Fairness Doctrine resurfaces

chrisho

Member
Jun 17, 2008
63
0
0
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it?s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it?s called the Fairness Standard, whether it?s called something else ? I absolutely think it?s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.


Well, guess who she is married too?

After stepping down from Democracy Radio, Athans became the Executive Vice-President of Air America, a much larger but similar organization. Athans is in charge of developing new programming to expand Air Americas lineup. He will also head Air America?s Washington, D.C. corporate office


Can you say major conflict of interest? So basically she will use her government position to help her husbands business. Go figure, hopefully they both paid their taxes. Frankly having people bring up issues like this with such obvious baggage makes me believe they want to fail.

My problem with this censoring of speech is that the government should not be in the business of determining who is in business. By this I mean, if you cannot succeed in a business because no one wants your product you have no right to ask for government funds to continue it and you most definitely have no right to have the government put your competition out of business.

Yeah I know, the Constitution does not reference radio. Gee, freedom of the press only covered spoken and written word because that was all their was. In my area there are over thirty radio stations and one major newspaper. Yet I don't see the cry for balanced coverage in the newspaper area. Ours is so hell bent liberal they cannot sustain their subscriber base outside of the city itself.

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
I wonder if the SC would strike it down the first time it is used therefore making this entire effort a waste of time.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: RichardE
I wonder if the SC would strike it down the first time it is used therefore making this entire effort a waste of time.

Supreme Court upheld that FCC has the right to enforce it where there is limited selection.

Check the wikipedia article on it, it's got a good amount of references to SC decisions.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: RichardE
I wonder if the SC would strike it down the first time it is used therefore making this entire effort a waste of time.

Supreme Court upheld that FCC has the right to enforce it where there is limited selection.

Check the wikipedia article on it, it's got a good amount of references to SC decisions.

Hmm, I will do that. Sad if that is the case, even though people can be idiots there voices should not be silenced, nor should they be mandated to have to speak something. It's a small step from this to forcing radio operators to dedicate radio time to other government purposes ect. I can understand the underlying issues, being able to attack someone on air and not have to deal with there side, but there are laws for that as well that can be used. Maybe its just a subconscious thing of being against anything that seems to impose any restriction on freedom of speech or being told what you have to speak about, but this just seems like a bad idea overall.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The whole idea of a fairness doctrine is insane an un-American. Don't like what someone says? Just limit their right to say it... sick.

BTW why are they only focusing on radio? Why not TV? I think we could make a damn good case that network news is overly one side.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
1984.

1984 was an example of a fabricated extreme dictatorship coupled with better than average brainwashing. It is the version of "utopia" on the different side and could and never would happen due to human ambition being too strong. As well, the idea of one piece of legislation requiring people to speak on something goes against the entire idea of that book and to even consider that is laughable. I would re-read the novel and try to actually get the message from the book instead of looking at it from a perspective of prediction.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.
Radio stations pay for the right to use that airspace so if the government starts to limit what they can broadcast I would expect to see a LOT of lawsuits pointing out how much money the new limits are costing said broadcasters.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.
Radio stations pay for the right to use that airspace so if the government starts to limit what they can broadcast I would expect to see a LOT of lawsuits pointing out how much money the new limits are costing said broadcasters.

Sure, they pay to be able to use the airspace, but their license comes with stipulations as they are utilizing a public resource. Unless the FCC is doing something unconstitutional to restrict the use of the spectrum, those lawsuits would be tossed out. SCOTUS has already ruled that such restrictions (as we've had before with this fairness doctrine in place) were constitutional.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.
Radio stations pay for the right to use that airspace so if the government starts to limit what they can broadcast I would expect to see a LOT of lawsuits pointing out how much money the new limits are costing said broadcasters.

Sure, they pay to be able to use the airspace, but their license comes with stipulations as they are utilizing a public resource. Unless the FCC is doing something unconstitutional to restrict the use of the spectrum, those lawsuits would be tossed out. SCOTUS has already ruled that such restrictions (as we've had before with this fairness doctrine in place) were constitutional.

It seems the SCOTUS has ruled (according to the wiki) that if the Fairness Doctrine ever interfered with free speech it should be reconsidered.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.
Radio stations pay for the right to use that airspace so if the government starts to limit what they can broadcast I would expect to see a LOT of lawsuits pointing out how much money the new limits are costing said broadcasters.

Sure, they pay to be able to use the airspace, but their license comes with stipulations as they are utilizing a public resource. Unless the FCC is doing something unconstitutional to restrict the use of the spectrum, those lawsuits would be tossed out. SCOTUS has already ruled that such restrictions (as we've had before with this fairness doctrine in place) were constitutional.

It seems the SCOTUS has ruled (according to the wiki) that if the Fairness Doctrine ever interfered with free speech it should be reconsidered.

I believe it also ruled it doesnt have to be enforced. Beause it is nearly impossible to do so anyways. One persons bias is another's truth. And afaik the fairness doctrine only seemed to apply to attacking specific people without their ability to defend themselves. I believe if any lies were spread about a person a slander suit could handle that better than a fairness doctrine anyways.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
1984.

1984 was an example of a fabricated extreme dictatorship coupled with better than average brainwashing. It is the version of "utopia" on the different side and could and never would happen due to human ambition being too strong. As well, the idea of one piece of legislation requiring people to speak on something goes against the entire idea of that book and to even consider that is laughable. I would re-read the novel and try to actually get the message from the book instead of looking at it from a perspective of prediction.
I've read the book several times and fully understand the message.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
1984.

1984 was an example of a fabricated extreme dictatorship coupled with better than average brainwashing. It is the version of "utopia" on the different side and could and never would happen due to human ambition being too strong. As well, the idea of one piece of legislation requiring people to speak on something goes against the entire idea of that book and to even consider that is laughable. I would re-read the novel and try to actually get the message from the book instead of looking at it from a perspective of prediction.
I've read the book several times and fully understand the message.

Obviously not
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.
Radio stations pay for the right to use that airspace so if the government starts to limit what they can broadcast I would expect to see a LOT of lawsuits pointing out how much money the new limits are costing said broadcasters.

Sure, they pay to be able to use the airspace, but their license comes with stipulations as they are utilizing a public resource. Unless the FCC is doing something unconstitutional to restrict the use of the spectrum, those lawsuits would be tossed out. SCOTUS has already ruled that such restrictions (as we've had before with this fairness doctrine in place) were constitutional.

It seems the SCOTUS has ruled (according to the wiki) that if the Fairness Doctrine ever interfered with free speech it should be reconsidered.

I believe it also ruled it doesnt have to be enforced. Beause it is nearly impossible to do so anyways. One persons bias is another's truth. And afaik the fairness doctrine only seemed to apply to attacking specific people without their ability to defend themselves. I believe if any lies were spread about a person a slander suit could handle that better than a fairness doctrine anyways.

The is the conclusion I came too as well. So what does this legislation do that a slander suit would not fulfill?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
1984.

1984 was an example of a fabricated extreme dictatorship coupled with better than average brainwashing. It is the version of "utopia" on the different side and could and never would happen due to human ambition being too strong. As well, the idea of one piece of legislation requiring people to speak on something goes against the entire idea of that book and to even consider that is laughable. I would re-read the novel and try to actually get the message from the book instead of looking at it from a perspective of prediction.
I've read the book several times and fully understand the message.

Obviously not
So 1984 was not actually about the government's encroachment on the rights of the individual? The Ministry of Truth was not about controlling the media? :confused: Perhaps you're the one who needs to reread the book.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
1984.

1984 was an example of a fabricated extreme dictatorship coupled with better than average brainwashing. It is the version of "utopia" on the different side and could and never would happen due to human ambition being too strong. As well, the idea of one piece of legislation requiring people to speak on something goes against the entire idea of that book and to even consider that is laughable. I would re-read the novel and try to actually get the message from the book instead of looking at it from a perspective of prediction.
I've read the book several times and fully understand the message.

Obviously not
So 1984 was not actually about the government's encroachment on the rights of the individual? The Ministry of Truth was not about controlling the media? :confused: Perhaps you're the one who needs to reread the book.

No the book was not about that, those were the tools the book used to give the message it attempted to give. That was the entire point I was trying to make was that you approached the book as a prophecy and warning rather than the underlying meaning of the book. It is like reading animal farm and thinking the book is about treating animals better and they won't try to kill you.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
Ooh, another fairness doctrine thread. I guess we'll be seeing one of these weekly for the next 4 years or so?.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
1984.

1984 was an example of a fabricated extreme dictatorship coupled with better than average brainwashing. It is the version of "utopia" on the different side and could and never would happen due to human ambition being too strong. As well, the idea of one piece of legislation requiring people to speak on something goes against the entire idea of that book and to even consider that is laughable. I would re-read the novel and try to actually get the message from the book instead of looking at it from a perspective of prediction.
I've read the book several times and fully understand the message.

Obviously not
So 1984 was not actually about the government's encroachment on the rights of the individual? The Ministry of Truth was not about controlling the media? :confused: Perhaps you're the one who needs to reread the book.

No the book was not about that, those were the tools the book used to give the message it attempted to give. That was the entire point I was trying to make was that you approached the book as a prophecy and warning rather than the underlying meaning of the book. It is like reading animal farm and thinking the book is about treating animals better and they won't try to kill you.
I think you've poured meaning into my words that's totally imagined by you. I clarified the context of my post yet you continue lecturing me that I was approaching the book as prophecy when, in fact, all I was doing is pointing out a rather disturbing similarity regarding this potential legislation and the book. Nothing more, nothing less. Sheesh...you got a personal problem with me or something?

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Sure, they pay to be able to use the airspace, but their license comes with stipulations as they are utilizing a public resource. Unless the FCC is doing something unconstitutional to restrict the use of the spectrum, those lawsuits would be tossed out. SCOTUS has already ruled that such restrictions (as we've had before with this fairness doctrine in place) were constitutional.
Weren't those rulings years ago when there were far fewer radio stations?

The main case in favor of the doctrine is from 1969, nearly 40 years ago.

If I turned on my radio right now I bet I could get 6-12 AM stations. If people really wanted to listen to 'liberal' talk radio then I would be able to find it on one of those stations. But it has been proven that people don't want to listen to that stuff.

Democrats and liberal aren't happy with that fact and like everything else have decided that government is the solution and are therefore going to try and force people to listen to liberal radio shows. Of course people won't listen to these new talk radio shows and instead the end result will be less people listening to talk radio overall.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ooh, another fairness doctrine thread. I guess we'll be seeing one of these weekly for the next 4 years or so?.
Nah, these threads will stop once congress either fails to pass the thing or the court slaps a passed law down.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The whole idea of a fairness doctrine is insane an un-American. Don't like what someone says? Just limit their right to say it... sick.

BTW why are they only focusing on radio? Why not TV? I think we could make a damn good case that network news is overly one side.

That's why i'm keeping quiet about FD. That shit will backfire on the libs quick and conservative views can shift from radio to TV. BOOM HEADSHOT.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ooh, another fairness doctrine thread. I guess we'll be seeing one of these weekly for the next 4 years or so?.
Nah, these threads will stop once congress either fails to pass the thing or the court slaps a passed law down.

But the law will never be passed, and it most likely won't even be considered. That's the beauty of this for the ultra right. Every time a senator or a house member talks approvingly of it, it starts the furious foaming once again.

For the 30th or so time: The only way the fairness doctrine would go into effect would be by the FCC (which isn't going to do it without the President's okay), or through legislation (that the President would have to sign). Regardless of the other legislative hurdles, such as the fact of the fairness doctrine's limited support in the Congress, it would have to go through a guy who doesn't want it to exist. Ie: It's not going to happen no matter how many times Rush tells you it is. They are stoking your fears/outrage/indignation because that's how they make money.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Considering who she is married to, I can see why she might think she has a personal stake. However, it does not seem that there is near enough support in congress (even amongst Democrats) to revive the Fairness Doctrine. This just reeks of Drudge, Limbaugh, etc. trying to drum up the usual FUD. It really is a non-starter for the time being.

Also, please remember that radio/tv broadcast isn't 100% free as the broadcast spectrum is a finite and public resource. You cannot put them on the same level as Newspapers/cable tv/etc. Their very nature as press is different. Besides, we already had a discussion going on the Fairness Doctrine Threads.
Radio stations pay for the right to use that airspace so if the government starts to limit what they can broadcast I would expect to see a LOT of lawsuits pointing out how much money the new limits are costing said broadcasters.

Sure, they pay to be able to use the airspace, but their license comes with stipulations as they are utilizing a public resource. Unless the FCC is doing something unconstitutional to restrict the use of the spectrum, those lawsuits would be tossed out. SCOTUS has already ruled that such restrictions (as we've had before with this fairness doctrine in place) were constitutional.

It seems the SCOTUS has ruled (according to the wiki) that if the Fairness Doctrine ever interfered with free speech it should be reconsidered.

Free speech does not exist on the public (OTA) airwaves. That more likely falls under freedom of the press as the fairness doctrine is constructed. There are different standards for that type of broadcast. If the FD were to be applied to non-OTA media, then there would be a problem.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ooh, another fairness doctrine thread. I guess we'll be seeing one of these weekly for the next 4 years or so?.

Yeah, someone has to spread the FUD about reenacting the fairness doctrine to stir the pot of Rush Limbaugh listeners to action. "OMG THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL AM TALK RADIO DANG LIBRULS!" Sheesh.

I support the FD, but even I know that it isn't coming back ANYTIME soon.