The relevant section is this:
"`(a) Public Interest Obligation to Cover Publicly Important Issues- A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. The enforcement and application of the requirement imposed by this subsection shall be consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.'."
In other words, the Bill includes an attempt to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.
The Wikipedia article on the Fairness Doctrine says, in part:
"In 1986 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a loose interpretation by the FCC of an aspect of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that Congress had "never made the doctrine a binding requirement." In August 1987, the Commission abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in its Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC insisted that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional.
"In the spring of 1987 Congress attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto."
The article also points out that:
"It has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half."
This is the reason why some of us are concerned by anything that gives ammuntion to those arguing in favor of this Bill.
> The relevant section is this:
> “(a) Public Interest Obligation to Cover Publicly Important Issues- A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance....
Thanks. I wonder if the the Dems don’t realize that this could backfire. I mean PBS, for example, would have to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. Or are they exempt from presenting any opinion but thier own? :)