🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2s2mdi$ka6@mailhost.interaccess.com> awk@interaccess (Alan W. Keating) writes:

>: scotwitt@interaccess.com writes:
>: >>In the interest of full disclosure, I tell you I'm the Region 7 Director
>: >of 
>: >>R-TNDA. My personal and professional opinion is ANY content regulation
>: >of ANY 
>: >>sort is wrong.

>: >While I am a strict constructionist who is strongly opposed to any
>: >abridging of First Amendment rights, I also am more and more concerned
>: >when candidates for office are excluded from media coverage, debates, etc
>: >because of someone's news judgement, etc.  Besides, those in the media
>: >strike a Faustian bargain when they get a license to utilize part of the
>: >electromagnetic spectrum.  And if it requires the fairness doctrine to
>: >insure that candidates for office are given air time, then so be it.

>: >Bob Atcher                                                                   
>  

>: I find it oddly amazing those who demand recognition for total observance 
>: of the First Amendment and rights inherently expressed are also the very first
>: who qualify those rights.

>Is the qualification you are talking about here the requirement for access?

No, the qualification of the First Amendment Right to a free press. 

>: By the way....the REASON for the Fairness Doctrine was the LACK of outlets to 
>: provide multiple points of view. I suggest your line of reasoning changes the 
>: debate significantly. I further suggest mandating candidate access to media is
>: NOT the same thing as the Fairness Doctrine....

>Good point but what is the difference in your mind.  The Fairness Doctrine
>could certainly be implemented in such a way that access to the media was
>not guaranteed, as evidenced by its previous incarnation, but to me that
>is not enough.  What exactly do you mean?

You'll have to amplify here...I'm not sure what you're asking or which way 
you're taking the discussion.



>:                                                and I further suggest ANY 
>: candidate has access to electronic media.

>What electronic media are you talking about?  I can think of no media
>that does not require $$ for access.  The Net provides access to many
>people, but still there is a cost involved and the group is a rather 
>narrow one.

You're right. I ignored non-traditional electronic media...even so...the costs 
associated with an on-line service or the Net isn't enough to bother with in 
terms of electioneering.

I'm speaking in terms of news coverage, not ads or spots. I think marketing  
candidates is silly, undemocratic and harmful to the Republic. You can get 
very little information to make a reasoned judgement through ads and 
commercials... but the access is there for candidates than can raise the dough.

I suggest those candidates that cannot raise the cash for radio or even 
access-cable spots are non-viable, single-issue or espousing stands so 
unpopular as to make them unviable.

You have no guarenteed access to your newspaper. Your local editor has no 
ethical, moral or philosophical reason to cover fringe candidates.

>: Further, the sponsors of a debate determine who may and may not attend. If 
>: it's my debate, I get to choose who can come and who can't.

>If the debate is broadcast on OUR airwaves you should not be allowed that
>discretion.  The airwaves belong to the people and your access to those
>is supposed to be at the discretion of the people.

Sorry, my friend. Your citizen ownership of the airwaves was thrown out with 
the various re-writes and amendments of the Communications Act of 1934. 
Broadcasters are no longer considered trustees of a common resource. Broadcast 
licensees no longer have to provide programming "...for the public 
convienence, need or necessity..." any more than a newspaper or cable channel 
must. 

This effectively occurred with FCC rules allowing station owners to turn their 
properties into commodities during the Reagan Administration. The requirements 
for ascertainment, programming versus issues and license renewal are all gone 
or so severely re-structured they mock original intent.

>Interestingly, this is a good argument for public funding of political
>races.  In that way the public will be the sponsor of the debate.

British system? You wouldn't find me opposed...as long as it was voluntary to 
the licensee.

>: You should also know my newshop prides itself on providing as full coverage 
>: possible on races from as many candidates as we can get on the air....and we 
>: were one of the very few operations that covered Mr. Gierach fully and 
>: completely...even He'd agree, I think.
>: ==========================================================================
>: "Radio is Two Fat Guys Dancing"                 Scot Witt
>:     -Joe Nittler                           scotwitt@interaccess.com
>: ==========================================================================

>I think that your coverage of Mr. Gierach is commendable, but we will not
>be able to open up the political process until a candidate's access to the
>people is guaranteed.  As the process stands today, the public gets its
>information largely from private organizations that use public resources
>(ie. radio and TV).  If the public must assert control over its own resources
>to this end, I say so be it.

Ignoring the precept of public ownership of the airwaves (see above), just 
because somone secured enough signatures to place his or her name on a ballot 
doesn't make him or her a real candidate. Mr. Gierach's single issue theme is 
a case in point. I viewed his one man crusade as interesting, courageous and 
non-mainstream....hence newsworthy. We did not interview the LaRouche 
candidate because of that organization's platform, scandalous/criminal 
behaviour and its outright racist attitudes.

>How is this argument anti-First amendment?

If you impose, from the outside, required access, you deny freedom to 
programmers/writers/producers. If YOU think splinter candidates, one-issue 
politicans or anything else can generate you an audience, and you feel a need 
to educate that audience to these people....be my guest. As a matter of fact, 
most community and public radio stations would probably take you up on such 
programming (most do occasionally)...or.... you can use your local cable 
access channel for just such programming....or you can try to interest 
existing media operations through well written and timely news releases....
or you can risk your own money, go through the complete licensing system and 
get your very own radio, television, cable or low power t-v outlet and program 
it ANYWAY you wish.

My job (as a reporter, anchor, producer, editor and news director) is NOT to 
educate, inform, twist or cajole. My primary job is to generate an audience 
for my employer. If my radio station doesn't have an audience, my superiors 
have either nothing to sell (in the case of a commercial operation) or to 
solicit from (in the case of a public operation). That's the bottom line of 
American Broadcasting.


>--
>    Alan W. Keating
>    awk@interaccess.com


==========================================================================
"Radio is Two Fat Guys Dancing"                 Scot Witt
    -Joe Nittler                           scotwitt@interaccess.com
==========================================================================