Fairness Doctrine

[RacismIsBad]

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.

Your answer doesn't even apply to what I wrote, it appears to be a stock "socialism is bad" reply. How am I creating socialism? Where is the government ownership?

 

[HollandScotts]

I actually agree with Racism. Monopolies are bad for business. Everyone has the right to make it big and have a fair share of their industry, but when they get too big, stifle competition, and make it so ordinary folk can't make it big and squeeze their way in, they need to be broken up.

We need another Trustbuster.

 

[chaim]

I think very few people understand the basis of the Fairness Doctrine. It only applied to broadcast TV and radio for a reason. These forms of communication use a public resource that belongs to all of us, the radio spectrum. They are licensed by the government to use part of that spectrum, under the conditions specified by the FCC (such as no foul language). The spectrum belongs to all Americans, and the idea behind the fairness doctrine is that it should represent at least most Americans and not just a single viewpoint. In any case the FCC wasn't required to apply it, only when there was an issue, such as all the broadcasters in a certain are being exclusively conservative or liberal (or any other decisive classification). It doesn't apply to cable TV or Newspapers because they don't use a public resource and their aren't a limited number of slots.

I am not saying I am for or against it. But the reason it mainly targets radio and to a lesser degree TV is not because it is out to get conservatives.

 

[RacismIsBad]

And I will say that I am free market socialist. There are some industries where I think the government should have complete control of it, it shouldn't be a product. At the same time, there are other industries where I think the government should not touch it in any way, shape or form. So with regard to the fairness doctrine, I don't think they should have the fairness doctrine, what they need is to reinstitute limits on how much media a company can own. If a company owns all the radio, TV stations, and newspapers in my area, I've lost the free market.

And I don't even care about politics, I've seen how too much media ownership has ruined countless markets from Saturday morning cartoons to music.

 

[mont974x4]

Just because one company owns a lot of outlets doesn't mean they control what is said.

Newspapers are going to end because of the internet, and popular radio and TV shows.


I am not in favor of limiting someones success. If people want a piece of the pie they need to work hard for it and give their customers what they want or need.


I am in favor of living with the smallest government necessary for the nation to survive.

 

[Bootstrap]

I am not saying I am for or against it. But the reason it mainly targets radio and to a lesser degree TV is not because it is out to get conservatives.

Let me join you in not yet knowing if I'm for it or against it.

For me, it's usually best to think about First Amendment issues as though you were on the outside.

So if you are a conservative, suppose there were no Fox network, liberals were dominating the media, and you never heard your point of view represented - yet the airwaves were licensed by your government to these stations, and they weren't granting airwaves to any conservative. Would that be OK?

If you're a liberal, reverse that.

If you're like many of us, and want to hear various points of view, it's easy to visualize.

Jonathan

 

[mont974x4]

But we aren't in a situation where only one viewed is allowed. We're in a situation where we have multiple liberal outlets, a few conservative ones, and a whole bunch of independent. Everyone does have a voice.

The fairness doctrine, at best would be nothing but a feel good measure responding to a false dilemma. At worst, it limits free enterprise, punishes success and leads us down a dangerous road.


Knowing how our government works, I'd place money on the latter.

 

[flicka]

You know whats so scary? People seem to ONLY want listen to and believe one side or the other. When all you hear about "the opposition" is negative, and evil, and gloom and doom you should probably be telling yourself you aren't getting the whole picture and go do some research of your own . If you currently can't find anything good at all about "the opposition", and in fact believe your very way of life is threatened by their taking office, you are a victim of propaganda. If "the opposition" was "the opposition" even before you knew anything about them (because they are republican or democrat or whatever lable you want to slap on them) then you are a straight up idiot.

 

[mont974x4]

You can't force people to be open minded or to become educated voters. Even the fairness doctrine can't fix that.

I believe Obama to be a danger to my way of life because of his policies, not because of sound bites.

 

[Bootstrap]

You know whats so scary? People seem to ONLY want listen to and believe one side or the other. When all you hear about "the opposition" is negative, and evil, and gloom and doom you should probably be telling yourself you aren't getting the whole picture and go do some research of your own . If you currently can't find anything good at all about "the opposition", and in fact believe your very way of life is threatened by their taking office, you are a victim of propaganda. If "the opposition" was "the opposition" even before you knew anything about them (because they are republican or democrat or whatever lable you want to slap on them) then you are a straight up idiot.

Well, yeah. I don't know how to fix that, but speaking openly about the problem is helpful.

I especially hate it when we're no longer one in Jesus, it's more important to share the same political labels. And when loving each other and being respectful isn't seen as a good thing ....

Jonathan

 

[RacismIsBad]

I believe Obama to be a danger to my way of life because of his policies, not because of sound bites.

Your use of hyperbole kills any chance of others considering your views.

 

[mont974x4]

The statement I was responding to was about people going off of limited information and propaganda. My response was showing that not everyone is like that. I don't know why people would have a problem with that, and honestly, I don't really care if they do.

My point is that the fairness doctrine is not needed. If people want to gather information from various sources, it can be done very easily.

 

[Bootstrap]

The statement I was responding to was about people going off of limited information and propaganda. My response was showing that not everyone is like that. I don't know why people would have a problem with that, and honestly, I don't really care if they do.

My point is that the fairness doctrine is not needed. If people want to gather information from various sources, it can be done very easily.

This is much more reasonable to say today than in the days when we had 3 TV channels and a few radio stations. I'm not completely comfortable with this, though, there are still people who only get their information through one mode. Choice is good on the public square - and the channels are owned by government.

Jonathan

 

[chaz345]

This is true - but it looks like the fairness doctrine originated when someone was criticized on radio, and asked for the right to respond to that criticism on air.

That much seems fair, no? Especially when people who listen to that radio station may not use other news outlets.

Still feeling my way on this!

Jonathan

On this point it should be considered that many of the conservative talk show hosts have standing open invitations to those they criticize to come on the air and respond.

Said invitations are very rarely accepted.

 

[invisible trousers]

This is nothing more than conservatives crying persecution.

Clinton didn't implement the fairness doctrine and neither will Obama.

 

[Bootstrap]

On this point it should be considered that many of the conservative talk show hosts have standing open invitations to those they criticize to come on the air and respond.

Said invitations are very rarely accepted.

These invitations usually are not an invitation to come on and speak uninterrupted on a topic of their own choosing. In the early days, at least, Limbaugh used to do this and then grill the person, interrupt them when they spoke, and make fun of them, playing to the audience. I think that turned people off of the idea of coming onto conservative talk show radios.

And I think that people do need some forum where they can control their own agenda and say what they want to.

Incidentally, I thought Bill O'Reilly did a great job on the Obama interviews.

Jonathan

 

[Billnew]

Getting in late on this one.

Bootstrap asked: If someone said something and a perosn wanted time to respond to it, would that be fair?
I believe it would. I also believe most radio shows would welcome it. Save for Rush, because he rarely has on radio interviews, but he does take phone calls so, he could allow time that way.
But is this what the Fariness doctrine stipulates? Or does it mandate that the response is uninterupted and without comment by the original source?

Hannity quite frequently has opposing views on his show, he controls the conversation and many times thats when I tune into the music station because it isn't interesting hearing Hannity ask the same question 10 times, while the person he's interviewing keeps trying to answer in their own way.

Would the fairness doctrine be implemented on say Obama's t.v station?
Of course, Talk radio could easily follow Howard Stern to the new radio, not controled by the FCC.

If the person getting time to reply to remarks made about them, is boring and pathetic in speaking, and brings ratings down, can a host cut him/her off? Because if they were interesting enough they would have their own radio/t.v. show.

 

[Billnew]

This is nothing more than conservatives crying persecution.

Clinton didn't implement the fairness doctrine and neither will Obama.

If true, we have nothing to worry about.

But Clinton didn't have any clear majority to do as he pleased. Clinton lost the Congress in his 2nd half of the first term. He could have probably passed it before then, but I really wonder how dedicated they were to the idea.
Post 2nd term of Clinton, the view of Talk radio was very different. They believe talk radio undercut the Clinton presidency. So now they will want to silence or neuter it.
But we will see, If BHB is elected.

 

[GeorgeKillen]

AFAIC, the fairnes doctrine is an unConstitutional, and unAmerican attack on free speech and political discourse.

I listen to talk radio, get a lot of my news from it. Not much other choice for me, since I live so far out in the boonies that I can't get much of any reception, and my internet and computer is so slow it would be hard to stay informed if this was all I had.

I know some people have a warped view of talk radio. They think it's all nothing but Rush and Hannity, whom I don't listen to. They are republican water-carriers, and I just don't like their style.

But a lot of shows aren't like that. A lot of hosts go after te rght and left equally. And the fairness is already there. Most hosts are happy to take your call if you disagree with them and can be concise with your arguements.

And how come the "fairness doctrine" is only aimed at the one venue that is almost dominated by conservative thought? How about a fairness doctrine for college campuses, or newspapers, or cable news? Venues largely dominated by the left?

Does anyone here really support this doctrine, and if so, why? How is it not cencorship? How is it not an attack on the 1st Amendment?

Just wondering aloud what the take on this is over at PBS and NPR.

 

[Bootstrap]

Just wondering aloud what the take on this is over at PBS and NPR.

Here's a place to look:

NPR shows that mention the fairness doctrine
http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=...sing&aggId=0&prgId=0&topicId=0&how_long_ago=0

Here's one blog entry (which does not represent NPR as a whole, I don't think):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/06/some_conservatives_fear_return.html

Some Conservatives Fear Return of Fairness Doctrine

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! ... OK, maybe not. But a day after a report by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and the Free Press organization said that talk radio features programming that is 91 percent conservative, fears of a return to the days of the Fairness Doctrine are rampant among some on the right.
The Fairness Doctrine, a federal policy that said broadcasters had to allow opposing views equal time on the air, was originally conceived in the '40s. When Congress tried to turn it into law in 1987, President Reagan vetoed it. It was after this veto that talk radio as we now know it was really born.
A spokesman for New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey tells The Washington Times that the Democrat is planning to reintroduce a bill that calls for a return to the doctrine, saying "The American people should have a wide array of news sources available to them." (Hinchey's proposal didn't make it out of committee last time.) In January, presidential candidate and Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich also said it was time to bring back the doctrine.
Libertarian Leanings writes that the failure of Air America shows that liberal talk radio is an oxymoron and that "audience reluctance to listen to the liberal drivel coming out of Air America is being translated to 'little free speech or free choice.' It smacks of desperation."
Bill Blocher, who comes down in the middle in the doctrine debate, concludes at The Ledger.com that liberals should forget about it and "get a life and find their audience where they live" -- on the Internet and Comedy Central.
Writing about the report on the Yahoo! opinion page, Blake Dvorak says that "behind this silliness is a very serious attempt to use the government to censor the airwaves."
Well, there's no Fairness Doctrine for the Internet, but we at the News Blog do like to give opposing views. So we turn to Tom Tomorrow at This Modern World, who notes that he's not holding his breath for the return of the doctrine, "but it's fun to listen to [Sean] Hannity and [Rush] Limbaugh desperately try to explain why 'equal time' = 'censorship.'"

Jonathan