed to kill the 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 do NOT 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

-- WARNING: Val E. Limburg seems to have a conservative bias on media regulation policy. In the spirit of the fairness doctrine, here are some opposing viewpoints:

- Media consolidation is out of control since 1996's Telecommunications Act - Local broadcasters do not serve community need, but pander to corporate ideology.

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org http://media-alliance.org

The FCC has initiated a task force to determine the effectiveness of local broadcasters to their local communities. This is an ongoing process that citizens can take part in. Tell the FCC how you feel about media consolidation. http://www.fcc.gov/localism/

As Powell put it himself: “I created the

This is the board of mr. Limburg's Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago - http://www.museum.tv/about.htm

Notice the representation of Cumulus, The Tribune and others who stand to gain from the present deregulation of the media. Board of Directors – Officers and Executive Committee

   * Bruce DuMont, Founder/President & CEO
   * Richard Fleming, USG Corporation (retired), VP & Treasurer
   * David Plier, Retail First Corporation, VP & Secretary
   * Jack Weinberg, Pro Consulting Associates, Ltd., VP

Members of the Board

   * Jennifer Anderson, Impact Basketball
   * David Bart, McGladrey
   * Lana Brown (education consultant)
   * Sean Cassidy, DKC
   * Chris Gladwin, Cleversafe
   * Dennis Green, Cumulus Media Networks
   * Jon Harris, The Hillshire Brands Company
   * Andrew Hayes, Fifth Third Bank
   * David Kovach, Citibank
   * Michael Shmarak, DKC
   * Rocco Smeriglio, Yahoo
   * Larry Wert, Tribune Broadcasting MrSativa (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery solved?

Mystery clarified if not entirely solved: that text (signed by Val E. Limburg) is from the Museum of Broadcast Communications page on the Fairness Doctrine that was linked in "External Links". What might have happened is that (as has often happened to me) the poster thought s/he was copying and pasting the URL from the address bar, but instead pasted the text of the page itself. I think this was an attempt (successful or not) to give a balanced account, and to my humble eyes it seems to contain some useful background and clarification that might well be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Shakescene (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any references on this guy? Googling on Bill Ruddee or William Ruddee only brings references back to this article.--Eyemeansit 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but it appears that the last bit about the FCC's response to court action in 2000 was only to temporarily suspend the policy: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/2000/nrmm0041.html (MicahMH 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Granted, I'm by no means a wiki expert, and do not yet know much about the operations of wiki articles... but is there any reason why I am getting two different versions of this article; one before I log in, and a different version after?

For example, I was going to ask about the obvious bias in the following segment;

The Doctrine did not apply to Newspapers, and was rarely enforced in other media, but the public perception of the meaning of fairness made many radio broadcasters believed it had a limiting effect on their broadcasting (not doing any and all commentary the left might deem critical or unfair, the left being called a "powerful special interests," was annoying to the right's powerful special interests and they were the ones paying bills).

But after I logged in to make this entry, that segment mysteriously disappeared from the article. I considered that, in those few seconds, perhaps an edit was made by someone else. But after logging out, clearing my cookies and looking again, it was back. So I logged in again, to be sure... and it was once again gone.

Maybe it's just my ignorance of wiki... but is this normal?

And, of course, if anyone would care to address the above section as it pertains to POV, I would appreciate that, a well. Artmonkey 06:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert either, but I think you may have been experiencing server lag. My understanding is that any website changes take time to update on all the servers along the path from source to receiver. Maybe the "path" you got when logged off wasn't updated and was different from the one you got when you logged on. Either that, or your series of tubes was blocked. I do know that there aren't different versions of wiki articles, except for language translations.

The paragraph in question was added on January 15 and removed about 12 hours later by the same user. You are right, it was obviously POV and the article seems pretty neutral now. Hoof Hearted 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that this article is under scrutiny for a question of importance.

Well, as the newly elected democratic majority in congress is pushing for a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine right now, and given the opposition they are already seeing from those in talk radio broadcasting, I think you will find, very soon, that this article will become very popular and very timely. As for it's importance, the new fairness doctrine promises to completely change the face of talk radio media. I would personally consider that of notable importance, no matter which side of the issue you favor. Artmonkey 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sounds like this article is important enough. I removed the tag for notability. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are actually a number of "references" in the external links section, including to the line I just tagged as needing citation about GHW Bush. Anyone actually feel like reading through those articles and making them citations? I'll fix the markup, but sorry reading through those articles sounds deeply boring to me. I'm just here via the Recent Changes feed. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a very awkwardly worded phrase.

"In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the Reagan administration influenced FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine..."

And I have to disagree with the first poster on this page. Atrributive phrases like, "Reagan administration influnced," suggest POV and bias. It was not a Reagan administration influnced FCC, it was an FCC during the Reagan administration. If people don't understand that means its members were administration appointees (though only three of the five can ever be of the same political party, and there were no dissenting votes when the Fairness Doctrine was struck down), as were members of the FCC under all other administrations, then they need to go read an article on the FCC. As a counter-example, why not stick the appellation, "socalist" in front of Senator Bernie Sanders, or describe the putative legislation as "socialist-sponsored?" Because it suggests bias, even though Bernie Sanders proudly claims that he is a Socialist. The noted attributive phrase also suggests bias.

~mjd 2007-04-11 17:41EDT

A quick scan of the references and external links posted shows that all but one is a reference in clear support of the Fairness Doctrine, with not a small amount of political bias in many. I suggest that you can find a few more references with arguments against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to help this article mirror its title.

I would further suggest you remove the reference to the Slate article. It is by its very definition and own admission a POV peice. That would be bad enough, if it weren't for the fact that, while all of the media was apoplectic about the possibility of the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor airing shortly before the 2004 Presidential election in the United States, neither the Slate piece, this article, nor any of the rest of the mainstream media in 2004 seemed to mind that Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary aired on DishNetwork and on Pay-Per-View immediately before the election. [Someone is going to argue that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over DishNetwork or the cable companies: wrong. The FCC oversees them as well, and the existing equal time statutes apply to them as well]. In the end, Stolen Honor was NOT broadcast in October 2004 as Sinclair had planned; Fahrenheit 911 was broadcast in November 2004, the day before the election.

~mjd 2007-04-11 18:16EDT

The following sentence, I believe, is clearly biased and assumes facts not in evidence, to use a legal term. "Touted periodically by liberals, if active, the doctrine would effectively quiet opposition to the leftist world view." Pueblonative 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it, but backed up the statement following it with a reference. --Hiddekel 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another sentence that, I believe, contains bias:

"This proposed legislation has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half."

My big objection is to "routinely," which I think suggests that conservatives are using 'talking points' and/or coming up with a repetitious criticism. The link to an article in Salon (possibly the one mjd mentions just above) that follows the sentence pooh-poohs conservatives' concern, but I think it is OK for it to stay if it is balanced by other sources that offer a counter-view.

I am editing this sentence accordingly. --MollyTheCat 09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me formatting all of the references to use the citation templates (see the last citation I added for an example of what I'm talking about)? Apparently this is a contentious issue with some folks and if there are any objections I'll not bother. --Hiddekel 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Lott made some negative remarks about talk radio but reiterated that the solutions was not to regulate but instead better communication directly with the public. This does not constitute support for the Fairness Doctrine. Please stop erroneously adding that he supports it. Talmage 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been pointed out that talk radio uses the public airwaves, I think it should be pointed out that Hollywood uses the public airwaves as well (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, et al) and that academia, both private and public, receive billions in taxpayer dollars. This is as relevant as talk radio using the public airwaves, and I would like to know if anyone out there has links/sources to recommend in pointing these facts out? Thanks. -- Gerkinstock 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting section name to "Controversy"

The "Attempts" section has been renamed to "Controversy" since the very existence of the attempts is in controversy. I have also made it clear where assertions are made by opinion commentators; typically these are not sources for facts. If this article is to be factual, it should quote people directly, not refer to 2nd-hand quotes filtered through opinion pieces. It's not as if it's difficult to get quotes from politiciansrewinn 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split out "legislation"

Within the Controversy section, I split out the legislative matters (which are easy to state objectively) from the commentary (which is inherently POV). Since no link was provided to Pence's proposal, I substituted Coleman's which was basically the same (and an editor (below) had provided the link --- thanks! rewinn 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such legislation - although none has actually been introduced in Congress - has been criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed, despite the overwhelming (90%) conservative bias in the media and media ownership, especially in talk radio as shown in reports out of the Center for American Progress.

Ok this is absolute crap, the Center for American Progress is run by Liberals, how about this, 9/10 reporters give to Democrats! How's that for media bias.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

The above anonymous addition was made on 18:00, 2 August 2007 by User:155.104.37.17

I wouldn't use profanity, but I do agree with the sentiment that a factual claim (90%) should be linked to the exact study making the claim; and I hope you would make that addition. In a section about a controversy, whether the Center for American Progress is partisan does not disqualify it as a contributor to the controversy; to the contrary, there are conservative commentators quoted earlier in the section. In describing a controversy, it is probably best to provide a representative sample of the parties in the controversy, their positions and the evidence they provide in support; then let the readers hash it out. rewinn 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press reported on July 13, 2007 that "Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment ... that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine." See here and here, for example. We probably could use mention this in the article. Unfortunately, that report does not say why they blocked that amendment. CWC 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st link's busted. 2nd link answers your question:

...no legislation has been offered to bring back the regulation, which was scrapped in 1987... Levin’s office said he objected because the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction, and because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq. rewinn 22:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters for America is a propoganda web site. Citing this organization in this article destroys credibility. 71.94.236.202 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't playa hate. i think that to the extent that such sourcing stands, you should feel free to enter opposing arguments from sources such as brent bozell's organization. also, salon = frontpagemag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of

Media Matters is that it is cited by proponents of a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine. If that citation by proponets is to stand, then the link to the target of that citation is necessary so readers can decide for themselves. It is also worth noting that Media Matters, while it has a point of view, is as rigorous or more so in citing information to back up its assertions than are, for example, some of the politicians cited in this article. rewinn 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"conspiracy" is your term. it's a loaded one. no one asserts that there is a "conspiracy". there is the perfectly open and plainly stated and openly vocalized agenda to reinstate the fairness doctrine. you struck from an earlier edit reference to congressman hinchey and others vocalizing this agenda. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Matters, while it has a point of view, is as rigorous or more so in citing information to back up its assertions than are, for example, some of the politicians cited in this article."

with statements like these, rewinn's ability to to approch this editing problem without POV is clearly in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your personal attack is noted
2. Any particular editor's abilities are not relevant; rather, each part of the article must stand or fall on its own merits. Since one side of the controversy cites MM, it is correct for the other side to include evidence of MM's side. rewinn 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant POV-pushing about the most recent controversy is not helpful. Wikipedia's job is to lay out both sides briefly, not to argue for either side. The argument that there is a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine was introduced by commentators and therefore their statements should be mentioned first. Factual support for their assertions is best left in their articles, but since an anonymous editor insists on citing directly to the relevant politicians, those secondary citations go AFTER the commentators. Otherwise, this would be forbidden OR. Or put it another way: to assert there is a conspiracy and then to argue for the conspiracy by producing evidence is OR; to claim that someone says there is a conspiracy and to link to their claim is being encyclopedic. rewinn 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your revert said "See Talk", but i did not see any new entries, so i'll discuss it here.

when byron york quotes directly from a media matters campaign to reinstate the fairness doctrine, it constitutes pov and weasle-wording to write that york merely "claims" such things.

when a number of senior democrat senators announce their support for reinstating the fairness doctrine, it constitutes pov and weasle-wording to write that "conservatives" merely "claim" they have.

quoting from another senior democrat senator's press aide is hardly probative of anything. nor is it, as it appears to be offered, disprobative of the quotes from senior democrat senators which preceed it. it appears to be some feeble pov-pushing following what appears to be a zeal to strike any evidence of official democrat support for reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, but i'll let that change stand as it is additive, narrowly factual and, as i said, non-disprobative.

as wiki editors, we are not obligated to restate a partisan organization's soft pr-talk. rather we are obligated to state things clearly. doing the former is not encyclopedic. in that graph, it is also appropriate to note facts which point to the limited scope of the study in question. it is also relevant to indicate the organization's founding connection with yet another democrat senator.

1. Please sign your talk page contributions
2. Please do not perform OR. That two or more Senators have said they like something is not strong evidence that there is a conspiracy to do something.
3. The objective evidence is that commentators have said there is an effort to revive FD and that you have researched statements in support of it
4. Your blatant POV-pushing is demonstrated by your disparagement of the statement from Harry Reid's office. rewinn 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have not performed "or". i wonder in fact what the wholesale reprinting of the center for american progress' study on the matter constitutes, as york never mentioned it in his piece and yet it is offered as a rebuttal.

rewinn, if you want to construct the sort of article you have been trying to construct, there are other wikis such as the dkosfopedia and sourcewatch where you can assert your narrative as stridently as you wish. this however is wikipedia and you have to avoid pov-pushing and weasle-wording to the ends of enforcing a particular point of view.

1. I'll ignore your silly personal attacks.
2. I suggest you get a login so that you won't be confused with others from your IP who have been booted from other sites for vandalism. I'm sure it wasn't you, but you'll understand the problem.
3. If you would check edit history, you'll see that I didn't put Center for American Progress detailed content on this page; I don't really care if it stays or goes.
4. Who-ever converted the discussion of the controversy away from a description of the controversy as expressed by York et al. into a couple of non-notable quotes was indeed doing Original Research and POV-pusing.
5. It is not the function of wikipedia to assert that there is a controversy and then to buttress the naked assertion with quotes about the subject of the controversy; to support the idea that there is a controversy you must start with a source that states there is a controversy. Let me know if this distinction requires clarification.
6. You will note that my edits leave in the quotes of the Senators and improved on them by linking to the Senator's wikipedia pages. So what's the complaint?rewinn 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. i made no personal attacks
2. this may be interpreted as a personal attack on me, but i'll just assume you're a stickler for this sort of officiality
3. i didn't say you did.* yet you haven't appeared to have had any OR objection to that section.
4. what would constitute a sufficiently notable quote in the face of the pov weasle wording that "some conservative commenters have claimed..."?
5. i believe that byron york's peice fails this test. he doesn't identify the presence of a "controversy" as such, he merely reports that x are pushing x agenda, not that there is a "controversy" over whether x is pushing x agenda.
6. that is i have to say, good clean work. why weren't you as cooperative with the below edit in which you wholesale deleted the references and replaced them with weasle-wording? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=162604562&oldid=162603617
7. when you wrote, On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[1] was that or? i mean, the "other side" you reference is you, supported by a link to a site search you made.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I hope you don't mind that I fixed your indenting. I'll restart indenting since this thread is getting deep
2. Your use of strident and other language is a silly personal attack. Please stop.
3. I urged you to get a login so you don't get confused with other persons on your IP who are known for vandalization. If you think my advice is a personal attack, well, it is still good advice. Your work will be better respected if you are proud enough of it to sign it
4. About the Center for American Progress report: it is not my job to make edits that you want.
5. "Some conservative commentators have claimed" is accurate. York is a conservative; it may be better to call him a 'writer'. If you'd read his report, it concerns something done by
   Media Matters
   , not by any politician; therefore to characterize his report at concerning an effort by politicians is not accurate. I'll edit to reflect that.
6. If you are complementing my work, thank you sincerely. If you're asking why I made a broad reversion, it was because there were multiple POV-pushing edits which I didn't want to bother wading through. Somehow I felt confident any objective content in it would resurface
7. The
   Media Matters
   link was in response to an unsourced claim that Media Matters had done this or that. It is difficult to cite to a negative but that's what I attempted. It might have been better to delete the entire claim by York, since in his 2004 article he doesn't cite to the actual "announcement". All that we know with encyclopedic rigor is that York claimed Media Matters announced something that so far no-one has found on the MM website. If *you* can find it on the MM website, *that* would be a direct and relevant cite.
8. Edit wars are silly. I'll see if I can clean up the section. An objective structure is to put claims in date order. rewinn 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Hinckley link in that section is dead. Feel free to submit updated link. rewinn 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree edit wars are silly. i don't know why you chose to start your day with one.

i believe i have resolved the matter. since all of the ambiguity, OR (both merely asserted and evident), weasle-wording and POV-pushing have been reposed within the tendentious frame of "controversy", i've reworked the section and reduceded it to what is not controversial or controvertable.

1. Your personal attack is noted
2. Your deletion of the York article and all content contrary to your POV has been reverted. They should not be deleted without discussion. If you delete items contrary to your POV simply because they are contrary to your POV, a page protection will be requested
3. I urge you to get a logon so that you may better participate in encyclopediac editting rewinn 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• although, in fact you did: Rewinn -- "Linked to CAP report" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=150444138&oldid=150100226

above comment added on 16:16, 11 October 2007 by 38.98.181.23

1. It's hard to figure out what you're talking about since you're not providing context in that quote (I even had to go to history to find out who posted that content).
2. Assuming that you're referring to the Center for American Progress report, I must remind you that in fact the reference to the study came much earlier (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=prev&oldid=148532759 ) than my contribution which was to wikify it. Surely when a report is being talked about, it is correct to link to the report so that you and other readers may decide its value for yourself. rewinn 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the framing the controversy as a "conspiracy" closes the controvery and recreats it as the thing in itself. penetrating such a thing is to indulge in it as a seperate exersize.

"conspiracy" is rewinn's term. it's a loaded one which he has introduced to isolate the issue in the fashion described above.

however, no one asserts that there is a "conspiracy". there is the perfectly open and plainly stated and openly vocalized agenda to reinstate the fairness doctrine.

i could delete the reference to york's piece altogether and the plainly-stated agendas of senators kerry and durbin, along with reference to hinchey and clinton's organizations would evidence the agenda. we could then retitle the section, "Support for Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why it is not used in the article. This is a "talk" page, in which sometimes people have POV. For example, your advocacy of listing one but only one person who helped found

Media Matters

is a bit of POV advocacy.

I cannot agree with deleting the York piece, since he (York) is an authority on what he (York) himself has said. For you to assemble a conspiracy to restore the Fairness Doctrine out of a couple of Senatorial quotes and allegations of membership in organizations would be unencyclopedic. rewinn 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[2]'

this is in fact OR.

your edit reintroduced all of the pov-pushing and weasle-wording i removed. i'm going to revert. if you revert back, you will be in violation of 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing claims is not OR

You are mistaken. There was a claim about

Media Matters that required balance. How would you provide balance without referring to the MM site? rewinn 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Likewise there are claims about Kerry and Durbin, yet "Fairness Doctrine" is not found on their Senatorial websites. It would appear that these are not, in fact, very important to them. One must wonder where that YouTube clip came from and what question prompted Kerry's response, as well as the Durbin quote which now looks a little shakey rewinn 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewinn, you've literrally declared that you will not accept digital media documentation of a figure's own words as legitimate. to continue working with you as if you're approaching this with good faith would be foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous Vandal: you are at best mistaken. I'm pointing out that the clip is editted to eliminate any hint of context. I will try to find a complete text so readers may decide for themselves. Your continuing deletion of data from this page should stop. rewinn 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007 Xinunus added to the article:

• I suggest someone do a study about national news networks. Following the example of the Center for American Progress, we could call it, "The Structural Imbalance of the National News Networks". How do you like them apples?

I moved those comments to this talk page since this is where such comments go. rewinn 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our anonymous vandal continues to delete references to the York article and to claim the controversy is not a controversy. I have partially reverted the vandalism, keeping however the most recent edits by another editor. rewinn 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the section title: Controversy over claims of revival, does this mean that some people deny that there has been a recent revivial, or that there is controversy over the recent revival, or both, or what? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is that some people claim there is an attempt to revive it, and other people say there is not. The York article says there is, the Salon article says no. rewinn 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is more evidence indicating that there has been some attempts to revive this, the bill in 06 for example, or at the least, a number of congressmen have floated the idea. But as far as labeling this a controversy, I dont have access to the Salon article, but are they calling talk of resurecting the Fairness Doctrine controversial, because we cannot make this leap ourselves as editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article does not call talk of reviving FD controversial. It says that there is a controversy about whether there is an attempt to revive it
2. The Salon article is linked to in the article (unless our friendly neighborhood vandal has deleted it)
3. The controversy's existence rests not on the Salon article alone, but on the direct contradiction of the claim by the Reid office
4. The 2006 bill does not support the idea that there is a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine because (A) it did not seek to restore FD and (B) it was introduced into a Congress that opposed FD by an opponent of FD
5. When some people say there is an attempt to revive it and other people say there is not, we have the
   type specimen of a controversy
   .
6. A section header that asserts that there is an attempt to revive the FD, given the controversy, would not be NPOV rewinn 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things.

1. Agreed
2. Still there.
3. I will have to look at the article later, my surf control blocks it, but it would appear that unless someone has called this a controversy, the "claims of revival" it would be
   WP:OR
   for us to. If the only thing Reid's assistant said what was quoted in the Wiki article, thats not enough to call it a controversy.
4. I dont know if you looked into this, but Hinchey is most certainly a supporter of the FA; from his websiteThe Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.
5. When some people say there is an attempt to revive it and other people say there is not, we have only conflicting statements, it only develops into a controversy if a reliable third part calls it one, otherwise it
   WP:OR
   , as we are making an independet judgement not supported by a source that also makes this judgement.
6. Even if there has been legislation, like Hinchey's?

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1-2:ok

3: t'ain't so. Read the Salon article. And certainly an official statement out of the head of the Senate is notable

4. OK, Hinchey's bill supported FD, that goes into the "for" column. It doesn't seem to have attracted an aweful lot of co-sponsors and of course it's as dead as the 109th Congress

5. If someone says there are unicorns and someone else says there are no unicorns, is it

WP:OR

to state that there is a controversy over the existence of unicorns. And at any rate the Salon article satisfies the "3rd Party statement of controversy" rule.

6: see 4+5rewinn 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone says something about unicors, and it is so outrageous or controversial, surely someone, somewhere will take note? It takes a third part to mention or cerify a controverst, its not up to the job of the Wiki editor. I could dig up lots of material on this from talk pages and RfC's, but I would ask that you take my word for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewinn is asking us to "Teach the controversy" here where there is none apart from his manufacturing of one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.145.219 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outta Here for a Bit

Another editor seems to be doing some improvements, so I'll take a break and maybe things will quiet down. This is only wikipedia and no-one with any sense will change their political opinions based on a wiki. Have fun - and if you really want to, ping me talk page, I'll be back. Thanks. rewinn 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why this link should remain in external links?

1. Fixing the Fairness Doctrine - A modest technology proposal Writer and Blogger Mike Wallach offers a topical commentary on the Fairness Doctrine.

Thanks. Pgrote (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting paragraph on what came before the Fairness Doctrine has been temporarily removed so it can be sourced. It should also be more comprehensive - if the purpose is to cover antecedents to the Doctrine. Here's the text:

The

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

. The FCC requested that the network provide details about these programs. Yankee got the drift and dropped the editorials. The FCC declared that radio stations, due to their public interest obligations, cannot be editorially devoted to the support of any particular political position. In application, this meant that airing Roosevelt's fireside chat was considered nonpartisan, but broadcasting a critique of his proposed legislation would be unacceptably biased.

I think the above is interesting, but needs work. rewinn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now we got a very non-NPOV section based on a single book ... and a very selective use of that book indeed. When a more balanced treatment of the subject, and multiple sourcing is available, we can settle on some content.

The fairness doctrine has been used by various liberal administrations to harass political opponents on the radio.

The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule. [2]

- Democratic Party operatives were deeply involved in the Red Lion case since the start of the litigation. Wayne Phillips, a Democratic National Committee staffer, described the aftermath of the ruling, explaining that "Even more important than the free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts”.^[3] rewinn (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, tried to write about this and got into an edit conflict with ya. But I wrote the following, FYI:

This section seems very biased to me. What was the content of the right-wing broadcasts that the liberals were so intent on silencing? Given the controversial nature of a lot of right-wing ideas (particularly in past decades and especially during the civil rights era), it seems likely there were heart-felt moral objections to what was being aired, not simply a desire to silence dissenting views. And even if some left-wing politicians were using it dishonorably only to try to silence anyone who disagreed with them, it seems likely both sides would have attempted to use it toward that end.VatoFirme (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Edit conflicts happen ;-) Ya know, I don't doubt that politicians might use stuff like the Fairness Doctrine for political purposes, and it may be that only one political faction did so, but more documentation is necessary before the article makes such an assertion. It's far more plausible (although not necessarily true) that all sides tried to use it, or even that people in power sometimes enforce existing laws because it is their duty. At any rate, a balanced presentation would be noteworthy and interesting. rewinn (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think added discussion on WHY the various people want to reintroduce it would be helpful. Just the other day Ms. Gaylor over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation said she wanted it because, when it was still in force, she was able to go on radio or TV to counter personal attacks against her and her organization, which she feels no longer happens now that it's gone. Whether you agree with that or not, I'm sure other people are giving their reasons, not just saying "bring it back" and not justifying why.VatoFirme (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would use caution with any matter of "why". Listing arguments can easily veer into argumentation itself. Perhaps an approach would be to list Groups that want to bring it back and Groups that oppose bringing it back and let the reader work out the arguments on their own.

As long as the Groups.... sections have only quotes from a reputable source, preferably from notable persons (a low std but what the hey) then I see no objection. This article is not too long. rewinn (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more anonymous editors (it's hard to tell ... why not use a logon?) keeps trying to insert a highly partisan section based on a single source, a book by

Hello. I updated the "Support for Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine" section. Previously, that section had read "Some legislators have expressed support for the Fairness Doctrine, although none have made any motions toward legislating about it." This is somewhat misleading because although no formal legislation has been introduced by House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has indicated very recently that she is intending to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Thus, I put in info regarding this and one of the main reasons for this new movement to reinstate the Doctrine, i.e., the success and domination of talk radio by conservatives. I cite to three sources for this proposition (that Democratic attempts to revive the doctrine is in response to success/domination of conservative talk radio), including a conservative WSJ columnist and Sen. Dianne Feinstein herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LawStudent 4482 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to an editorial. Editorials are not reliable sources. Also, the source does not quote Pelosi, but merely makes a bald assertion. Your use of "many" instead of "some" is unsupported; Pelosi is "one" person not "many". rewinn (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other links in the "Support" section were also to editorials. I have moved them to "Oppose". Again, editorials can not be used to source assertions of fact; however they may be cited as examples of their own opinions. rewinn (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know I probably shouldn't have linked to editorials but those were the only sources I could find that stated the proposition that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats would like to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I have made two revisions. First, I did a new search and was able to find a non-editorial article that states that Ms. Pelosi and the Democratic caucus want to bring back the Doctrine. This reporter, among others, specifically spoke with Ms. Pelosi. Second, I totally understand why you put the stuff about the "successes of conservative talk radio" in the opposition section. However, it is not only conservative editorialists who believe that Democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because of conservative talk radio. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated as much in her interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday (Two quotes: (1) FEINSTEIN: "Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." (2) WALLACE: "So would you revive the fairness doctrine?" FEINSTEIN: "Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."] LawStudent 4482 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, if the only source you have is an editorial, then you don't have a source for anything except the existence of the editorial. Second, your Gizzi citation is very questionable; it is a one-word quote provided by the political editor of a magazine with an obvious interest in making the person whose one word is quoted look bad. Third, your Chris Wallace quote does not support your proposition: Wallace expresses NO opinion on the subject. And note that Feinstein says she's "looking at it" which is not the same as "supporting it". What you need to do is find some document by Feinstein or whomever that says, "Let's bring back the Fairness Doctrine". Lord knows, it's not hard to find press releases from politicians. Why don't you go see if she has a web site? rewinn (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff on this page that claims "liberals" want to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a bunch of right-wing agitprop. This article should be flagged for violating Wikipedia's NPOV. I removed the sections claiming that Barack Obama supported reviving the Fairness Doctrine as it was nothing more than hearsay. If Sen. Obama said so, then it would be a simple matter to just cite the article or speech in which he said so. Stop relying on second-hand innuendo. The Fairness Doctrine Revival is nothing but a lot of malarkey. --MontanaMax (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MontanaMax, I had no choice but to restore the material; it came from a reliable source. Willking1979 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¶ See the #Wikipedia breakdown or sabotage? section of the talk page below this section. I carefully extracted the exact quotation, rather than User:Rod Sullivan's excerpts, and won't restore the sentence about Obama supporting the Fairness Doctrine in the past without a specific citation. In this particular quotation from Broadcasting & Cable, Obama's campaign is saying there are other ways of restoring balance without restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

¶ Support for restoration of the Fairness Doctrine is more than mere rumor, but there aren't as many examples as some believe (if you actually read the June 2007 Congressional Record debate on Mike Pence's proposed ban on the Fairness Doctrine, his supporters are constantly using the exact same four quotations and semi-quotations. And it should be noted that, contrary to some people's belief, such support for restoration as does exist within the Democratic Congressional caucuses is spread fairly evenly among different ideological currents: Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal, but Ellen Tauscher is far more of a centrist, as is Sen. Jeff Bingaman.)

¶ But as I've said several times on this Talk Page, I'm undecided as to the pro's and con's of restoring the Fairness Doctrine. I've edited and revised both ways, according to my own best interpretation of the evidence offered. Without wanting to sound too sanctimonious or self-justifying, my main bias is for a neutrally-presented record of the soundest material. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the "citation needed" flag and it got me thinking. How do you cite the "lack" of something? I.e. no legislation had been introduced in the 110th congress. So I started doing a little googling to find the 110th congress voted on the fairness doctrine on 2007-06-28 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine). Focus on the Family Action Vote Scorecard states an amendment (H.AMDT. 484) to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2829) strips the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to reinstitute the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would order broadcasters to give equal air time to both sides of controversial issues.Navywings (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain negative citation's a problem. One solution would be to find an authority who says that "No bills have been introduced" and then cite to that. rewinn (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be thinking hard enough, but the verifiability/citation requirement applies to statements that might be subject to challenge. Since the way to challenge the absence of legislation in any given recent session of the Congress is to offer a counter-example, and the sources are not obscure but relatively ready to hand (The

C-Span.com, etc.), shouldn't the onus be on those who doubt the absence of legislation? Of course that doesn't apply to all negative assertions everywhere ("There is no X conspiracy" or "No Y have died because of Z") but on the other hand, one should not have to search for a secondary source to claim that "The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series of baseball since 1908" or "No woman has yet been elected President of the United States." Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

agree: In matters of this sort, if a counterexample exists, then it would be far easier to produce it than the other way 'round; and of course a counterexample can spring into existence at almost any time ... after all, some day the Cubs might win a World Series ;-) rewinn (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But back to the substance. While it's tricky to cite the absence of something like attempts to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, there was a positive amendment No. 484 to that appropriations bill H.R. 2829 unearthed above by User:Navywings, forbidding the use of funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The summary at the Library of Congress's THOMAS reads:

H.AMDT.484 to H.R.2829 An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees or any other regulations having the same substances.

Sponsor: Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] (introduced 6/28/2007) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 6/28/2007 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Pence amendment (A031) Agreed to by recorded vote: 309 - 115, 1 Present (Roll no. 599).

There was extensive debate on the floor of the House before the roll-call vote (Congressional Record for June 28, 2007, beginning at 14:00, on page H7375). I think this may be what Sen. Coleman brought unsuccessfully to the Senate in July.

I'll check this out so I can insert an appropriate reference to the text. Shakescene (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]