Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-07-2011, 04:43 PM   #1
OCGuy
Lifer
 
OCGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 27,140
Default FCC Chairman Plans to Delete "Fairness Doctrine" From Federal Code

It has been obsolete and not in force for a while, but at least now we can get rid of it entirely. Limits on speech are never a good idea, even if you don't agree with the speech.



"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has told Congress he supports striking the so-called 'fairness doctrine' and a couple of its corollaries from the Code of Federal Regulations.

That came in a letter responding to a request from Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R- Ore.), the chairs of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and Communications Subcommittee, that the FCC officially deep-six the doctrine, pointing to President Obama's directive earlier this year to federal agencies to review outdated regs still on the books"

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...deral_Regs.php
__________________
4670k @ 4.2
MSI Gaming GTX770 @ 1246/7500
OCGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 04:46 PM   #2
hal2kilo
Diamond Member
 
hal2kilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 4,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
It has been obsolete and not in force for a while, but at least now we can get rid of it entirely. Limits on speech are never a good idea, even if you don't agree with the speech.



"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has told Congress he supports striking the so-called 'fairness doctrine' and a couple of its corollaries from the Code of Federal Regulations.

That came in a letter responding to a request from Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R- Ore.), the chairs of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and Communications Subcommittee, that the FCC officially deep-six the doctrine, pointing to President Obama's directive earlier this year to federal agencies to review outdated regs still on the books"

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...deral_Regs.php
What fairness doctrine? It was gutted during the Raygun administration. Thus we now have the shit that passes for news these days.
__________________
I'm a liberal because I'm a realist.

Go Mariners!

Love my new Grande Cherokee Eco-Diesel
hal2kilo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 04:57 PM   #3
ElFenix
Super Moderator
Off Topic
 
ElFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 93,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal2kilo View Post
What fairness doctrine? It was gutted during the Raygun administration. Thus we now have the shit that passes for news these days.
the shit that passes for news is having to fill 24 hours of programming. there's simply not that much that goes on in the world to need 24 hours of programming across 3 or 4 networks.
__________________
I killed and ate the Fun Mod with some jellybeans and a little Chianti.

AnandTech Mean Moderator
ElFenix is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 05:31 PM   #4
OCGuy
Lifer
 
OCGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 27,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal2kilo View Post
What fairness doctrine? It was gutted during the Raygun administration. Thus we now have the shit that passes for news these days.
Huh? People have access to more news from more sources than ever before.

If you are a 24/7 cable-bot, that is your problem.
__________________
4670k @ 4.2
MSI Gaming GTX770 @ 1246/7500
OCGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 05:36 PM   #5
wuliheron
Diamond Member
 
wuliheron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElFenix View Post
the shit that passes for news is having to fill 24 hours of programming. there's simply not that much that goes on in the world to need 24 hours of programming across 3 or 4 networks.
There are almost 7 billion people in the world or roughly 5 million people to cover for every minute of the day. If the damned reporters can't find something interesting happening among 5 million people then they aren't doing their jobs.

Fox and Rush calling themselves "news organizations" is like McDonald's advertising themselves as a health food restaurant. They can spout all the bullshit they want as far as I'm concerned, but we need better labeling standards that make it clear they are not to be taken seriously as news organizations.
wuliheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 05:45 PM   #6
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
Huh? People have access to more news from more sources than ever before.

If you are a 24/7 cable-bot, that is your problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad to say, OCGuy is right. For a news junkie like me, I have more news sources than ever, but too many people are opting to only pay attention to false views.
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:09 PM   #7
Fern
Super Moderator
 
Fern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Great Smoky Mountains
Posts: 23,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuliheron View Post
There are almost 7 billion people in the world or roughly 5 million people to cover for every minute of the day. If the damned reporters can't find something interesting happening among 5 million people then they aren't doing their jobs.

Fox and Rush calling themselves "news organizations" is like McDonald's advertising themselves as a health food restaurant. They can spout all the bullshit they want as far as I'm concerned, but we need better labeling standards that make it clear they are not to be taken seriously as news organizations.
Do newspapers have editorial sections?

Do they have guest columnists?

Do they have letters to the editor?

Do they have actual news? Of course they do, but they also have the other things I listed above.

People like yourself need to understand that most cable news channel have some decent (straight up) news shows, but you guys need to stop confusing the editorial stuff (e.g., Hannity, Mathews etc) with news. The problem isn't labeling so much as people too obtuse to realize what's news vs editorial.

And those of us who were around before cable understand why the Fairness Doctrine WAS a good thing. For many years I got exactly 1 fuggin channel. sometimes 2. But it was that way for pretty much all of us who didn't live in the big cities. But now with 100's of channel even for those in rural areas it's simply not needed, at all.

Fern
__________________
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
Fern is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:21 PM   #8
wuliheron
Diamond Member
 
wuliheron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fern View Post
Do newspapers have editorial sections?

Do they have guest columnists?

Do they have letters to the editor?

Do they have actual news? Of course they do, but they also have the other things I listed above.

People like yourself need to understand that most cable news channel have some decent (straight up) news shows, but you guys need to stop confusing the editorial stuff (e.g., Hannity, Mathews etc) with news. The problem isn't labeling so much as people too obtuse to realize what's news vs editorial.

And those of us who were around before cable understand why the Fairness Doctrine WAS a good thing. For many years I got exactly 1 fuggin channel. sometimes 2. But it was that way for pretty much all of us who didn't live in the big cities. But now with 100's of channel even for those in rural areas it's simply not needed, at all.

Fern
Does McDonald's sell salads? Yes, but it doesn't make them a health food restaurant. Standards have to be set somewhere or we'd all be eating sawdust and PCBs.
wuliheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:22 PM   #9
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
 
MovingTarget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,498
Default

Why are they bothering with this? The Fairness Doctrine has been effectively null for some time now. Deleting it from the federal code will have no effect. I support the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but there's no way in hell its coming back. Seems like they just want to dig it up and desecrate the corpse for good measure (and distraction).
__________________
Insert signature here.
MovingTarget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:24 PM   #10
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
 
MovingTarget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fern View Post
Do newspapers have editorial sections?

Do they have guest columnists?

Do they have letters to the editor?

Do they have actual news? Of course they do, but they also have the other things I listed above.

People like yourself need to understand that most cable news channel have some decent (straight up) news shows, but you guys need to stop confusing the editorial stuff (e.g., Hannity, Mathews etc) with news. The problem isn't labeling so much as people too obtuse to realize what's news vs editorial.

And those of us who were around before cable understand why the Fairness Doctrine WAS a good thing. For many years I got exactly 1 fuggin channel. sometimes 2. But it was that way for pretty much all of us who didn't live in the big cities. But now with 100's of channel even for those in rural areas it's simply not needed, at all.

Fern
People don't realize whats news and whats editorial because the line is often fuzzy. There needs to be a higher degree of separation and better delineation between the two. This should be part of a new FCC mandate as it is clearly in the public interest.
__________________
Insert signature here.
MovingTarget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:35 PM   #11
WHAMPOM
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
It has been obsolete and not in force for a while, but at least now we can get rid of it entirely. Limits on speech are never a good idea, even if you don't agree with the speech.



"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has told Congress he supports striking the so-called 'fairness doctrine' and a couple of its corollaries from the Code of Federal Regulations.

That came in a letter responding to a request from Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R- Ore.), the chairs of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and Communications Subcommittee, that the FCC officially deep-six the doctrine, pointing to President Obama's directive earlier this year to federal agencies to review outdated regs still on the books"

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...deral_Regs.php
Encouraging opposing views limits free speech? WOW!!! Tellers of the "BIG Lie" can not be exposed? Alright got you now!
__________________
After thirty years of union busting, deregulation, tax breaks for the rich and etc. nearly duplicating the economic conditions preceeding the Great Depression, you wonder why we had another one? 90% tax on the rich, that made this country great! Then Kennedy dropped it to 70% and it's been down hill ever since. Conservative's worst nightmare come true; a second term Obama Presidency. Rush Limbaugh the American Osama Bin Laden.
WHAMPOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 07:30 PM   #12
matt0611
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAMPOM View Post
Encouraging opposing views limits free speech? WOW!!! Tellers of the "BIG Lie" can not be exposed? Alright got you now!
"encouraging opposing views" ?
How the hell do you even enforce that? Its so damn vague.
Theres plenty of media out there for people to find all the viewpoints they want.

The government shouldn't be involved in this crap at all.
Wipe this garbage from the books, please. By all means.
matt0611 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 09:05 PM   #13
PeshakJang
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAMPOM View Post
Mandating opposing views limits free speech.
Fixed that for you, dumb ass.
__________________
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."

-Thomas Sowell
PeshakJang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 09:38 PM   #14
dmcowen674
No Lifer
 
dmcowen674's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 53,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuliheron View Post
Fox and Rush calling themselves "news organizations" is like McDonald's advertising themselves as a health food restaurant.

They can spout all the bullshit they want as far as I'm concerned, but we need better labeling standards that make it clear they are not to be taken seriously as news organizations.
This was covered by a Supreme Court decision.

Fox and Rush are not News Organizations, they are Entertainment Organizations calling themselves News Organizations and that is OK as it is covered under Free Speech.
__________________
The Gas Industry system is backwards. Instead of getting rewarded for incompetence they should be forced to lower the price thus getting lower profits while they are being incompetent.
Miss me yet? The Second Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
dmcowen674 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 09:58 PM   #15
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt0611 View Post
"encouraging opposing views" ?
How the hell do you even enforce that? Its so damn vague.
Yet it worked well for very many years.


Quote:
Theres plenty of media out there for people to find all the viewpoints they want. ...
That works both ways. Given that there are so many media options out there, special interests should have no problem finding ways to spread their messages. They are not entitled to use a scarce public resource like broadcast airwaves.

That's the crux of the issue. Broadcast spectrum is, in fact, a scarce, shared resource. Rather than taking a free-for-all approach (he with the strongest transmitter wins), society recognizes the public interest is best served by having the government manage these resources.

The government therefore issues licenses to use portions of this public resource. In the case of commercial broadcast spectrum, these licenses are exclusive within a geographic area. In return for giving commercial interests these exclusive licenses, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to impose restrictions that serve the overall public interest. Those who don't like the restrictions are perfectly free to choose alternate media. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the public airwaves.

Those who oppose the Fairness Doctrine want to have their cake and eat it too. They feel entitled to the benefits of using the public airwaves, usually at a profit, yet are outraged that this privilege might come with strings attached. It is an irrational and unreasonable expectation.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 10:24 PM   #16
ProfJohn
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: banned again...
Posts: 18,268
Default

Bow,

As of 2005 there were 13,814 radio station in the US.
And only 1745 TV stations.

Seems to me that we should be more concerned with applying the Fairness doctrine to TV than radio.

And I am not sure I would call 13,000 scarce.
ProfJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 10:28 PM   #17
ProfJohn
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: banned again...
Posts: 18,268
Default

btw Rush is on about 600 radio stations, that leaves 13,000 others to offer balance.
ProfJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 10:33 PM   #18
Bowfinger
Lifer
 
Bowfinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfJohn View Post
Bow,

As of 2005 there were 13,814 radio station in the US.
And only 1745 TV stations.

Seems to me that we should be more concerned with applying the Fairness doctrine to TV than radio.

And I am not sure I would call 13,000 scarce.
I believe it should apply to both broadcast TV and radio. When you spread 14K stations across 50 states (and realize many of them are relatively low power local stations), broadcast airwaves are indeed a scarce resource.
__________________
If you never encounter anything in your community that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

"An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett.
Bowfinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 12:32 AM   #19
wuliheron
Diamond Member
 
wuliheron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674 View Post
This was covered by a Supreme Court decision.

Fox and Rush are not News Organizations, they are Entertainment Organizations calling themselves News Organizations and that is OK as it is covered under Free Speech.
You mean the Florida supreme court. That whole state should be on serious anti-psychotic drugs.

Free speech my ass. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and it should be illegal to present entertainment as if it were real news. I'm just waiting for Fox to have a nice fat class action suit against them for fraud and reckless endangerment.
wuliheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 12:46 AM   #20
finglobes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 462
Default

Obama admin never intended to use Fairness Doctrine. Their preferred strategy is to use "diversity" to cripple talk radio. Obama appointed Marl Lloyd as diversity czar because he wrote a book about how to "fix" the "market imbalance" that allows conservative success on talk radio.


Lloyd's plan is typical and similar to how ACORN and other groups got power over banks. Broadcasters would need to have their licenses reviews by local committees to make sure they were showing "diversity" of programming even if such programming was not profitable.


Not only could these groups hold up a broadcasting license but they could issue enormous fines. The fines would be so large its thought radio stations wouldn't even risk them and would change formats since liberal talk radio already proved to be a bust (which Obama crew blames on the market imbalance).


Tellingly - Lloyd was caught on video praising Hugo Chavez for his "democratic revolution" ans his seizure of radio stations



New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote Liberal Group's 'Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio'



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...#ixzz1Of0gVq00

finglobes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 12:57 AM   #21
Brigandier
Diamond Member
 
Brigandier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Great Frozen Wasteland
Posts: 4,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuliheron View Post
There are almost 7 billion people in the world or roughly 5 million people to cover for every minute of the day. If the damned reporters can't find something interesting happening among 5 million people then they aren't doing their jobs.

Fox and Rush calling themselves "news organizations" is like McDonald's advertising themselves as a health food restaurant. They can spout all the bullshit they want as far as I'm concerned, but we need better labeling standards that make it clear they are not to be taken seriously as news organizations.
/this

There is more than enough news and happenings to fill 24 hours, but it doesn't happen. The real 24 hour news cycle is like 19 with reruns, and if there's enough for 24 hours, there's enough for 19.

I have to look online to actually figure out the news for the world during each day.

Hell, combine Us news and British news(BBC) and you got the stories.

The problem isn't having enough news, it's having marketable news. If our news needs to be marketable, what does that say about society?
Brigandier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:04 AM   #22
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,333
Default

It's about one thing - the wealthy interests monopolizing the speech.

The fairness doctrine - lied about pretty much every time I see the right discuss it - is one small bit of protecting democracy by giving the less powerful some bit of access.

Money buys speech, speech influences opinion, opinion affects policy, policy affects money.

When people think of '1984', they miss the fact the way it happens here, rather than the old communist approach, is this money control. Money buys opinion, destroys democracy.
Craig234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:07 AM   #23
Brigandier
Diamond Member
 
Brigandier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Great Frozen Wasteland
Posts: 4,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
It's about one thing - the wealthy interests monopolizing the speech.

The fairness doctrine - lied about pretty much every time I see the right discuss it - is one small bit of protecting democracy by giving the less powerful some bit of access.

Money buys speech, speech influences opinion, opinion affects policy, policy affects money.

When people think of '1984', they miss the fact the way it happens here, rather than the old communist approach, is this money control. Money buys opinion, destroys democracy.
They don't realize it because they are distracted. 1984 shows that he who controls money and production controls the world. The lesson they take from 1984 is that government is bad, and will ruin you, ignoring that entrenched assets, those that make a percentage of all productivity really run the show. It's easier to be afraid of the bogey man than it is to be afraid of a smiley glad hand that wants what you have, while having multiples more than you.
Brigandier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:24 AM   #24
airdata
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,988
Default

Quote:
, pointing to President Obama's directive earlier this year to federal agencies to review outdated regs still on the books"
So this means they are going to end marijuana prohibition? Nice.
airdata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:27 AM   #25
Brigandier
Diamond Member
 
Brigandier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Great Frozen Wasteland
Posts: 4,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airdata View Post
So this means they are going to end marijuana prohibition? Nice.
NO. Do you realize how much property can be confiscated on a pot charge? Got it in your car? Just bought a half? That's the po-po's.

Not to mention they don't have any hard records on "destruction" protocols or what has been destroyed.
Brigandier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.