Fairness Doctrine

[ArnautDaniel]

Things like freedom of expression, right?

As we all know "freedom of expression" isn't absolute in any system.

There are things you can't say.

If people want a functioning democracy then the electorate needs to be exposed to the various views on an equal basis.

But apparently we don't want a functioning democracy...we want a state where the "voters" are lead around by the nose by a few media owners.

 

[HollandScotts]

A democracy has an interest in ensuring that things necessary to the survival and functioning of democracy trump other considerations.

Like Constitutional rights? I'm of the opinion tht our Constitutional rights are paramount to the survival of this country.

This is a matter of civic duty and civic responsibility.

No, this is a matter of the government, controlled by liberals, attacking conservative thought and speech.

Your example is not relevant.

It absolutely is.

At first blush, I see no evidence that the fairness doctrine has ever been interpreted this way. Can you supply some?

That's exactly what it would do. For every hour of conservative opinion, it would have to be balanced with an hour of liberal opinion. That would affect a stations ability to get sponsors to fund the talk shows, since sponsors only sponsor shows that have good ratings.

There's been a HUGE consolidation in radio.

Radio is only one of many facets of information. What about the consolidation of liberal thought in the other venues?

In my market, there's only one serious FM news channel - lots of AM, but I never listen to them.

So I wonder if it might make sense in my radio market, for instance.

No, because you could easily put it on AM, or get your information elsewhere.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It's not the government's job to make sure all viewpoints are equally heard. There is free speech in this country. You can say what you want, you can not have the government force people to listen to your opinions, which is what the fairness doctrine is.

Yes, it is the government's job to make sure viewpoints get equal time.

The government passes laws to make sure the democracy functions.

...

Would we ever say it isn't the government's job to provide a place near to where you live where you can vote?

What if the government only provided a single place to vote in the state capital, and not only that a single booth, and furthermore only provided one hour in which the entire state could vote in that booth.

Would we call that a functioning democracy?

No. The government makes sure the institutions are in place to make democracy workable.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Like Constitutional rights? I'm of the opinion tht our Constitutional rights are paramount to the survival of this country.

The fundamental right on which all rights rest is the right to vote.

More importantly it is the right to cast an informed vote.

Once people lose the reasonable ability to be informed and instead are at the mercy of a propaganda machine, then it is tyranny and all your other rights fall as well.

 

[mont974x4]

But apparently we don't want a functioning democracy...we want a state where the "voters" are lead around by the nose by a few media owners.

I find this last line hilarious considering the MSM being all goo goo over Obama and what his supporters are doing and saying.


In reality, there is no shortage of being able to get differing views.


And in this thread we see again a basic difference in thought between liberals and conservatives regarding the role of government in our daily lives. Obama wants to spread the wealth and institute this fairness doctrine all to the detriment of our nation.

Why am I reminded of the book 1984?

 

[mont974x4]

The fundamental right on which all rights rest is the right to vote.

More importantly it is the right to cast an informed vote.

Once people lose the reasonable ability to be informed and instead are at the mercy of a propaganda machine, then it is tyranny and all your other rights fall as well.

Then McCain can count on your vote? Excellent!!

 

[Bootstrap]

Like Constitutional rights? I'm of the opinion tht our Constitutional rights are paramount to the survival of this country.

Me too. And I also think that promoting free expression is important to both of us.

I generally find that it takes me a little time to think clearly about constitutional issues. We agree on at least the above.

No, this is a matter of the government, controlled by liberals, attacking conservative thought and speech.

I'm generally skeptical of the conservative bunker mentality. Sometimes when I listen to talk radio shows I get the feeling that some rich liberal makes phone calls to Congress and instantly people start rounding up conservatives that aren't politically correct ....

Regardless, whether or not this is true, we need to be careful to protect the freedom of expression of people who believe this. But we also need to make sure there is adequate access for those who believe other things.

That's exactly what it would do. For every hour of conservative opinion, it would have to be balanced with an hour of liberal opinion. That would affect a stations ability to get sponsors to fund the talk shows, since sponsors only sponsor shows that have good ratings.

That's not what I'm seeing so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. 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

That's the description I have in mind when I'm thinking of this issue - do you have reason to believe I should treat it as inaccurate?

Radio is only one of many facets of information. What about the consolidation of liberal thought in the other venues?

I also don't think the world consists of liberals and conservatives, there are many ways people think about many different issues. And the government controls access to a limited number of channels.

Do you think it's good that there are so few good conservative views in some other media?

Jonathan

 

[Steve Petersen]

There's an angle being missed here. The government grants licenses to radio and television to operate on certain frequencies. I think there is a requirement to 'serve the public interest' in the granting of these licenses.

Doesn't US the government own the public airwaves and regulate their use already?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I'm generally skeptical of the conservative bunker mentality. Sometimes when I listen to talk radio shows I get the feeling that some rich liberal makes phone calls to Congress and instantly people start rounding up conservatives that aren't politically correct ....

It strikes me more as a strange aversion to even being exposed to something that doesn't fit within their worldview...

...as if any new thing were some sort of deliberate insult.

 

[mont974x4]

There's plenty of radio and TV shows as well as various print media and online sources currently to get a good range of information. Plus, nothing is stopping anyone from starting another one for their specific views.


The freedom of expression and the freedom to choose your media source is just fine...for now.

I don't trust wiki as a general rule.

 

[Sketcher]

As we all know "freedom of expression" isn't absolute in any system.

There are things you can't say.

If people want a functioning democracy then the electorate needs to be exposed to the various views on an equal basis.

Which is why we need Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and right-wing blogs. To tell us what the mainstream media will not.

But apparently we don't want a functioning democracy...we want a state where the "voters" are lead around by the nose by a few media owners.

Last I knew, we were a functioning democracy without the Fairness Doctrine. Also, your argument does not address blogs and independent Internet news services. Those are small and independent operations, and they were targeted by Kucinich's proposal to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. If nothing else, the selective targeting of certain outlets should raise a stink.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Which is why we need Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and right-wing blogs. To tell us what the mainstream media will not.

So you advocate replacing a non-stop propaganda stream you don't like with a non-stop propaganda stream you do like.

Have considered taking an interest in actual facts?

Or are there no such things as "facts" in the modern world?

Last I knew, we were a functioning democracy without the Fairness Doctrine. Also, your argument does not address blogs

My opinion of blogs -

Blogs are like a** h***s everyone's got one.

and independent Internet news services.

The fairness doctrine has editorializing in mind. The news is the news and presumably is factual and not editorial.

Internet news services can be a better way of getting less spinned information.

They can also be worse than the other media if you want to find those.

Those are small and independent operations, and they were targeted by Kucinich's proposal to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. If nothing else, the selective targeting of certain outlets should raise a stink.

The problem right now is that we have a spate of sources that have no interest in reporting facts but only an interest in spinning things to get people to be willing cogs in some machine.

 

[HollandScotts]

Yes, it is the government's job to make sure viewpoints get equal time.

The government passes laws to make sure the democracy functions.

Where in the Constitution does it state it's the government's job to make sure everyone is heard equally? Because that strike's me as facism.

And how do you go from limiting free speech and political discourse, to ensuring the functioning of the country? Do you think it would better suit the country if one could only get liberal opinions?

And your arguement assumes that there is no balance. There is. There are plenty of places to get liberal opinion. To try and dictate that the one venue the liberals don't control must now bow down and offer liberal opinion is childishnes, and facism.

And FYI, we're a Republic, not a democracy.

Would we ever say it isn't the government's job to provide a place near to where you live where you can vote?

What if the government only provided a single place to vote in the state capital, and not only that a single booth, and furthermore only provided one hour in which the entire state could vote in that booth.

Would we call that a functioning democracy?

No. The government makes sure the institutions are in place to make democracy workable.

Now your example is irrelevent. We're not talking about voting, and yes, it is the government's job to ensure people can easily exercise their right to vote.

 

[mont974x4]

We are free to speak, nothing says we are free to force people to hear us.

 

[Sketcher]

So you advocate replacing a non-stop propaganda stream you don't like with a non-stop propaganda stream you do like.

Have considered taking an interest in actual facts?

Or are there no such things as "facts" in the modern world?

Since when does the government have the facts? And who has the monopoly on the facts? People should be able to pick and choose from a variety of sources.

The fairness doctrine has editorializing in mind. The news is the news and presumably is factual and not editorial.

Internet news services can be a better way of getting less spinned information.

They can also be worse than the other media if you want to find those.

So you don't believe in freedom of the press in other words.

The problem right now is that we have a spate of sources that have no interest in reporting facts but only an interest in spinning things to get people to be willing cogs in some machine.

And the government has no right to touch that according to the First Amendment. All this legislation is going to do is try to stamp out dissenting voices who will disagree with the liberal Congress and a liberal President if election day pans out the way most people are predicting. Where's your democracy then?

 

[RacismIsBad]

If we really want fairness, the five media companies that own cable, TV, music, and radio need to be broken up. They are nothing more than an oligopoly that stifles the medium. These companies now want to control the internet, which appears to be the last place where the free market truly exists in media. When you flip on the TV or radio, you are not hearing or watching the free market. That's why you should never expect NBC to do an exposé on GE or ABC exposing unsavory business practices by Disney.

 

[mont974x4]

spoken like a true socialist.

 

[RacismIsBad]

spoken like a true socialist.

How is that socialist? Did I propose government controlling companies? You maintain a healthy market by not allowing companies to keep acquiring other companies. If the company can't survive, it should fail and another one will take its place. Part of the problem with our financial system is that we let too many banks merge. Then the banks get too big and when they are about to fail they hold the country ransom because if they go, we all go. If we limit the size you can grow, you have to become more creative with your business to keep it afloat.

A perfect example would be companies like Electronic Arts. They're buying all sorts of game companies now and now the market is homogenized. Game titles that were previously lauded are no longer considered great because they are now under the behemoth label, that takes out a lot of the innovation. Some people criticize the Madden games because of this. By allowing only one company to release games based on the NFL, you prevent any market competition and as such the game developer doesn't really have to improve the game as the years go on.

But if you'd like, please explain the socialism part, I don't know where I mentioned government ownership of anything. There's a reason why there are laws against monopolies, it is not healthy for a free market as it is NOT a free market.

 

[mont974x4]

The underlying belief of socialism is anti-business and anti-success..like Obama wanting to take money from the hardworking and successful to "spread the wealth". What you are wanting is the same thing, but applied to media outlets.

Success is punished, and limited.


It's all about making people equal without letting them work for it. It is like my son getting an A and everyone else gets a C on an assignment so we take some of his points so everyone gets a C+ and no one has any incentive to do better. My son won't work to get the A and the C students have no reason to work harder.

So you end up with mediocrity at best....as evidence by socialized medicine.

 

[HollandScotts]

The fundamental right on which all rights rest is the right to vote.

More importantly it is the right to cast an informed vote.

Once people lose the reasonable ability to be informed and instead are at the mercy of a propaganda machine, then it is tyranny and all your other rights fall as well.

Do you consider talk radio propaganda? Because I see it as a counter-balance to things the MSM doesn't address. There is a lot of news the MSM doesn't pick up on, or picks up on late.

Take the oil bubble. The MSM went out and talked to supposed experts from Goldman Sachs and company, when they were the ones behind the speculation bubble that drove up oil. They litterly used the MSM as a propaganda platform to try and justify the excessive price of oil.

However, on talk radio, I got the truth, and realized it was mostly speculation. I was on here months ago, when oil was 140, saying it was speculation, when everyone here was all like, "no, it's supply and demand". 4 months later, oil is half the price, the bubble burst, and I would laugh in the face of any fool that tried to tell me it was supply and demand.

The avain flu is another example, I heard about that 2 months before the MSM picked up on it from Coast to Coast AM.

AFAIC, the MSM is the propaganda machine, and talk radio is one of the few places people can go to get the truth, or at least the other side of the story.

We see NBC is in the pocket of the Obama campaign. This might not bother you because you support Obama, but how are they not propagandists?

If people want a functioning democracy then the electorate needs to be exposed to the various views on an equal basis.

Lets be honest here, there are plenty of venues with plenty of viewpoints. What ytou're talking about is having liberal though and opinion have a monopoly over every, single venue, effectively driving conservative thought and opinion out of the public square.

That's the description I have in mind when I'm thinking of this issue - do you have reason to believe I should treat it as inaccurate?

I feel it's inaccurate because that's already what happens. You can find all sorts of views being expressed on even the most conservative of talk shows. If the FD were just about what the wiki says, then it wouldn't be an issue, we wouldn't need it.

Do you think it's good that there are so few good conservative views in some other media?

No, but I don't support having the government dictate thought and how that thought is broadcasted.

There's an angle being missed here. The government grants licenses to radio and television to operate on certain frequencies. I think there is a requirement to 'serve the public interest' in the granting of these licenses.

How is the public intrest served by creating a liberal monopoly over information and public discourse?

So you advocate replacing a non-stop propaganda stream you don't like with a non-stop propaganda stream you do like.

Have considered taking an interest in actual facts?

I'ld ask the same of you.

The fairness doctrine has editorializing in mind. The news is the news and presumably is factual and not editorial.

Even the newscasters have agendas, which are generally served by not reporting certain news items. Which is why talk radio is so important.

The problem right now is that we have a spate of sources that have no interest in reporting facts but only an interest in spinning things to get people to be willing cogs in some machine.

Like the MSM?