Last night on Fox

[CareerTech1]

My Dad is staying with me and he was watching Fox last night -

the guy that asked Ron Paul the question "Are you electable?" at one of the last debates - was in Florida reporting on why Giuliani didn't fare as well being he was polling as the national front runner just a month ago...

And he says that the people he spoke with stated that they didn't vote for Giuliani because they didn't hear about him in the media... and then they saw him place in last in the prior states.

This IMO is an admission by the media that they know how much they control most Americans minds. They admit that if a candidate does not get coverage - most people don't consider them viable or even consider them at all.

WHAT HAPPENED TO EQUAL TIME???

[Jim_Karr]

I didn't think people watched faux anymore. You better update your dad on what is cool.

[CareerTech1]

you tell me - what if any of the MSM is cool?

[gjdavis60]

I saw the Carl Cameron report you mention. I think it gave a glimpse into how self-important these people are. What Carl was saying was that Rudy derailed his own campaign by not getting more media exposure in the early primary states. Implicit in these statements is the Old Media asserting its own importance in the political process; if not with a twinge of anxiety as the Internet steadily erodes their relevance.

[pacelli]

WHAT HAPPENED TO EQUAL TIME???

Faux News can decide who they air & how much time they give them. News Corp has vested interests that go beyond Rupert Murdoch's support of Hillary:


Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who is an investing tycoon and chairman of the Kingdom Holding Company said in an interview with Charlie Rose that he had about a 6-7% stake in News Corp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation


FSM: It was reported back in December that Prince bin Talal bragged at a conference in Dubai, that when the Muslim youths were rioting in Paris last November, that he called the chairman of NewsCorp to tell him to remove the tagline “Muslim” from Fox News broadcast and Murdoch did. Is that what you mean by “strategic investments” and is the Dubai story true?



Alex: The story is true as far as Bin Talal bragging about it and Fox has indeed acknowledged that they changed the tagline because of “complaints,” though they did not specifically mention the prince. But this is only one example of Bin Talal, other rich Saudis and the government itself trying to influence public opinion in the United States in the direction of their radical anti-American agenda. Prince Walid, for instance, controls a large chunk of the Middle Eastern media market, including, in his own words, several television channels, 60% of all the movies shown in the Arab world and 80% of the music. He has also expressed many times his intention to influence US opinion through economic means, as well as directly through influence operations like his investments in Georgetown and Harvard and a new television channel he plans to make operational in two years to “spread the right message” in America.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=76976



Are we beginning to see the reason why Fox wants to silence Dr. Paul?

[CareerTech1]

absolutely - this whole experience has been awakening yet frightening -

people are so brainwashed by the msm -

there must be something that can be done - more than we are doing - from a legal standpoint - to bring this to the attention of the American people

[Mortikhi]

I know what can be done, but involves violence and is illegal.

[an.old.analyst]

WHAT HAPPENED TO EQUAL TIME???
The Reagan Administration signed away equal time....it used to be that way as part of the media's FEC license requirements.

[Bilgefisher]

There was a fire at fox affiliate on Grand Junction Colorado. It knocked out Fox Broadcasts for the whole region.

[JMann]

The Reagan Administration signed away equal time....it used to be that way as part of the media's FEC license requirements.

There was never anything called equal time. Conservatives never had equal time on CBS, NBC or ABC news, NY Times, LA Times or any other major newspaper in the country. Watch out the libs are trying to reinstate the fairness doctrine that will control free speech.

[CareerTech1]

EQUAL TIME RULE

U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule

It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. However, a candidate who can not afford time does not receive free time unless his or her opponent is also given free time. Thus, even with the equal time law, a well funded campaign has a significant advantage in terms of broadcast exposure for the candidate.

The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, "American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations." When the Radio Act was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, the equal time provision became Section 315 of the new statute.

A major amendment to Section 315 came in 1959 following a controversial Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpretation of the equal time provision. Lar Daly, who had run for a variety of public offices, sometimes campaigning dressed as Uncle Sam, was running for mayor of Chicago. Daly demanded free air time from Chicago television stations in response to the stations' news coverage of incumbent mayor Richard Daley. Although the airtime given to Mayor Daley was not directly related to his re-election campaign, the FCC ruled that his appearance triggered the equal opportunity provision of Section 315. Broadcasters interpreted the FCC's decision as now requiring equal time for a candidate anytime another candidate appeared on the air, even if the appearance was not linked to the election campaign.

Congress reacted quickly by creating four exemptions to the equal opportunity law. Stations who gave time to candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events would not have to offer equal time to other candidates for that office. In creating these exemptions, Congress stressed that the public interest would be served by allowing stations the freedom to cover the activities of candidates without worrying that any story about a candidate, no matter how tangentially related to his or her candidacy, would require equal time. The exemptions to Section 315 have also served the interests of incumbent candidates, since by virtue of their incumbency they often generate more news coverage then their challengers.

Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate. Before this ruling by the FCC, Congress voted to suspend Section 315 during the 1960 presidential campaign to allow Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to engage in a series of debates without the participation of third party candidates. The FCC has also labeled shows such as The Phil Donahue Show and Good Morning America news interview programs. However, appearances by candidates in shows which do not fit under the four exempt formats will trigger the equal opportunities provision, even if the appearance is irrelevant to the campaign. Therefore, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents.

[justatrey]

EQUAL TIME RULE

U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule

It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. However, a candidate who can not afford time does not receive free time unless his or her opponent is also given free time. Thus, even with the equal time law, a well funded campaign has a significant advantage in terms of broadcast exposure for the candidate.

The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, "American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations." When the Radio Act was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, the equal time provision became Section 315 of the new statute.

A major amendment to Section 315 came in 1959 following a controversial Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpretation of the equal time provision. Lar Daly, who had run for a variety of public offices, sometimes campaigning dressed as Uncle Sam, was running for mayor of Chicago. Daly demanded free air time from Chicago television stations in response to the stations' news coverage of incumbent mayor Richard Daley. Although the airtime given to Mayor Daley was not directly related to his re-election campaign, the FCC ruled that his appearance triggered the equal opportunity provision of Section 315. Broadcasters interpreted the FCC's decision as now requiring equal time for a candidate anytime another candidate appeared on the air, even if the appearance was not linked to the election campaign.

Congress reacted quickly by creating four exemptions to the equal opportunity law. Stations who gave time to candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events would not have to offer equal time to other candidates for that office. In creating these exemptions, Congress stressed that the public interest would be served by allowing stations the freedom to cover the activities of candidates without worrying that any story about a candidate, no matter how tangentially related to his or her candidacy, would require equal time. The exemptions to Section 315 have also served the interests of incumbent candidates, since by virtue of their incumbency they often generate more news coverage then their challengers.

Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate. Before this ruling by the FCC, Congress voted to suspend Section 315 during the 1960 presidential campaign to allow Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to engage in a series of debates without the participation of third party candidates. The FCC has also labeled shows such as The Phil Donahue Show and Good Morning America news interview programs. However, appearances by candidates in shows which do not fit under the four exempt formats will trigger the equal opportunities provision, even if the appearance is irrelevant to the campaign. Therefore, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents.

God this makes me mad. The four so-called exemptions can be interpreted to apply to almost all coverage.

Oh and OP - please tell your dad to stop watching Fox news! It is unacceptable if anyone's friends or family still watches that garbage. Thanks. :D