Spanish Politician castigates US and Israel basher's - Posted by: YJ Draiman

Spanish Politician castigates US and Israel basher's.

Spanish Politician castigates US and Israel basher's


Pilar Rahola

Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left.  Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America.


"Why don't we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona?

Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship?

Why aren't there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection?

Why aren't there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs?

Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan?

Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel?

Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism?

Why don't they defend Israel's right to exist?

Why confuse support of the Arab-Palestinian cause with the defense of Arab-Palestinian terrorism?

And finally, the million dollar question;

Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn't care.

And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Arab-Palestinian European forum, I hear the left yelling with fervor: "We want freedom for the people!"

Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria, or Yemen, or Iran, or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hamas destroys freedom for the Arab-Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Arab-Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian issue. On this topic they don't inform, they propagandize.

When reporting about Israel, the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren't any accusations left to level against her.

At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Arab-Palestinians.
And when reporting about victims, every Arab-Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: "Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel."

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Arab-Palestinian Nakba Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Arab-Palestinian people.
Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70's and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel.

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East, he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a Kafiah in the midst of the Lebanon conflict is no
coincidence; it is a symbol.Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the middle Ages.
And yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish.  Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti- Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. 
As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles.

Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty, I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity, technology and culture will be destroyed too.

Posted by: YJ Draiman

Media accuracy and unbiased reporting must be enforced r3 YJ Draiman - Who controls the Media controls the Nation and its direction YJ Draiman

Who controls the Media controls the Nation and its direction
American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people. Or people in any country with such Media power.

Media accuracy and unbiased reporting must be enforced r3

It seems the Media cannot regulate itself to present a true and honest reporting.
Responsible and honest reporting has been replaced with ambiguous confusing and illusory news reports, with no regard to the consequences. Facts and sources are not properly verified and an inaccurate unsubstantiated news story gets released to the public, and that may cause substantial harm.
Why is the Media not charged with incitement?
Why is the Media not punished for staging a scene?
They pay some individuals to throw stones at soldiers in order to film a reaction and sensationalize the episode with distorted fabricated reports. There are numerous staging of events by the Media that incite hatred and violence. Should the reporters and their management not be charged with incitement?
Where is the professionalism, neutral and unbiased reporting?
What has happened to ethics in Journalism?
Has Social Media added a new dimension to honest reporting?
Can we overcome distorted Social Media for accuracy?
How can we verify instant Social Media images from being
photo-shopped?
Can we impose responsible Social Media without affecting the freedom of speech?
Whether we like it or not, the masses are influenced by the Media, could you imagine how children and young adults absorb the Media hype, regardless weather it is truth or illusion. The damage is long term and may not be reversible.
Children are very impressionable, they think what they see on TV emulate real life, which we know is distorted and make believe, they carry these illusions as reality which affects their future adversely.
The Media reporting must be neutral, unbiased, balanced, objective and impartial. Violators should be subject to fines and criminal charges if people suffer due to intentional distortion of reports or intentionally slanted news to deceive or promote favoritism that escalates into violence and or cause harm and or financial loss.
When a Media outlet intentionally distorts and misinforms the news and events, it should forfeit the right to free speech and free press and face the music. It is a form of incitement.
In the past decades Media outlets have expanded the creation of sensationalism to promote readership and revenues. These types of reports are many times intentionally distort the facts and true dimension of the report. Thus, it creates more unwarranted dissension and crisis that leads to violence and death.
It seems that the Media today has no emotion, no compassion. Much of the news is choreographed for the sake of sensationalism and rating. Which comes down to increased revenues and financial gain? Society today is so hungry for money, power, instant gratification and glamour, that it crosses the line of honesty and integrity on a regular basis.
Is there a chance of going back to honor, honesty, integrity and fighting for truth and justice the old American way?
Can the Media Overcome false showmanship, artificial presentation and insincerity.
Broadcasting truth and reality, thereby regaining public trust in the Media?
This very same rebuke and standards must be applied to our elected government officials, who will promise you anything to get elected. Getting them to live up to their promises is another thing altogether.
A change for the better must be initiated and it must start at the top.
YJ Draiman

P.S. “The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They’re about getting ratings not informing the public about the true facts; it’s about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover and keeping us in an uproar.”

Who Would Have Thought? Palestinian Arabs are Actually Innovators!

Who Would Have Thought? Palestinian Arabs are Actually Innovators! Photo from New York Post; attributed to Reuters. Folks, we must give credit where credit is due. All these years we have ranted and raved about: - How the Palestinian Arabs worship death more than life; - How they demonize Jews and refuse to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state; - How they have no real identity or culture of their own; - How they are not indigenous to the Land of Israel; - How the name "Palestine" was created to cover up the fact that the true indigenous people in Israel are the Jews;  - How they mooch off the western world for billions of dollars that cannot be accounted for; and - How they do not have a viable economy and do not produce anything of worth. All of these are true. However, we must put an asterisk next to the last item on the above list. As Benny Avni writes in the New York Post they sure do produce something of "value": Security experts looking at Monday's car-ramming and stabbing attack at Ohio State University will find it looks familiar: Like many terrorist tactics, it was honed by Palestinians. We ignore Palestinian terror and condemn Israel's robust response to it at our peril. Campaigns of violence against Israeli civilians are often copied elsewhere, from the streets of Nice, France, to the Columbus, Ohio, campus. Welcome to Israel, the terror lab where the latest innovations are tried, practiced and (sometimes) perfected before being exported. The Ohio State attack was honed by Palestinians Let's finally acknowledge that Palestinian Arabs are actually remarkable innovators. Is it possible that the western world is finally waking up to something that Israelis have known for decades? After all, the Palestinian Arabs excel at creating new and exciting ways to foment terror among innocent populations. And such titles given to their creativity: the Knife Intifada; the Car Ramming Intifada, and now, the Lit Match Fire Intifada. And unremarkably, the world believes them when they call their actions "popular resistance." The first step in resolving a problem is acknowledging that a problem exists. For eight years, Obama and his administration could not say "Islamic terror" and refused to admit that there was such a thing. Hopefully, with a new administration in Washington, not only will the words "Islamic terror" be issued from the lips of our politicians, but so will be the words, "Palestinian Arab terror." Back to Top

Nothing New, Just Your Typical UN Anti-Israel Bias   Yesterday, November 29, was 'International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People' at the United Nations. The president of the UN General Assembly Peter Thomson attended a meeting of the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) to mark this day, while wearing a Palestinian flag scarf. November 29, 1947 is the day when the United Nations recognized the Partition Plan that called for the creation of the State of Israel and an independent Arab state. The Jews accepted the idea of a rump state; a state that would be a haven for Jews who survived the Holocaust, and for those who were expelled from the Arab countries they had lived in for centuries. The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan out of hand, and of course, invaded the Jewish State of Israel after the British occupation ended in May, 1948. Israel's Ambassador the UN, Danny Danon, made the following statement, "It's unacceptable for the president of the UN General Assembly, whose position is a symbol of neutrality and stateliness, to wrap himself in a Palestinian flag and participate in an event whose sole purpose is to attack and besmirch the State of Israel. This is living, unequivocal proof of the bias against Israel and the slander spread about us at the UN." UN General Assembly president wears Palestinian flag scarf Donning Palestinian flag, UNGA president marks Palestinian solidarity day Today, the UN was scheduled to adopt six anti-Israel resolutions, including one which called for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights and hand the area over to Syria. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction. Today: 6 UN resolutions on Israel; texts ignore Jewish ties to Temple Mount, urge transfer of Golan to Syria Nothing new here folks, please move along. Just your typical UN anti-Israel bias. Back to Top

The Fairness Doctrine How we lost it, and why we need it back

The Fairness Doctrine

How we lost it, and why we need it back

By 

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

—

When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).

But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.

Variety (10/25/04) underlined industry concerns in a report suggesting that Sinclair’s partisanship was making other broadcasters nervous by fueling “anti-consolidation forces” and efforts to bring back the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine:

Sinclair could even put the Fairness Doctrine back in play, a rule established in 1949 to require that the networks—all three of them—air all sides of issues. The doctrine was abandoned in the 1980's with the proliferation of cable, leaving citizens with little recourse over broadcasters that misuse the public airwaves, except to oppose the renewal of licenses.

The Sinclair controversy brought discussion of the Fairness Doctrine back to news columns (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04; L.A. Times, 10/24/04) and opinion pages (Portland Press Herald, 10/24/04; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/22/04) across the country. Legal Times (11/15/04) weighed in with an in-depth essay headlined: “A Question of Fair Air Play: Can Current Remedies for Media Bias Handle Threats Like Sinclair’s Aborted Anti-Kerry Program?”

Sinclair’s history of one-sided editorializing and right-wing water-carrying, which long preceded its Stolen Honor ploy (Extra!, 11-12/04), puts it in the company of political talk radio, where right-wing opinion is the rule, locally and nationally. Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone—one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy.

A short history of fairness

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, the doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation.

Early on, legislators wrestled over competing visions of the future of radio: Should it be commercial or non-commercial? There was even a proposal by the U.S. Navy to control the new technology. The debate included early arguments about how to address the public interest, as well as fears about the awesome power conferred on a handful of licensees.

—

Who controls the Media controls the Nation and its direction

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people. Or people in any country with such Media power.

— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)

—

In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress mandated the FCC’s forerunner, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in such a manner as to ensure that licensees served the “public convenience, interest or necessity.”

As former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out (California Lawyer, 8/88), it was in that spirit that the FRC, in 1928, first gave words to a policy formulation that would become known as the Fairness Doctrine, calling for broadcasters to show “due regard for the opinions of others.” In 1949, the FCC adopted the doctrine as a formal rule (FCC, Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 1949).

In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”

—

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, aesthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974).

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talk-show hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talk-shows. Indeed, the talk-show format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talk-show schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in prime-time,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in prime-time. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

The doctrine’s demise

From the 1920's through the ’70's, the history of the Fairness Doctrine paints a picture of public servants wrestling with how to maintain some public interest standards in the operation of publicly owned—but corporate-dominated—airwaves. Things were about to change.

The 1980's brought the Reagan Revolution, with its army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance—it’s a toaster with pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.”

Of course, Fowler and associates didn’t favor total deregulation: Without licensing, the airwaves would descend into chaos as many broadcasters competed for the same frequencies, a situation that would mean ruin for the traditional corporate broadcasters they were so close to. But regulation for the public good rather than corporate convenience was deemed suspect.

Fowler vowed to see the Fairness Doctrine repealed, and though he would depart the commission a few months before the goal was realized, he worked assiduously at setting the stage for the doctrine’s demise.

He and his like-minded commissioners, a majority of whom had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, argued that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. Moreover, rather than increase debate and discussion of controversial issues, they argued, the doctrine actually chilled debate, because stations feared demands for response time and possible challenges to broadcast licenses (though only one license was ever revoked in a dispute involving the Fairness Doctrine—California Lawyer, 8/88).

The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80's, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law.

Help would come in the form of a controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Their 2-1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so—that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion.

“The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide.

A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer(8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.” Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03).

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talk-show hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talk-shows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3-4/95). Some towns have two.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

Bringing back fairness?

For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

According to TV Week(11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.”

Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine.

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

The Ethics Of Governance – YJ Draiman

The Ethics Of Governance – YJ Draiman 

The Ethics of Governance - YJ Draiman

When we have a set of principles, of values, which we have been learning for many years, we organize our life following this structure, and then we try to apply that frame of mind to practical situations in our life. But often, we find ourselves in a sort of uncomfortable position because the moment we try to apply our values to this very present practical issue, we feel that the situation is not as clear as we would like, that we can not tell very clearly which is the best possible alternative. Often, it is not a choice between good answers and bad answers, good and evil, but maybe between two good things or two bad things. We would like to be much surer about our decisions.
When this happens in government, it is even worse because the whole society and beyond is affected by your decision. You are not dealing with your own life. You are dealing with many millions of lives at the same time. Maybe things will never be the same again in the future because of your decision. Hence, ethical decisions in government are; How do you apply your theoretical values to practical decisions where you do not have pure answers and when the whole life of your society or community will be affected?
I have found a plethora of relevant information on the Web. You have very good practical advice and tips on how to deal with these problems. The first is to get the facts. For example, when you have a headache, probably, the headache is not the problem; the headache is the symptom of the problem. If you hit your head against the wall, that's Scenario A. If you have a hangover, that is Scenario B. If you have a tumor in your brain, that is Scenario C. Therefore, to have a headache is just a symptom of something else. What you need to do if you have the symptom or a group of symptoms is to try to sort them out, to elaborate possible explanations for them-that is how doctors precede. For each possible explanation, you can have an action plan and then you have to implement it. So you go from practical things-the headache-to theoretical things-the possible diagnosis-then to the possible solutions-the prescription-and then back to the practical field-the treatment or the implementation of the cure.
You have more or less the same system dealing with the problems in government. You need all the facts. The facts can be the symptoms or the problem. You never know which is it at the instant you start analyzing the problem. Thus, you get the facts, and afterwards you try to make some sense of them. You have some theories or hypothesis of what is causing the symptoms. In addition, you try to implement the course of action. Only after you have consulted with your advisers, you want to have as much input as possible.
You also have to deal with the problem in ethical terms. The ethical approach is the Utilitarian. You have to balance how much good and how much evil you produce with your actions. If the good outweighs the evil, you should do it, as it is a sort of balance. The second is based on the concept of rights. There are some basic human rights that you have to respect. You are not allowed to affect those human rights in order to produce positive affect in your society. The third one is founded; on the concept of justice or fairness. We have at least three different concepts about justice. You can have distributive justice in which you try to distribute all the goods of the society according to the needs of the people. However, you can also have the concept of contribution. In this case, you are not receiving on the base of what you need but on the base of what you are contributing to society. In addition, you have the compensation concept. In this circumstance, you have the right for compensation if you have losses or harm done due to others. The fourth major ethical approach is a foundation on virtues. The question is not what I should do, but what kind of society would I like to have in the future. How are my actions going to contribute to that future? In addition, you have the common good, the concept in which you are doing things that are equally good for everybody in your community.

YJ Draiman

A BRIEF HISTORY OF The Fairness Doctrine - Media - By Dan Fletcher Friday, Feb. 20, 2009

A BRIEF HISTORY OF The Fairness Doctrine - Media
By Dan Fletcher  Friday, Feb. 20, 2009

It's as predictable as Rush Limbaugh sparking a controversy: every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the "fairness" part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so. Now, more than 20 years later, a group of Democratic legislators are calling for it to be brought back to life. "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," said Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow.

The news has outraged conservatives, who see the proposal as a transparent attempt by Democrats to muzzle talk radio bigwigs like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh. But the latest effort, backed informally by Congressional heavyweights including House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry, raises old questions about the government's role in regulating the airwaves. (See pictures of embarrassing diplomatic moments.)

The act is rooted in the media world of 1949, when lawmakers became concerned that by virtue of their near-stranglehold on nationwide TV broadcasting, the three main television networks — NBC, ABC and CBS — could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda. The Fairness Doctrine, which mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance, was meant to level the playing field. Congress backed the policy in 1954, and by the 1970's the FCC called the doctrine the "single most important requirement of operation in the public interest — the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license." (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)

The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers — which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate — face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.

The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until FCC chairman Mark Fowler began rolling it back during Reagan's second term — despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.

Congress has regularly tried to bring the doctrine back ever since. Reagan and George H.W. Bush both quashed Congressional initiatives by threatening vetoes, and a 2005 attempt to reinstate the doctrine didn't make it out of committee. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House and with conservative talk radio hosts — long a thorn in liberal sides — taking to the airwaves to blast President Obama's stimulus package, interest in the Fairness Doctrine is peaking once again.

Conservatives have reacted vehemently. Limbaugh has promised he's "not going down without a fight" and calls the Fairness Doctrine just "the tip of the iceberg" of an attempt by the federal government to expand its power. Newt Gingrich called the Fairness Doctrine "Affirmative Action for liberals" and Hannity called it "an assault on the First Amendment."

Both sides are likely overstating the doctrine's import. Even if it were to return, liberals would have a hard time co-opting the Fairness Doctrine to limit conservative talk radio to the degree they might like. The FCC has never applied the Fairness Doctrine to a talk radio host, nor does the regulation force stations to give equal time for every perspective. Further, the point might be moot without support from the Oval Office — which the doctrine does not currently enjoy. "As the President stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," a White House spokesman said Feb. 18. Assuming the regulation doesn't get its renaissance this time, give it a few years. If history's any indication, the Fairness Doctrine will rear its head again.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF

The Fairness Doctrine

By Dan Fletcher Friday, Feb. 20, 2009