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on the part of some of their stations and, based on the ensuing discussions, the demand to air the program was rescinded.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

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

H/T: Military.Com News

Project Excelsior. 102,800 feet. Basically freefalling from space. You have a pressure suit on. You ride up in an open gondola. You begin the experiment with only 6 parachute jumps in your logbook. You have been raised to believe no one wants to get out of a “perfectly good airplane.” “Passing a baton” between two freefallers is still a skill to master in the sport (stability required). Olav Zipser and company haven’t been born yet, let alone developing head down freeflying. Who’d want to jump a “square” parachute? Space: Back then it really was a final frontier. One the way “back,” you lose your glove and your hand begins to 1) freeze and 2) swell from the pressure differential.

Col Kittinger still holds the record for altitude for a freefall set Aug 16th, 1960.

Take a few moments to read about Col Joseph Kittinger. Not only did he do this project, he also was involved in testing observations of space from balloons, flew 483 combat missions in Vietnam in A-26s Invaders and F-4 Phantoms, was shot down over North Vietnam and spent 11 months as a POW. Quite a ride, I’d say. Oh, and I guess he still ribs Chuck Yeager about beating him to being the first man to go supersonic….

From the Submarine Force Museum NAUTILUS history page:

On the morning of January 17, 1955, at 11 am EST, NAUTILUS’ first Commanding Officer, Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson, USN, ordered all lines cast off and signaled the memorable and historic message, “Underway On Nuclear Power.” Over the next several years, NAUTILUS shattered all submerged speed and distance records.

She is now resting as at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, CT. Was a “Class Ship,” set a lot of records and steamed over 513K miles during her service….

I can’t believe I scooped Chap and Bubblehead on this submarine force history story….

So, here we are, 53 years later and it didn’t happen…Thank God.

So, don’t worry, be happy, until we find out “Who’s Next?”…

If I’m not there, the PVR is running…

Aviation buff? Curious about what air combat maneuvering (ACM) has been like over the ages? Do you love tactics, espcially ones conducted at high speed and in three dimensions? Do you get “speed is life” or want to?

So, at 10PM each Friday night, you should be tuned to the “History Channel for “Dogfights.”

Using computer gaming simulations software, detailed graphical representations and interviews with some of the actual “players” in many historical air battles, it will give you a dose of detail to round out your comprehension of the “process” of dogfighting….

For the Naval Historians out there, the episode aired 12/22/06, titled “Death of the Japanese Navy” was a well done detailed description of the Battle Off Samar in Oct, 1944. While the show is about air combat, they used the same techniques to tell the story of the clash between Adm Kurita’s Central Force and Taffy 3 in the early hours of 10/25/1944 off of Leyte Gulf. Featured for much of the commentary was James Hornfisher, author of “Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors”. The valiant aviators, who, in many cases with no more ordnance, continued to make passes at the overwhleming force is intermingled with the surface combat between destroyer escorts, destroyers (on the US side) and the battle force lead by IJN Yamato, other battleships, cruisers and destroyers of the Japanese fleet.

So…see about the Flying Tigers, aerial combat between “The Last Gunfighters” F-8 Crusaders and MiGs over Hanoi, Spads (not A-1s!) over the trenches, or the trials of the “Cactus Air Force.”

Good ideas come and they go and other ideas seem to just keep recycling themselves.

From Popular Mechanics comes this “Tech Notes” on “Project ISIS.”

“Project ISIS” has the ring of a James Bond movie, but it actually comes from an acronym (albeit a clumsy one) for a new curved radar array being developed by Raytheon and DARPA, the Pentagon’s research arm. The Integrated Sensor Is Structure concept calls for such arrays running along the wings, tail and underbelly of military or commercial aircraft. Eventually, it could replace the flat-panel radar antennas typically found in a plane’s nose, providing improved surveillance capabilities and better 360-degree threat detection. ISIS technology is set to debut in 2009 as part of a colossal unmanned airship parked at more than 65,000 ft. over combat zones.

I wonder what the staff at DARPA has been smoking on their spare time…

Frank Luke with his Spad XIII (Credit: Wikipedia)

Hmmmm….I began reading a little about flight history when I was but a young guy. Tales of the top aces of WWI were pretty exciting, but I do recall the daring do of a man named Frank Luke. He liked balloons, but not to fly them, to “bust” them. His exceptional skills at downing enemy observation balloons earned this young man from Phoenix, AZ the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Gary Powers (Credit: Wikipedia)

I also recall a story about a man named Gary Powers about a day in May 1960. The 1st, to be exact…

SA-2 Guideline/ missile on Transporter (Credit: Wikipedia)

It seems we thought flying “high” over enemy territory made us invulnerable, yet, a missile named by NATO the “SA-2 Guideline,” fielded in 1957 for the purposes of engaging our B-52 Stratofortresses, had an operational capability between the altitudes between 1500 and 82K ft. Gary Powers found out the hard way, and I believe our intelligence agencies had a lot of egg on their faces in the aftermath of the Powers shoot down. Call it an intelligence failure, for that’s what it was.

Oh, and yes, the SA-2 Guideline is still in service with countries around the world. It was used very effectively by the North Vietnamese to do what it was designed for: Shoot our B-52’s out of the sky, much to the dismay of my fellow Air Force vets.

Some basic issues, that even a Black Shoe like me can understand: If you have an active radar system to find things, sensors on the other end of the search can find the radar. back in the Vietnam War days, we had developed and deployed missiles that could be told to find a signal and home in on it, then, upon arrival at the source of the signal, to detonate (and thereby destroy the radar). Those are called “anti-radiation missiles.” The technology has generally been used to go from an air platform to a surface (slow/not moving) target. In the case of an airborne platforms making the emissions, if the target is not moving very fast, it doesn’t take a whole lot of calculations to get a weapon to the target…

So…my point? All you need is a dedicated pilot in an aircraft that can get to 65K ft, or a Surface to Air Missile with the same altitude capability to sort of ruin our day. Of course, of you have Klingon type cloaking systems in development to pair up with ISIS, I may have to change my tune on the topic…

Credit: Ace Pilots

I read about this in this in “Parachutist” this month, and AW1 Tim, a regular at Neptunus Lex send a link to the video for the a Batman like contraption using small Jet Cat turbines a strap on your back…

I suggest Lex retire and form a squadron for border surveillance. I can handle the XO/Training Officer, Tim the electronics (digital cams to transmit the images back to Border Patrol). Between Steel Jaw Scribe and Skippy-san, there’s plenty of AEW experience for OPS and maintenance…

Who’s in?

And, if Lex isn’t interesting working as a contractor, there’s always air shows to be done….

Update 12/24/2006: RTO Trainer wants to be the Commo, and I should have shown a designator of VAW(L) One. That fits the nomenclature “mold” for the Navy better.

So, there I was, flat on my back at 20,000 feet…no kiddin’…oops…wrong story and me without the obligatory huge watch (to compensate, ya know), but…it’s open season on trackbacks, so link ’em up!

Last week, I left me “on station” at the gunfire support range at San Celmente, Island, by way of discussion the continualy noise that surrounds you while abaord a ship.

So as it was training, within minutes of checking in on the radio net after maneuvering into the assigned gunnery “box,” of course the observer ahsore had targets for us…”Fire Mission! Troops in the Open! Grid: ….” and so the formatted message went, telling us what, where and some other important details. The plotters surrounding me went to work locating the spot he was adressing, marking our position on the chart and “ded reckoning” (simple time/speed/distance calculation) to show our predicted path of the ship. Once we had the target location plotted, we’d measure the azimuth to the target from the ship’s track and compare that to where the gunfire control system (GFCS) had figured (with its own computer) where the target was. We had to be within a degree of difference, or we’d have to replot and check, which burned valuable time ashore and specifically in the target’s area.

On top of the comparison to the GFCS plot, we also checked with the Ship’s Navigator to make sure his plot tracked with ours. It’s all about accuracy and speed within that. The Gunnery Officer would order the guns loaded and I would announce “plot set!’ if all the navigation data (three separate plots) were within the allowed tolerances. Our readiness would be reported to the spotter, who would give us final clearance to shoot. Usually he would have us fire a single round to see where it landed, then he would pass directions to “adjust the spot, by his best reckoing, to make the next round land on target. Back then the “Mk 1 Mod 0” eyeball and the operator’s calibration were the means of doing this. Today we have fancy laser stuff to tell the observer the distances, accurate to very small distances.

So…when the radio told us to shoot, it was my responsibility to send a standard order to the Gunnery Officer, who would relay it to the gun crew and the gun control console (GCC) operator, who would step on a foot pedal to fire the gun.

In this sequence, I would come to learn the timing from the moment I gave the order to shoot to the time the round was on it’s way. The thumping of the electrohydraulic ammo hoists and the operation of the loader tray and ram, followed by the slamming shut of the large steel breech block became familiar to me, so when we got to exercises requiring rounds to arrive on a target at a specific time, I was able to time my order so the computed time of flight for the rounds was essentially what was measured from the actual shot leaving the barrel. The “latency” was all

As I meantioned last week, the operation of the guns, whether they be the forward or after gun mount, was detectable where I stood in CIC, in the darkened space with dungaree clad sailors and khaki clad chief petty officers and officers, while I learned a deadly trade.

Maybe more specifics next week…but…that’s the short form and worthy of not interfering too much with essential afternoon shopping runs for those of us late present determiners….

From Celstron, the “Sky Scout.”

It uses GPS to tell you (computerized voice) what stars/constellations to look for as you point it around. You can also access a menu and select a celestial object/planet and it will giude you to looking at it in the “Locate” mode.

15.2 oz, without batteries….and, I’d certainly be careful about using it in the presense of your enemies, lest they figure out where you are while it tells you what you’re looking at….

Hey, at $399 (plus shipping and applicable sales tax and the cost of some batteries), you can afford to skip your Junior Year NROTC navigation course…