FCC Complaint Reply

[Cam]

The FCC replied to my e-mail complaining about the Fox News Forum excluding Dr Paul. Here is their reply;

"There is no violation of the law in anything you are complaining about. It might demonstrate basic unfairness about candidate coverage, but there is no rule violation. Although the FCC licenses broadcast stations, we have virtually no control over the content of what is broadcast. That's because the First Amendment guarantees broadcasters free speech to air pretty much whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency). Further, the Communications Act, which established the FCC back in 1934, has a provision that specifically prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast content. As a result, the FCC cannot tell stations and networks what to air or what not to air. There is, however, an equal time law that does require stations giving air time to one candidate to give air time to opponents, as well. Nevertheless, Congress has carved out several exceptions to that rule, including candidate appearances on newscasts, most interview programs, and in debates. Consequently, a station or network could have some candidates on in those formats but not all of their opponents. So if a station chooses not to cover - or even mention - one candidate on its news, it is entitled to do so. Similarly, it can exclude whatever candidates it wants from candidate debates. The equal time rule is largely aimed at paid political advertising, such that if one candidate purchases time on the air, his opponent is entitled to buy an equal amount of time. Finally, yours is one of many complaints that we have received over the years about Fox's newscasts, but as I explained above, they can air pretty much whatever they want on the news - even if it's false, misleading, or slanted."

[disciple]

Some laws; no checks and balances whatsoever.

Goodbye truth, hello falsehood.

[smartpeople4ronpaul]

Good god. So they have no control over what they air. What about what they DON'T air?

[freelance]

Nevertheless, Congress has carved out several exceptions to that rule, including candidate appearances on newscasts, most interview programs, and in debates.

Well, what other format is left when you exempt newscasts, interview and debates? Game shows, anyone?

[Midnight77]

The FCC exists primarily to watch out for any cuss words uttered or obscene material (Janet Jackson nipple slip) so they can fine the Hell out of the networks and keep their bureaucracy in tact. They have no control over political coverage in elections and furthermore couldn't care less about stuff like this, as is evident from their email response. It's a wonder there is even an "equal time" law, is they themselves mentioned that there is loopholes in it, such as the law is not applicable to news broadcasts, debates, etc. The only way to fight this is to fight the advertisers which butters their bread.

[granny miller]

:D
I got the EXACT same reply this morning.

[Dianne]

wow, you got the same response I did... lol..

[braumstr]

You know I do not have a problem with the 1st amendment, but perhaps when they are influencing an election and they lie or are biased they should be required to state there position. For example if they choose to exclude a candidate they must offer him equal time and explain why they excluded him.

Edit: especially when it gets to the point where one entity is controlling all the messages.

[Cam]

wow, you got the same response I did... lol..

It looks like a typical bureaucratic form letter. I wonder how many forum members sent the FCC an e-mail. This guys secretary must be doing alot of pasting this morning. LOL

[Cam]

You know I do not have a problem with the 1st amendment

Do corporations deserve the same rights as a human being? In the 1800's being declared a corp was a gift from the people. You had a definite goal, i.e. build a bridge. A corp could not buy another corp. Among many other strict rules.

Then in 1886 the corps went to the Supreme Court and argued that under the 14th Amendment (the amendment that freed the slaves) they should be seen under law as having the same rights as a human being. The corps won. Chief Justice pass the opium pipe.

So ever since, according to our Declaration of Independence, God has bestowed on Corporations certain inalienable rights among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[liberty_Forever]

Well you see, Janet Jackson's breast is a good reason for the FCC beauracrats to get involved.

A Presidential election is not.

[IChooseLiberty]

I got the exact same scripted response. Our tax dollars hard at work protecting the polital views of FOX!!! Wait a second....


The FCC replied to my e-mail complaining about the Fox News Forum excluding Dr Paul. Here is their reply;

"There is no violation of the law in anything you are complaining about. It might demonstrate basic unfairness about candidate coverage, but there is no rule violation. Although the FCC licenses broadcast stations, we have virtually no control over the content of what is broadcast. That's because the First Amendment guarantees broadcasters free speech to air pretty much whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency). Further, the Communications Act, which established the FCC back in 1934, has a provision that specifically prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast content. As a result, the FCC cannot tell stations and networks what to air or what not to air. There is, however, an equal time law that does require stations giving air time to one candidate to give air time to opponents, as well. Nevertheless, Congress has carved out several exceptions to that rule, including candidate appearances on newscasts, most interview programs, and in debates. Consequently, a station or network could have some candidates on in those formats but not all of their opponents. So if a station chooses not to cover - or even mention - one candidate on its news, it is entitled to do so. Similarly, it can exclude whatever candidates it wants from candidate debates. The equal time rule is largely aimed at paid political advertising, such that if one candidate purchases time on the air, his opponent is entitled to buy an equal amount of time. Finally, yours is one of many complaints that we have received over the years about Fox's newscasts, but as I explained above, they can air pretty much whatever they want on the news - even if it's false, misleading, or slanted."

[IChooseLiberty]

Oh duh. We need to be talking to the FEC :P

[HOLLYWOOD]

The FCC exists primarily to watch out for any cuss words uttered or obscene material (Janet Jackson nipple slip) so they can fine the Hell out of the networks and keep their bureaucracy in tact. They have no control over political coverage in elections and furthermore couldn't care less about stuff like this, as is evident from their email response. It's a wonder there is even an "equal time" law, is they themselves mentioned that there is loopholes in it, such as the law is not applicable to news broadcasts, debates, etc. The only way to fight this is to fight the advertisers which butters their bread.

$313 MILLION to watch out for Cuss words? Just like almost every other federal agency... they're all a big waste or GROSSLY INEFFECIENT!

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc2008budget_complete.pdf (http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc2008budget_complete.pdf)

[Cam]

Although the FCC licenses broadcast stations, we have virtually no control over the content of what is broadcast. That's because the First Amendment guarantees broadcasters free speech to air pretty much whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency).

It just hit me. Doesn't the FCC mandate over-the-air broadcasters to program a certain amount of airtime every week devoted to children's programming? So they do have control of what is aired other than obscenity and indecency. Just a thought.

[Xonox]

... So electioneering is completely legal?

[fabijo]

yours is one of many complaints that we have received over the years about Fox's newscasts

at least we're not the only ones complaining. When I tell people that Fox News has a bias against Ron Paul, those people want to know MORE about Ron Paul. So, it kind of works to our advantage when Fox News blatantly excludes him.

[brunner]

I told you guys that complaining to the FCC wouldn't do any good. They are the reason Fox is able to do this in the first place! (http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2007/12/27/why-you-should-hate-the-fcc/) Government supported oligopolies are what make all of this possible.

[Oscar DeGrouch]

And call it the RPN!!

"No Rudy, none of the time."

[fedup100]

Try taking a look at the election laws. It is illegal to influence an election and that is all they do.

[ExpatinArgentina]

I just sent this reply to everyone in my address book.

[Anthony T]

Lol that reply sounded a little irritated.