Operation Sieze Back Debate Time.

[TomTX]

This is a bit of an uphill battle, requiring reinterpretation of the "Equal Time Rule" debate exception. I believe this is worth challenging because debates are no longer really "on the spot news" run by nonpartisan 3rd party groups (League of Women Voters) as they were when the rule was interpreted 30+ years ago. Most debates are now being run by the media conglomerates themselves and thus should fall under the Equal Time Rule.

Under the "Equal Time Rule" broadcasters which give or sell time to one candidate must give or offer to sell an equal amount of time to every other candidate

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

In these media-orchestrated, media-run debates, Ron Paul was seriously shorted on time.

I believe we should be determining how much time Ron Paul was shorted when compared with the candidate who was given the MOST time.

Then, we start flooding each affiliate with polite demands that they owe Dr. Paul immediate, equal, equivalent airtime.

We begin the letter/email/fax with a request the comment be placed in the station's "FCC Public File" and specifically state that the media-run debate:

1) Breaks the "equal time rule" as the debate was organized and run by the media conglomerate, not an independent third party. Cite the specific debate, and how much Dr. Paul was shorted compared with the candidate given the MOST time.

2) Is acting "Against the public interest" unless Dr. Paul is immediately given enough airtime in an equivalent slot to make up the difference.

I need help with the legwork: Which debates, which affiliates, how much time Dr. Paul was shorted, et cetera.

First focus on Wyoming, Idaho and New Hampshire.

Linky to my thread with a similar theme for the upcoming Fox roundtable discussion:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=742270&posted=1#post742270

[azminuteman]

This is a bit of an uphill battle, requiring reinterpretation of the "Equal Time Rule" debate exception. I believe this is worth challenging because debates are no longer really "on the spot news" run by nonpartisan 3rd party groups (League of Women Voters) as they were when the rule was interpreted 30+ years ago. Most debates are now being run by the media conglomerates themselves and thus should fall under the Equal Time Rule.

Under the "Equal Time Rule" broadcasters which give or sell time to one candidate must give or offer to sell an equal amount of time to every other candidate

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

In these media-orchestrated, media-run debates, Ron Paul was seriously shorted on time.

I believe we should be determining how much time Ron Paul was shorted when compared with the candidate who was given the MOST time.

Then, we start flooding each affiliate with polite demands that they owe Dr. Paul immediate, equal, equivalent airtime.

We begin the letter/email/fax with a request the comment be placed in the station's "FCC Public File" and specifically state that the media-run debate:

1) Breaks the "equal time rule" as the debate was organized and run by the media conglomerate, not an independent third party. Cite the specific debate, and how much Dr. Paul was shorted compared with the candidate given the MOST time.

2) Is acting "Against the public interest" unless Dr. Paul is immediately given enough airtime in an equivalent slot to make up the difference.

I need help with the legwork: Which debates, which affiliates, how much time Dr. Paul was shorted, et cetera.

First focus on Wyoming, Idaho and New Hampshire.

Linky to my thread with a similar theme for the upcoming Fox roundtable discussion:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=742270&posted=1#post742270



Do you not remember Larry Agran in 1992
Oh yeah, the media AND The League of Women Voters seemed to not report on him or want him at the debates.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H8_M7VjAb-M

[walt]

This is a bit of an uphill battle, requiring reinterpretation of the "Equal Time Rule" debate exception. I believe this is worth challenging because debates are no longer really "on the spot news" run by nonpartisan 3rd party groups (League of Women Voters) as they were when the rule was interpreted 30+ years ago. Most debates are now being run by the media conglomerates themselves and thus should fall under the Equal Time Rule.

Under the "Equal Time Rule" broadcasters which give or sell time to one candidate must give or offer to sell an equal amount of time to every other candidate

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

In these media-orchestrated, media-run debates, Ron Paul was seriously shorted on time.

I believe we should be determining how much time Ron Paul was shorted when compared with the candidate who was given the MOST time.

Then, we start flooding each affiliate with polite demands that they owe Dr. Paul immediate, equal, equivalent airtime.

We begin the letter/email/fax with a request the comment be placed in the station's "FCC Public File" and specifically state that the media-run debate:

1) Breaks the "equal time rule" as the debate was organized and run by the media conglomerate, not an independent third party. Cite the specific debate, and how much Dr. Paul was shorted compared with the candidate given the MOST time.

2) Is acting "Against the public interest" unless Dr. Paul is immediately given enough airtime in an equivalent slot to make up the difference.

I need help with the legwork: Which debates, which affiliates, how much time Dr. Paul was shorted, et cetera.

First focus on Wyoming, Idaho and New Hampshire.

Linky to my thread with a similar theme for the upcoming Fox roundtable discussion:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=742270&posted=1#post742270

I love this idea!

[yongrel]

i'm not sure how I feel about this. I think the networks should have every right to ignore Ron Paul.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

i'm not sure how I feel about this. I think the networks should have every right to ignore Ron Paul.

+1, as much as I hate it and believe that we (as private citizens) can try to pressure the media, the fact remains that the media organizations are private businesses and the government shouldn't really be able to make a bunch of laws over them. But that doesn't mean the grassroots (their customers) can't put pressure on them. :)

[TomTX]

i'm not sure how I feel about this. I think the networks should have every right to ignore Ron Paul.


Absolutely. The networks have every right to ignore Ron Paul - as long as they ignore the other candidates.

The broadcasters have been given exclusive license to a portion of the PUBLIC airwaves. To get this license, they have agreed to act in the public interest.

We, the people have agreed to give exclusive usage rights in exchange for $, and the agreement these airwaves be used in our interests. Using the public airwaves in a partisan manner is not in our interest. Our Republic requires free and open discussion of candidates up for election.

If the networks are using purely private property, they have every right to promote whomever they want. Hang a Giuliani banner from NewsCorp HQ, issue statements, whatever they want.

If the airwaves were not licensed and anyone could broadcast on any wavelength, partisan promotion of candidates would be fine.

I only object to them abusing the public airwaves when they have an exclusive license and the other citizens cannot respond in the same way.

[TomTX]

+1, as much as I hate it and believe that we (as private citizens) can try to pressure the media, the fact remains that the media organizations are private businesses and the government shouldn't really be able to make a bunch of laws over them. But that doesn't mean the grassroots (their customers) can't put pressure on them. :)

As private businesses, I have no objection to them being partisan.

I only object to them doing so by abusing their exclusive license to a portion of the public airwaves while we cannot legally respond in the same way.

[constituent]

naaaah. let them run their channel into the ground, no need for the FCC to step in and save the day.

it is however, time for a huge rally outside, perhaps w/ an appearance by the paul himself.

it would win the nomination hands-down.

[MrCobaltBlue]

We could infiltrate each debate and whenever anyone else tries to talk we make a racket.

[TomTX]

Blimp

[Thumper]

Tom's arguments are on point. The media has a responsibility and an obligation to the American public. Not only in matters such as equal time for candidates, but in their everyday business of reporting the news. FOX has dropped the ball with regard to both issues.

The airwaves belong to the people, not to the networks. They made certain commitments when they applied for and received licensing to use OUR airwaves and they should be held to them.

If I violate contracts, or the terms of licensing agreements I have to suffer consequences, why shouldn't the networks suffer the consequences when they do the same thing?

[bbachtung]

Fox News is NOT a broadcast company, they are a cable only channel, and therefore, any "equal time" rule would not apply to them.