The ramp up to the mission of making sure our ships could safely employ a major weapons system, in this case NATO Sea Sparrow System (NSSMS), was not as difficult as it would seem, but it certainly required a multi-faceted approach. For almost three years, I had been assigned to inspect the combat systems readiness of the Atlantic Fleet’s surface force. That meant, for those not familiar with the “ownership” of ships in the Navy, all ships, except aircraft carriers (those belong to the commanders of the naval air forces in the Atlantic and Pacific areas – COMNAVAIRLANT, in my case), and the ships directly related to supporting submarines, those being the submarine tenders (AS) and submarine rescue ships (ASR). Any other ship belonged to Commander, Naval Surface Forces, Atlantic (COMNAVSURFLANT). If “it” had a weapons system more complex than a M2 .50 caliber machine gun on a tripod mount, then the ship required an annual Combat Systems Assessment (CSA) (which began in the late 1980s, but were canceled sometime in 1994 or 1995 – but that’s another piece of history for another time).

The foundation of the NATO Sea Sparrow readiness inspections in the aftermath of this incident came from the existing CSA check sheets, which had been in development for several years at this point. Prior to April, 1990, the Atlantic Fleet CSA procedures had been put together by training teams, which not only were tasked to do the fleet training, but also the CSAs. In April that year, a new department within the NAVSURFLANT Combat Systems Mobile Training Team (CSMTT) was established and manned. A complete review of every existing check sheet began, ensuring the listed standards were from an official document, and not from “It’s a great idea, because I did in on USS LAST SHIP” files. In addition to the scrub, the located reference, to the page or paragraph, was inserted as part of the inspectable point.

Those check sheets, for the administrative areas of training, Combat Systems Training Team (CSTT), Personnel Qualification System (PQS), Explosives Handling Qualification/Certification Program (EHPQCP), Battle Orders, watch bills, and safety (those I know for sure, but probably a few more, too), as well as grading criteria for setting up, executing and debriefing a battle scenario using the NSSMS were all tossed into the package for review by the Pacific Fleet counterparts and Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANTFLT) staff. The advantage was the check sheets had been in use for a few years at this point, and had always been made available to the Fleet. The CSTT drill procedures had been around for some time, but had not been widely enforced, as the Engineering Department versions in the form of the Engineering Casualty Control and Damage Control Training Teams (ECCTT/DCTT) had been since the post-Vietnam era via the Operational Propulsion Plant Exam (OPPE) requirements. In mid 1991, the CSA process was revised, and a major “go/no go” pass/fail criteria was the established CSTT by command letter, which elevated the emphasis on the use of internal “experts” to be able to keep the crew up-to-date on procedures, as well as providing an on the job training path to induct new crewmen into the teams in place.

Why is the discussion of the CSTT important in this history? Once the CSMTT and the Fleet Training Groups took up the issue of ensuring a CSTT on surface force ships was established, had scenarios, were qualified and had a training plan process, the trainees could receive more realistic training, as the safety aspects of the running the scenarios was paramount in the set up, debriefing and execution of the drills. The COMNAVSURFLANT instructions and Training and Readiness manuals (TREADMAN) on the CSTT were revised to reflect current operations and then it was trained to. COMNAVAIRLANT did not have any requirements on the books to have the CVs stand up and maintain a CSTT. This key process in conducting training became a factor, very directly, in the events of the night of October 2nd, 1992.

to be continued….

Last October, I put up the “teaser post.” About this time in 1993, Capt Phil Balisle (now Admiral) came into my office and informed me I would be detailed to lead a team for Commander, Atlantic Fleet, to validate all Atlantic Fleet units properly under stood the safe employment of the NATO Sea Sparrow systems aboard their ships. The Pacific Fleet would have a team visiting their vessels, and we would work from a common set of checksheets during the course of the follow up to the investigation of the incident. I was given, from Commander Naval Air Forces, Atlantic, LCDR Don Diehl, from the Guided Missile School at Dam Neck, FTCS Goss, and from my own command, FTC Dann, and told to get to work.

The requirement levied upon us was to go to each ship, except those in such operational status that they could not show us the system, as was the case for the USS O’BANNON (DD-989), and ensure the men standing the watches were school/PQS/OJT on paper qualified, and, by practical demonstration, knowledgeable in actual operations of a simulated engagement in a training scenario.

Having already having spent some energy over the prior two years standardizing Combat Systems Assessments (CSAs) with the West Coast CSA Team, some ground work was already done, so the agreement on the plan for the standard inspection clicked quickly.

I read the report from, I believe Admiral Cebrowski, and the executive summary had some chilling words (I believe I recall them accurately):

Unfortunately, the system (NATO Sea Sparrow) worked exactly as designed.

That set the tone for where the deficiency was that turned that night into one so many would like to have gotten a “do over” card for: The people screwed up. All too often, that is the case in the course of operations. Equipment: “CHECK!” People: “Hold on, we have a problem.”

In the first few days of my assignment to this tasking, I attended a meeting set up by Commander, Air Forces, Atlantic (AIRLANT), where a large group of aviators were to determine just how many switch operations, cover lifts, or button pushes were required to get each of the weapons off any aircraft in the inventory. I think one pilot briefed than in an A-6E, it took 82 separate things to launch a Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile. So, there was sat, all morning, and after lunch, started up again. Finally, one aviator sitting at the table in front of me (I was the “shoe” in the room, so I took a cheap seat along the wall), out of frustration, made this salient comment:

If that man thinks he has permission to shoot, it doesn’t matter how many things he has to do, he’s going to launch that weapon.

The heads, mostly fighting to stay awake after hours of laboriously presented technical details, nodded in agreement. The meeting, didn’t last too much longer, for the primary point had been made by that statement. Unfortunately, as I came to understand more of the details of that night, this aviator was more correct than I would know at the time…..

More later…

In this post, I talked about our propensity to commit “overkill,” specifically in regards to the current issue of the Immigration debate.

Several things have come to mind in for this idea of only the “legal” guest workers will have the card that defines them as a legitimate hiring candidate, so how does an American get a job when the “system” is put in place?

My ideas on how to “fix” the problem we face:

• Why not make the “entry point” to a job the holding of a Social Security Number? No, I’m not in the way back machine, but don’t we already have a master directory of people? Yep, we sure do. I’d suggest, rather than build an entire parallel system, to upgrade the SSA systems to allow internet access for employers to validate the potential employees. I’d further comment you shouldn’t need a measure requiring the collection of physical data of the person. It should be pretty obvious, if a Hispanic person, who claims to be Jose, has given you an SSN in your office in Topeka, KS, that says it belong to Peggy Martin of San Antonio, TX, that something is amiss. This method may not keep every illegal out, but I suspect it will catch a large number of them, who are relying on stolen SSNs to get buy.
• I’m sure there’s a lot to be hammered out in the drafting of the “guest worker” sweepstakes, but the comments by the President indicate there will be no excuses for employers who hire illegals, because the Government will have this new system to let them know someone is illegal. Remember I’m not a lawyer, but I did have to get involved with the military justice system for one of my duties. I believe it is a better approach to not say “We’ll hammer you if you have employed illegals,” but “We’ll hammer you if you KNOWINGLY hired illegals.” The premise of this hinges on the comment about and having a beefed up Social Security system to help employers screen out illegals. Now, if an illegal gets through your doors, as an employer, based on falsified papers, then I wouldn’t see that as an actionable crime. If you let them through, knowing they were illegal, then it’s hammer time. This allows us “undocumented Americans” to still be employable, as the employer will only be at risk, if they are criminally involved in hiring the wrong people. That takes the pressure off of them to not hire anyone, unless they can positively determine the validity of someone’s presence at their hiring desk.

Now, on to technical issues about a new and special system to track “guest workers:”
Read the rest of this entry »

No, no one has said we’re gonna move to the “Papers! Give me YOUR PAPERS!” type of society but….how can it not be so?

I spend time and enjoy working from concepts to the “implementation” of things. Usually it’s something to do with electronics or computers, but once in a while, other topic areas pop up.

So, we are entangled in a great debate on what to do with some (estimated) 12M illegal immigrants in the Nation. “Something” is most definitely an answer just about everyone would give. The “something” is of concern to me. Right now, the tide seems to be in favor of being compassionate towards those who have come here and the solution is to (use what you want, but I choose) find a fast track to citizenship. While that gets under my skin, I think the preliminary “solutions” will have unintended consequences for “the rest of us.”

Follow me here: Solution: Give out “visiting workers visas” that make sure we know who is here, in a legalized status. Those “wrok passes” have already been discussed as containing specific, personally identifying data, so the person checking this person out knows it’s not a card passed onto someone else. Included, so far, I have heard that fingerprints and retinal scan data will be digitally embedded in the cards. Good. One card for a single person, with a very difficult to alter set of data. Coupled with this, as clearly stated by the President in the State of the Union speech a few days ago, would be the tools to allow employers to know if the person they were about to hire is legally able to become an employee.

Still good. Add the next layer of defense: BIG fines for employers who hire illegals. Ok…Looks like the bases are covered!

Not so fast. Think for a minute that not all illegals in the country are of one nationality or cultural/racial type. They come from all around the world, in larger, or smaller proportions, and yes, some look very much like those in the majority of the population in the US….On top of that, there are legal citizens, born and naturalized, that “look that way” and may be confused with those who are not here with permission.

So, you’re an employer. You run on tight margins, or you’re a large corporation, and you have shareholders who would frown on you breaking the law, maybe not so much for who you hired, but for risking their investments with you and your staff causes a huge fine from the Feds….

When anyone walks in to apply for a position, what will you do? Guess what? Only the formerly illegals trying become legal, available workers will have “The Card” (you know, the “don’t leave home without it” one) that can, thanks to the magic of technology that will result in swipe scanners being sold by the gross box loads, and (get ready for this one) a master, centralized database, to include fingerprint data and retinal scans (who knows, maybe they’ll toss DNA in, just in case a crime is committed, and “they” want to know who did it) of all the people with work visas……This means you can protect yourself from running afoul of the Federal laws easily.

But what if the person standing in front of you claims they are just an average, hard working American, born on the 4th of July in Baltimore Harbor, state of Maryland, not a few miles from Ft. McHenry. Uh, oh….if this person is lying, you could find yourself wrecking the “bottom line.” You ask for proof, proof that says for sure you are you, not some crumpled small sheet of paper with a footprint of a just born infant and no picture.

Ah, ha! You say. Now you get it. The only practical way in which an employer, with their neck (or collective necks) under a Sword of Damocles, being the Federal laws, ordinances and regulations governing the manner in which we ensure, for the safety of “our people” that no illegal is given a job, we now have to herd “the rest of us” down to the Federal office building, equipped with supporting documentation of several types, to be fingerprinted and photographed and retinal scanned, and who knows, maybe have our cheeks swabbed, so we may obtain a document that will allow us to be employed.

So, for one thing, it will not be stated in any version of the law that this is required for US citizens. What it will cause it will be the natural reaction or any “organism” (in this case, businesses) to protect themselves from extinction (in this case by the Federal penalties/sanctions/fines). What will be the “explanation?” “I’d really like to hire you, but, you know, we can’t afford to find out later you are illegally in the country. Sorry and good luck on your job search.”

Funny thing, this might result in companies having to get labor “resources” from another country, comprised of those who can qualify, for they will be leery of hiring “Undocumented Americans.”

Am I wrong to see this as a very likely outcome? At the least, us all having to get national IDs. At the worst, Americans actually losing out in the job market competition to imported workers. Forget about moving jobs offshore and being upset…consider when the stories come about Americans being denied jobs on the grounds of a company not wanting the risk their fortune.

Next, consider the implication of the specific identifying data of every working age American being held in a National level database. It gripes me to see the wild outrage against Wal-Mart using radio frequency Identification (RFID) tags in their products for inventory and logistics control, when the issue discussed above is far more intrusive and will have the worst possible effect on the Right to Privacy.

While the liberals/Democrats seem proud of how they are the champions of free speech and personal privacy, they are also the ones pushing the “guest worker” programs and rapid granting of citizenship rights to the illegals presently here, yet that will lead to the construction and maintaining of a database of every citizen. Not a peep from the privacy advocates so far as I can tell. I wonder if they are asleep at the wheel on this issue.

The problem of indentifying those here legally and those here illegally depends on a central bank of information that quickly answers the question. Pragmatically, it will require everyone to be documented. It’s the only practical method to implement the proposed, and seems the most likely to occur legislation.

My suggestion for a solution? You will have to seriously rethink the liability for a company who is found to have hired illegals. That one change, to not hold them responsible, is about the only way out of the maze we find ourselves in from my perspective. Lots of anti-free enterprise people will think this is going easy on business, and thre will be some businesses who still scheme and hire “them,” but if you put the hammer on business, it will protect itself, just as any of us would, when faced with the ending of our lives, for it is analogous in this case. Anyone else have any ideas? We sure need something and we need it before any legislation that dooms us to all being entered in the big database in the sky (and I have other significant concerns with that entire idea, too…but another post).

So, get you “PAPERS! YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE!” ready for inspection, so you may be able to prove yourself as legally in this country and get the job that Americans still will want to do after the ink is dry and the Democrats have big grins on their faces. Funny, it will be the Democrats, in their effort to gather more voters to their camp by “sudden association” may be responsible for the single largest loss of personal privacy for the citizens of the country they claim to love. So much for the Constitutional guarantees.

Fairness Doctrine “Equal Opportunity” to share you views graciously provided in the comments section below.

Andi is hard at work. If your calendars are not yet marked, do it now! If you have any talent to offer, she certainly could use some help, I imagine. Shoot her a note if you can help.

5 May, DC Area. Cocktail meeting the evening before. Be there to see Uncle Jimbo in person, it’s well worth the price of admission (oh, yeah…it’s free to attend. Just have bail money if you plan to go out Saturday night in the wake of Matt and Jimbo).

And you Navy types….we could use some more of you there this year….

From the wonderfully insightful work of Cox and Forkum site:

CAIR is raising a ruckus about the depiction of terrorists. It follows the pattern. Pick away at any situation here in the US that makes them “feel” bad, yet never stand up and condemn the beheading/torture/slaughter of anyone in the Middle East, or Thailand or the Philippines, or Malaysia (you get the idea.

The plan? Well, make us afraid to even comment that Muslims may be connected with terror, which makes it easier to walk on buy with evil intent, and we are afraid, for fear of lawyers championing the “cause.”

On top of that, what word can we use to epand the description beyond “hyper-?” As with credit cards types, first they were just cards, then “Gold” cards, then “Platinum” and now “Titanium.” Before long, you just run out of elements in the periodic table and then what do you do? We’re kinda already at the end of the modifier run for descriptions of over the top reactions….suggestions?

Last week, a “nickel back” story, and this week, more stories about “Aussies.”

In the meantime, feel free to track back (except for spammers…)

So, there I was with a ship load of Aussies in training. They were, more so than most ship’s crews for our FFGs, really far from home.

So, if you head down to the club with the Aussies, they have a particular cultural behavior to promote equanimity between those in attendance. It’s considered polite for buy drinks in “rounds.” After all, you are at the club, to tell “sea stories” but….well, to drink.

In Aussie-speak, they call a round of drinks for your group a “shout.” So, the “shouts” begin. Not a big deal, but there is another rule: Everyone buys a shout. Ok, makes sense. Now the third rule: You stay to have a shout from everyone. To even put your cash on the bar and make sure there’s enough for your social obligation, then say your goodbyes is *not* acceptable.

Lessons learned the hard way (called in hard gained wisdom): Never go drinking with more Aussies than the number of drinks you want (can) drink in that setting….

Previously regarding the Fairness Doctrine.

I have been searching for the source document that is the “Fairness Doctrine” from the FCC, but it seems to be more a series of positions and some court cases, with some input from Federal Law that puts the boundaries around this concept, rather than a single pamphlet that one can pick up and read and say “Ah Ha! I get it!” So, please bear with me, as I try ti tie several things together that will help make the concept more useful for the discussion.

From Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting site, there is a lengthy discussion, which covers many parts that feed into the formulation of the Fairness Doctrine. I’d advise you to head to the link and read it to help get your arms around it.

One of the more recent situations that have brought this issue to the forefront of the discussion was the controversy of airing the documentary “Stolen Honor” preceding the 2004 Presidential election.

From what I gather, the Fairness Doctrine is supposed to be there to prevent a single message being aired and controlled by a particular group. When one media outlet, Sinclair Communications, wanted 62 stations to air the documentary, there was a reluctance on the part of some of their stations and, based on the ensuing discussions, the demand to air the program was rescinded. Keep this in mind, when in the prior post on this topic, I noted the plan by Ms. Hennock was to have 500 TV stations in the country back in the late 40s. Consider than 62 stations does not even represent a majority of the total number of 500, let alone the massive numbers of TV stations available in 2004.

From the FAIR site:

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource [ed: my italics], licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

Proponents today, appear to be coming from the same angle. It’s about radio and over the air TV frequencies are public resources, and therefore subject to regulation. Hang onto this point.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Key phrases: “Some of their airtime” “Controversial matters” “Wide latitude.”

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)

So, in 1927, the known technology for mass communication was the radio. TV wasn’t available for 30 some years later. Mr. Johnson had it right, for his time, for the technology, for the way society operated.

In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”

That looks like there is a foundation for the Doctrine, but, leaves lots of maneuvering room, which certainly is in the vein of the 1st Amendment, to allow freedom.

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

So, according to the writer, we are not strapped into “equal time.” That’s good for the stations, and also allows for others to be heard.

Read the FAIR posting in detail, if you desire to become educated more on the topic.

That’s the history I can dig up. It lends itself to much discussion, yet, I can’t pin down who this applies to, other than radio and over the air television broadcasters. If that’s the case, then it’s not so bad to have this discussion with the Democrats. If, along the way in the discussion, there is a move to apply “fairness” in some form as interpreted by the existing law and regulations on such things as cable TV and the internet, it could get interesting.

Besides not finding a definitive “covered group/entities,” it seems to be a squishy issue to figure out what topics, or categories, that fall under this requirement to make allowances for opposing views. “Controversial matters,” depending on who is allowed to say what is controversy or not will define how intrusive this Doctrine, if made into Federal Law. This is a significant part of the discussion worth monitoring closely, if this move to “re-instate the Fairness Doctrine” moves forward.

More later….but remember: Forewarned is forearmed.

Tracked back at:
Third World County

January 20th, 1981… some Americans were freed, just in case you forgot about the day 444 days of captivity disgraced our nation, when the President refused to respond to the attack on the soil of America.

Now he’s acting like he’s some kind of hero from first facilitating the ascendancy to power, then backing down from them right away.

A Navy Aviator, then a Commander in rank, was sent to Iran, as the storm was brewing…to “advise” our allies in the Iranian Air Force, to whom we had sold the F-14 Tomcat to. It seems his job was to inspect each of their aircraft and make sure the capability to employ the AIM-54 Phoenix as disabled. He did that, and then was the guest of Amadinerjacket and company for over a year.

I knew this man when he was the Chief of Staff for Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group TWO (CCDG2) in 1988-89, by then the rank of Captain.

Thank you, Capt Sharer for your service so many years ago.

In order to establish the foundation for any discussion that may follow, and to frame future posts on this currently debated issue, I’m going to try and put the history of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) here. I began this discussion here, to address what will most likely become a major topic of discussion from now until the ’08 elections.

The Fairness Doctrine was put into place, not as law, but as “doctrine” to cover radio and TV broadcasting coverage. By my reading, (initial source document) it appears a driving force was the concern over the limited amount of “bandwidth” (using terms we use today about Internet use) that was available and therefore, with the granting of broadcast licenses, the possibility of an imbalance of coverage of issues of importance to the public.

The “fallout,” or if you prefer a less glowing term, that brings us to the debate in our time was the implementation, which, the FCC deemed was an obligation by the broadcasting entity “…to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.” [1]” This was to be done by granting “equal time” to opposing viewpoints to meet this standard.

The “times:” President: Harry Truman – Democrat. FCC Commissioner: Frieda Barkin Hennock.

Who was Ms. Hennock? To begin, she was the first woman appointed to the position as Commissioner of the FCC. Her professional background prior to the taking this position was that of lawyer, and she had been involved in fund raising for political campaigns of Democrats, most notably, Franklin Roosevelt. Noted as her major accomplishment was the “set aside” of “non-commercial” station licenses and hence the genesis of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

At the time, there were 16 TV channel allocations in the designated radio frequency spectrum, and there was interference causing problems. Technically, this was an issue to be addressed, to keep from having stations within the same locale “walk on” each other. Consider this part of the Media Museum’s history of Ms. Hennock:

In addition to the technical issues she faced as a commissioner, Hennock became convinced that television had the power to serve as an important educational tool. As the proposed table of television channel assignments was developed during the freeze, however, there were no reservations for educational stations. Hennock was determined that the opportunity to use television for educating the audience not be lost. She wrote a strong dissenting opinion and became an outspoken advocate for channel set-asides.

Comment: Educating the audience: Good thing. Hiding political indoctrination under a cloak and calling it “education:” Very bad thing and done by dictatorships for a long time now. [Editorial note: It’s about who defines “education”]. Consider this: The concept behind this doctrine was about …”issues of importance to their community…” per the Media Museum’s write up. Therefore, the power to “educate” is not about a course on how to re-shingle your roof or how tectonic plates work, but “issues.” The baseline was to ensure the fairness of “education” in the arena of political issues.

I gather from reading that Ms. Hennock’s major push was to set aside many licenses for education, and did a TV and radio campaign to garner public support. The commercial side of the industry held they did provide educational material, and therefore the set asides were not necessary. Another historical case of governmental control, versus the use of resources for the purpose of free and open competition, I’m sure. Not surprisingly, educators formed the Joint Committee on Education Television, which studied commercial broadcasts and, again, not surprisingly, found commercial media fell short of being educational.

Comment: The educational system of this era was the one that sent astronauts to the moon using slide rules made of bamboo. I don’t think we really needed a set aside for “education,” but “issues.” Certainly commercial owners would object to having the ethereal RF spectrum being used to replicate the school houses, while there was business to be done and money to be made (read: a new method in which to grow an economy).

In doing some reading in a short biographical post, I found this statement:

She advocated FCC preferential treatment for the weaker transmitters of UHF stations, opposed editorializing by broadcasters, and, convinced that television was “just too important a medium,” denounced multiple ownership of broadcast facilities.

Comment: Will those people who are demanding a return to the Fairness Doctrine, and who might make a push to codify it in Federal law be true to Ms. Hennock’s vision, or will they just use it as a rationale to break up corporations? Note that that FCC commissioner was against broadcasters editorializing. So….darn that precedent thing getting in the way…while you may “cut off” the conservative talk show hosts who seems so scary, then ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN broadcaster “journalists” (and I use the term lightly) will be similarly constrained. So much for reporting on “illegal” wars and “THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!”…

Wrapping up the genesis of the person who initiated the Fairness Doctrine is this quote:

Hennock was not surprised when her term as FCC commissioner was not renewed. Many of the positions she had taken were unpopular with powerful broadcasters. She was an outspoken critic of the practices of commercial networks. She criticized violence in television programming and warned about the growth of monopolies in the broadcast industry. She wrote many dissenting opinions questioning FCC actions. But as her assistant Stanley Neustadt told oral historian Jim Robertson, when she took a position on an issue “she was ultimately–sometimes long after she left the Commission–ultimately shown to be right.” At the end of her term as FCC commissioner, Frieda B. Hennock returned to private life and private law practice.

Comment: Ms. Hennock seemed like and intelligent person, passionate about her ideas, yet the history says there was much discussion on her plan to limit the availability of commercial interests to use the airways, in the context of limiting licenses, a direct impact on money making. I’m not sure I’d have been surprised at that outcome. May not have liked it, but not surprised.

Summary: The Fairness Doctrine was a response to a limited amount of mass communications “channels.” Not a bad idea at the core, and considering the technical limitations of the electronic media at the time. As far as the concern about “the message,” it wasn’t about how the Government would manage to be fair using Government controlled broadcast outlets, it was about telling commercial business how to do business. The “fear” of evil messages only that Representative Hinchey (D-NY) was discussing on Laura Ingraham’s radio show is unfounded when he implies the radio media is like that of the fascist control of the German government in the ramp up to WWII, because our media is not a government entity. His comparison is truly apples to railroad tracks and is merely done to invoke more fear of something that isn’t the case. Certainly we’ve advanced technologically and there are, in fact, many, many educational channels that provide material for distance learning and the busy, two or single professional families who are burning the candle at both ends.

When you come back (more logically, when I post more): More history of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine of 1949 and “Equal Time.”

Cross posted at:
The Wide Awakes