Fairness Doctrine

[jrenz]

I've heard a bit about how the Democrats in congress are trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, headed by Kucinich, but I haven't seen really any reports on it, other than a few blogs here or there.

Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved. It was struck down by congress under Reagan for being a violation of free speech, which is exactly what it is, but now they are trying to bring it back.

I can't see how this could be seen as anything but a blatant violation of our rights... and I am surprised that this hasn't been talked about at all.

 

[daveshel]

It's ancient history now.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It's ancient history now.

A few Democrats including Kucinich and Pelosi are pushing very hard to bring it back.

 

[dphantom]

It appears to be a backhanded way of forcing conservative talk radio to include leftist viewpoints. Many talk shows do have liberals and others on. But the majority of air time is dedicated to conservative views. It appears Pelosi and a few others object to that . I suspect that since liberal talk radio always fails, Pelosi et al are trying to force their way in.

 

[Genx87]

I have heard many talk show radio hosts talking about it because quite frankly it is nothing more than an underhanded attempt at limiting free speech. It requires any medium to have opposing view points. Well, the obvious loser on this is right winged talk radio which has become huge, where as left winged radio has never worked. So this will require radio stations who cater to right winged people saddle themselves with the costs of hosting radio shows nobody listens to, and thus nobody pays advertising dollars for and big surprise the station tanks.

It is a terrible piece of legislation and no surprise a socialist like Kuchinich would introduce something like this. If you cant beat them fairly, use the heavy hand of govt to shut them up.

 

[ayabe]

It's crap honestly and was a justification used when trying to destroy PBS.

There's a difference between presenting both sides of the story and forcing a network to air propaganda for the sake of 'balance'

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz
I've heard a bit about how the Democrats in congress are trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, headed by Kucinich, but I haven't seen really any reports on it, other than a few blogs here or there.

Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved. It was struck down by congress under Reagan for being a violation of free speech, which is exactly what it is, but now they are trying to bring it back.

I can't see how this could be seen as anything but a blatant violation of our rights... and I am surprised that this hasn't been talked about at all.

To give 'the other side', this is the expected level of inaccuracy from our right-wing posters.

It was never 'stuck down by congress', rather, Reagan and his FCC commission struck it down; congress voted to put it back in, and Reagan vetoed it.

Since then, the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically. I'd like to see it brought back.

Perhaps if the fairness doctrine were in place, jrenz woiuld have had a response to the right-wing propaganda and known the congress voted to restore, not ban, the doctrine.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jrenz
I've heard a bit about how the Democrats in congress are trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, headed by Kucinich, but I haven't seen really any reports on it, other than a few blogs here or there.

Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved. It was struck down by congress under Reagan for being a violation of free speech, which is exactly what it is, but now they are trying to bring it back.

I can't see how this could be seen as anything but a blatant violation of our rights... and I am surprised that this hasn't been talked about at all.

To give 'the other side', this is the expected level of inaccuracy from our right-wing posters.

It was never 'stuck down by congress', rather, Reagan and his FCC commission struck it down; congress voted to put it back in, and Reagan vetoed it.

Since then, the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically. I'd like to see it brought back.

Perhaps if the fairness doctrine were in place, jrenz woiuld have had a response to the right-wing propaganda and known the congress voted to restore, not ban, the doctrine.

How can you not see that is a blatant violation of free speech? It's putting conditions on what people can say on-air.

Your opinion that quality has declined dramatically is just that, your opinion.

There is no reason why liberal radio shows don't exist other than the fact that nobody wants to listen to them. Conservative radio shows are successful because it's what people want to listen to. You're condoning a law forcing these broadcasters to change what they say now to be "fair"?

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig there was a response to the ?right-wing propaganda? and it failed miserably.
$100 million sunk in to Air America and all the liberals got was crappy ratings and a lot of jokes at their expense.

If the public demanded a response to right-wing radio it would be there, but the public doesn?t really care.

 

[Craig234]

It's just my opinion that the Beatles are better songwriters than The Knack, that a filet mignon is better than candy corn, and that Yosemite is prettier than a New Jersey landfill - that doesn't make it not true. It's not an argument against something to say 'that's just your opinion'.

In fact, it's more than 'opinion' to note that the process of 'both sides' getting to air their view provides some balance. What we see today is a reflection of the childish mentality spewed by the right. When the country had a more mature democracy under the liberals, people valued the idea of hearing different sides to issues, and saw the benefit to preventing the majority from dominating the discussion - they wanted to hear other views.

What we see today are basically grown children who are treated as such by the manipulators, unfit as citizens of a democracy, who don't want to 'eat their vegetables', i.e., hear the truth when it conflicts with their candy, i.e., their comfy little Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

These children are usually not following any principle but that of pursuing power, happy to use the fairness doctrine when it suits their needs and deny it when it doesn't, though a few are more consistent. They SHOULD be looking for the other side to be well-informed, but as when the children rule, they see no need. They're nothing but little worker ants for the political manipulators, blissfully ignorant.

As long as they are given some group to focus their hate on by their manipulators, like liberals or terrorists, they're willing to accept the destruction of their country's economy and let the concentration of wealth skyrocket, hurting them.

And right on schedule, they're turning on their old hero GWB they fought so hard to get elected, and when his policies predictably were disastrous, he's not a 'real' conservative and they're ready to vote for the next republican who will be a 'real' one - but golly gee, he'll do the same things, and they'll say 'at least it's not the democrats, that'd be really bad'.

Our democracy is helthier when these ignorant, anti-American values citizens hear 'the other side' to break through their sugar coma of propaganda on a regular basis.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig there was a response to the ?right-wing propaganda? and it failed miserably.
$100 million sunk in to Air America and all the liberals got was crappy ratings and a lot of jokes at their expense.

If the public demanded a response to right-wing radio it would be there, but the public doesn?t really care.

As opposed to the more than $1 billion lost by Fox News in their first five years of business.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: jrenz

How can you not see that is a blatant violation of free speech? It's putting conditions on what people can say on-air.

Your opinion that quality has declined dramatically is just that, your opinion.

There is no reason why liberal radio shows don't exist other than the fact that nobody wants to listen to them. Conservative radio shows are successful because it's what people want to listen to. You're condoning a law forcing these broadcasters to change what they say now to be "fair"?

There are already restrictions if they are using public airwaves. There is not unrestricted free speech there unlike cable tv or satellite radio.

Not that I would necessarily support such a thing..

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's just my opinion that the Beatles are better songwriters than The Knack, that a filet mignon is better than candy corn, and that Yosemite is prettier than a New Jersey landfill - that doesn't make it not true. It's not an argument against something to say 'that's just your opinion'.

Christianity is better than Islam. Republicans are better than Democrats. Where do you want to go with your argument?

In fact, it's more than 'opinion' to note that the process of 'both sides' getting to air their view provides some balance.

So you're limiting it to two sides? Why shouldn't we force broadcasters to devote equal time to every viewpoint? Why can't we have 13 different opinions being broadcast on a radio show at the same time?

What we see today is a reflection of the childish mentality spewed by the right. When the country had a more mature democracy under the liberals, people valued the idea of hearing different sides to issues, and saw the benefit to preventing the majority from dominating the discussion - they wanted to hear other views.

Your self-righteous mentality is nice... but why do you think forcing conservative talk-radio shows to include equal time for liberals will work? If it's anything like listening to you belittle the conservative majority of this nation, they will go out of business faster than Air America.

What we see today are basically grown children who are treated as such by the manipulators, unfit as citizens of a democracy, who don't want to 'eat their vegetables', i.e., hear the truth when it conflicts with their candy, i.e., their comfy little Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

Again, your self-righteous, childish mentality is indicative of the reason why nobody wants to listen to you, and why a law like this is a blatant restriction on free speech.

These children are usually not following any principle but that of pursuing power, happy to use the fairness doctrine when it suits their needs and deny it when it doesn't,

I take it you are talking about the liberals at this point, as that describes exactly what's going on.

though a few are more consistent. They SHOULD be looking for the other side to be well-informed, but as when the children rule, they see no need. They're nothing but little worker ants for the political manipulators, blissfully ignorant.

Gee, like dismissing the conservative viewpoint as propaganda while promoting yours as the absolute truth?

As long as they are given some group to focus their hate on by their manipulators, like liberals or terrorists, they're willing to accept the destruction of their country's economy and let the concentration of wealth skyrocket, hurting them.

Maybe you should stop focusing your hate on the conservative talk radio hosts, while accepting the erosion of our civil rights. (Weren't you supposed to be against that, or only when it suits your needs?)

And right on schedule, they're turning on their old hero GWB they fought so hard to get elected, and when his policies predictably were disastrous, he's not a 'real' conservative and they're ready to vote for the next republican who will be a 'real' one - but golly gee, he'll do the same things, and they'll say 'at least it's not the democrats, that'd be really bad'.

Way to stay on topic.

Looks to me like you need to take a bit of your own medicine.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's just my opinion that the Beatles are better songwriters than The Knack, that a filet mignon is better than candy corn, and that Yosemite is prettier than a New Jersey landfill - that doesn't make it not true. It's not an argument against something to say 'that's just your opinion'.

In fact, it's more than 'opinion' to note that the process of 'both sides' getting to air their view provides some balance. What we see today is a reflection of the childish mentality spewed by the right. When the country had a more mature democracy under the liberals, people valued the idea of hearing different sides to issues, and saw the benefit to preventing the majority from dominating the discussion - they wanted to hear other views.

What we see today are basically grown children who are treated as such by the manipulators, unfit as citizens of a democracy, who don't want to 'eat their vegetables', i.e., hear the truth when it conflicts with their candy, i.e., their comfy little Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

These children are usually not following any principle but that of pursuing power, happy to use the fairness doctrine when it suits their needs and deny it when it doesn't, though a few are more consistent. They SHOULD be looking for the other side to be well-informed, but as when the children rule, they see no need. They're nothing but little worker ants for the political manipulators, blissfully ignorant.

As long as they are given some group to focus their hate on by their manipulators, like liberals or terrorists, they're willing to accept the destruction of their country's economy and let the concentration of wealth skyrocket, hurting them.

And right on schedule, they're turning on their old hero GWB they fought so hard to get elected, and when his policies predictably were disastrous, he's not a 'real' conservative and they're ready to vote for the next republican who will be a 'real' one - but golly gee, he'll do the same things, and they'll say 'at least it's not the democrats, that'd be really bad'.

Our democracy is helthier when these ignorant, anti-American values citizens hear 'the other side' to break through their sugar coma of propaganda on a regular basis.

But don't you think all of what you say is up to the American people to decide what they want to listen to? Air America failed. It's precursors failed. Why should a failed viewpoint be forced on those who do not want to listen? Is there no place liberals cannot get there message across? Or can it be that their message is irrelevant?

Perhaps you think peple are not well enough eductaed to make their own choice, so yu have to impose a choice on them. I always thoughts liberals were pro choice. We can make up our own minds, its our own bodies, etc... But maybe that is only if they agree with you. Is that what you are saying, the American people re not smart enough to make their own choices, they have to be told?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Does anyone know the particulars of this Doctrine?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: daveshel
It's ancient history now.

A few Democrats including Kucinich and Pelosi are pushing very hard to bring it back.

Doesn't matter - the majority know that this kind of legislation won't pass. Republicans and their ilk are spinning this as an actual threat, knowing that it isn't.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Does anyone know the particulars of this Doctrine?

It's hard to find much of the actual verbiage of the doctrine, but the jist of it is that it "requires broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner."

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jrenz
I've heard a bit about how the Democrats in congress are trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, headed by Kucinich, but I haven't seen really any reports on it, other than a few blogs here or there.

Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved. It was struck down by congress under Reagan for being a violation of free speech, which is exactly what it is, but now they are trying to bring it back.

I can't see how this could be seen as anything but a blatant violation of our rights... and I am surprised that this hasn't been talked about at all.

To give 'the other side', this is the expected level of inaccuracy from our right-wing posters.

It was never 'stuck down by congress', rather, Reagan and his FCC commission struck it down; congress voted to put it back in, and Reagan vetoed it.

Since then, the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically. I'd like to see it brought back.

Perhaps if the fairness doctrine were in place, jrenz woiuld have had a response to the right-wing propaganda and known the congress voted to restore, not ban, the doctrine.

Dont stations pay for the bands they use?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jrenz
I've heard a bit about how the Democrats in congress are trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, headed by Kucinich, but I haven't seen really any reports on it, other than a few blogs here or there.

Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved. It was struck down by congress under Reagan for being a violation of free speech, which is exactly what it is, but now they are trying to bring it back.

I can't see how this could be seen as anything but a blatant violation of our rights... and I am surprised that this hasn't been talked about at all.

To give 'the other side', this is the expected level of inaccuracy from our right-wing posters.

It was never 'stuck down by congress', rather, Reagan and his FCC commission struck it down; congress voted to put it back in, and Reagan vetoed it.

Since then, the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically. I'd like to see it brought back.

Perhaps if the fairness doctrine were in place, jrenz woiuld have had a response to the right-wing propaganda and known the congress voted to restore, not ban, the doctrine.

Dont stations pay for the bands they use?

Yes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jrenz
Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved.

On the one side we have terrestial radio like Rush, and other the other we have "scream & yell" shows like Hannity & Combs (I admit it seems that thy'e toned it down a bit). Rush is clearly one-sided, whereas H&C IMO seems to already conform to this so-called Fairness Doctine"

So, are all radio and TV shows to be the H&C format so as to conform? How crappy, those shouting type shows turn so many people off and rarely provide for any thoughtful analysis.

Or, must we have one hour of conservative, followed by one of liberal? Rush is about 3 hrs on the local radio (and is absolutely full of advertising), must the radio station put on 3 more hours of (unpopular) liberal radio? Is that gonna work?

What about Chris Matthews and keith Obermann?

Who gets to judge whats conservative v. liberal? Who gets to decide if the time or viewpoint have been apportioned equally? Equal time to Dems & Repubs, what about the libertarian Party, the Communist Party etc? Is everybody to get "equal time"?

What if there is a debate about "marriage"? OK, we've got the traditional and the gay viewpoint. What about bigamist etc? Who gets to rule on whch "oposing" opinions are valid enough to be considered granted equal treatment?

This seems too farfetched, too PC, too unworkable & unenforceable.

While the devil is in the details, IMO this is ripe for SCOTUS.
-------------------------------------

I thought the old rule just gave equal time to candidates, not "opinions"?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jrenz
Basically, if you don't know, the Fairness Doctrine forces broadcasters to allow equal opinions on their shows, when political content is involved.

On the one side we have terrestial radio like Rush, and other the other we have "scream & yell" shows like Hannity & Combs (I admit it seems that thy'e toned it down a bit). Rush is clearly one-sided, whereas H&C IMO seems to already conform to this so-called Fairness Doctine"

So, are all radio and TV shows to be the H&C format so as to conform? How crappy, those shouting type shows turn so many people off and rarely provide for any thoughtful analysis.

Or, must we have one hour of conservative, followed by one of liberal? Rush is about 3 hrs on the local radio (and is absolutely full of advertising), must the radio station put on 3 more hours of (unpopular) liberal radio? Is that gonna work?

What about Chris Matthews and keith Obermann?

Who gets to judge whats conservative v. liberal? Who gets to decide if the time or viewpoint have been apportioned equally? Equal time to Dems & Repubs, what about the libertarian Party, the Communist Party etc? Is everybody to get "equal time"?

What if there is a debate about "marriage"? OK, we've got the traditional and the gay viewpoint. What about bigamist etc? Who gets to rule on whch "oposing" opinions are valid enough to be considered granted equal treatment?

This seems too farfetched, too PC, too unworkable & unenforceable.

While the devil is in the details, IMO this is ripe for SCOTUS.
-------------------------------------

I thought the old rule just gave equal time to candidates, not "opinions"?

Fern

Fine speculation, if not for the history that the fairness doctrine was in place, working fine, from the time television began until Reagan - and the SCOTUS never banned it.

Instead, it recognized the need for diverse views in a democracy. What we have today is terribly inaccurate media content as a result of the lack of balance needed.

It works both ways - there are some valid points for the right to make in response to some left-wingers, too.

The people who benefit are the citizens who get some corrections and more info.

As to 'two sides' instead of 13, you do have to be practical, and having opposition to one side fills in a lot of the gap.

Ultimately, it's up to the FCC to enforce, when the FCC is actually doing its role as public watchdog. Of course, GWB has appointed terrible commissioners now.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Fine speculation, if not for the history that the fairness doctrine was in place, working fine, from the time television began until Reagan - and the SCOTUS never banned it.

Instead, it recognized the need for diverse views in a democracy.

Way back then there were 3 channels (ABC, NBC, CBS), most of could get only 1 or 2.

With cable & satelite, if you don't like O'Reilly, grab the remote and switch over Oberman etc.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Since then, the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically. I'd like to see it brought back.

Perhaps if the fairness doctrine were in place, jrenz woiuld have had a response to the right-wing propaganda and known the congress voted to restore, not ban, the doctrine.

Why? Why are the radio waves treated different from TV or print?

Why?

So basically you want in reinstated to suppress speech you do not like. Do you have some jack-boots in your closet?

Suppression of speech is wrong, especially when its coerced.

Look, anyone is free to put what they want on the radio. Its a business. If you cannot get people to listen to your ideas then its your damned fault. Air America failed because it was nothing but hate spewing dogma that parodied, rather than created, other people's content.

Its a slipperly slope to want someone's speech suppressed. Do you want to risk yourself being silenced?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234
Since then, the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically. I'd like to see it brought back.

Perhaps if the fairness doctrine were in place, jrenz woiuld have had a response to the right-wing propaganda and known the congress voted to restore, not ban, the doctrine.

...you want in reinstated to suppress speech you do not like. Do you have some jack-boots in your closet?

Suppression of speech is wrong, especially when its coerced...

Its a slipperly slope to want someone's speech suppressed. Do you want to risk yourself being silenced?

Your whole post is based on supression of speech, and the fairness doctrine does not suppress any speech.

Rather, it recognizes that any one view should not dominate.

One of the better arguments against it is made by Fern, but it's not enough of an argument that I wouldn't prefer the return of the doctrine, at least until it's voted out democratically, rather than by the heavy hand and corruption of the Reagan administration acting unilaterally and against the will of congress and opinion polls.

 

[jrenz]

the fairness doctrine does not suppress any speech.

"You can't say that unless you do this..."

I don't see how that is anything but a restriction of my freedom of speech.