Fairness Doctrine resurfaces

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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.

Yes, there are more stations available now, but still the same amount of spectrum/slots to go around. The FCC still sells liscenses with stipulations like public service (news, etc.), fees, and other broadcast restrictions for the same reason. More peo...err...companies have just been able to put together the resources to get started nowadays (which is good, imho). However, these requirements still keep a LOT of organizations out that wouldn't otherwise mind just buying the equipment and blaring away at the night. These regulations still serve the same purpose.

Besides, it isn't about getting a "liberal" voice on the radio, just making sure one voice (whether it be a corporate, political, organizational, or other) doesn't dominate above all others. He who controls the media controls the nation. Other parties need to at least be able to get their foot in the door, liberal or otherwise. Rush and his ilk did fine before the repeal of the FD, and will continue to do so even if it is reenacted. The gvt won't be forcing people to listen to anything they don't want to.

 

[Corn]

Debbie Stabenow's husband also likes hookers. Perhaps she should concentrate her efforts to decriminalize prostitution so the next time her husband indulges he won't end up in the klink.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

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.

Why do you support it?

Do you think it is right for the government to mandate what can and can't be on the airwaves?

Do you think it would be ok for the government to call Katie Curic and tell her that she is leaning to far to the left and that she should provide more 'balance'?

And I hope you realize that the net effect of the fairness doctrine will not be more liberal talk radio shows, but less talk radio all around. That was the effect last time it was in place.

When it was in place before it was easier for radio stations to silence ALL political talk rather than risk getting a complaint/phone call from the FCC.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

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.

Why do you support it?

Do you think it is right for the government to mandate what can and can't be on the airwaves?

Do you think it would be ok for the government to call Katie Curic and tell her that she is leaning to far to the left and that she should provide more 'balance'?

And I hope you realize that the net effect of the fairness doctrine will not be more liberal talk radio shows, but less talk radio all around. That was the effect last time it was in place.

When it was in place before it was easier for radio stations to silence ALL political talk rather than risk getting a complaint/phone call from the FCC.

I already went over that in the previous threads ad nauseum. Your examples are kind of farcical as they didn't even do that when the FD was still on the books. It isn't about telling Couric to be more "conservative" or Rush to be more "liberal". If you think that, then you don't understand the FD at all. My point in this thread is that conservatives are using this "story" to spread FUD to get out their base over an issue that really is DOA. It gets old.

 

[ProfJohn]

How the Fairness Doctrine would work if it was applied to P&N

I create a thread called "Republicans are great"
Someone else creates a thread "Democrats are great"

Since P&N leans to the left the Democrat thread gets FAR more views and replies than the Republican one.

So I write a letter to the FCC complaining that P&N is not providing a 'fair' and balanced view of the subject.
The guy at the FCC looks at the threads and see that one has FAR more views and replies than the other and writes a letter to the site owner threatening fines and lose of license if they don't provide a more balanced view.

The site owner gets the letter and goes "oh shit! I can't MAKE people post on the Republican thread in greater numbers. What shall I do?"

And then decided that the best course of action is to lock BOTH threads. That we he doesn't risk looking unbalanced.

This is EXACTLY what happened when the fairness doctrine was in place in the 60s and 70s. I have read about the case studies and I am sure if you look around you will find them as well.

Radio talk show host talks bad about the Democrat governor, someone calls the FCC and complains, the FCC writes a letter and the station owner deiced that no one can talk about the governor anymore because the risk of fines is to great.

That is why Rush calls this the "Hush Rush bill." You can NOT mandate fairness. It is impossible. What you can do though is place so many hurdles and regulations in place that you create such a mess that people decide it is not worth the hassle.

 

[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

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? 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?

No, just with people in general who try to misuse media manifestations of fears to attempt to logically squash any debate on the topic.

"We can't do that, we'll end up just like 1984!"
"Your speech is Orwellian in nature!"

And the like do nothing to add to the discussion at all but are rather just people playing off of fears of domino affects creating dictators which is rarely the case.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How the Fairness Doctrine would work if it was applied to P&N

I create a thread called "Republicans are great"
Someone else creates a thread "Democrats are great"

Since P&N leans to the left the Democrat thread gets FAR more views and replies than the Republican one.

So I write a letter to the FCC complaining that P&N is not providing a 'fair' and balanced view of the subject.
The guy at the FCC looks at the threads and see that one has FAR more views and replies than the other and writes a letter to the site owner threatening fines and lose of license if they don't provide a more balanced view.

The site owner gets the letter and goes "oh shit! I can't MAKE people post on the Republican thread in greater numbers. What shall I do?"

And then decided that the best course of action is to lock BOTH threads. That we he doesn't risk looking unbalanced.

This is EXACTLY what happened when the fairness doctrine was in place in the 60s and 70s. I have read about the case studies and I am sure if you look around you will find them as well.

Radio talk show host talks bad about the Democrat governor, someone calls the FCC and complains, the FCC writes a letter and the station owner deiced that no one can talk about the governor anymore because the risk of fines is to great.

That is why Rush calls this the "Hush Rush bill." You can NOT mandate fairness. It is impossible. What you can do though is place so many hurdles and regulations in place that you create such a mess that people decide it is not worth the hassle.

FAIL. First of all, the FD was never intended to apply to anything other than media that require a terrestrial broadcast license. AT is not subject (nor would be) to any of the rules/regulations of the FD or the FCC broadcast licensing public service requirement. Aside from that point, going with your analogy, here's how it would work.

Person A posts a thread "Republicans are Great!". Persons B-Y parrot person A. New threads pop up by these same people on slightly different subjects about how Republicans are great. Entire pages of threads appear about how great the Republicans are. Person Z decides he wants to get a little more perspective, and attempts to post a "Democrats are great" thread, only to have it immediately locked and deleted by a moderator. Person Z' tries the same thing to the same result. Another approach of posting in the Republican threads presenting alternative views on those subjects, and the posts mysteriously never appear. Finally, enough non-parrots come to the conclusion that it is the policy of the forums to not include any other voice besides the "repubs are great" parrots. They then appeal to the FD to get some sort of resolution to have their voice heard. Enter a bunch of politics and red tape, and a mod is told to allow the one thread. Meanwhile, all the other threads are still there going strong, with their members getting only louder at the "outrage" that the one Dem thread exists. Meanwhile, Rush et al laugh all the way to the bank with their shows still going strong, armed with something else to b*tch about to get their audiences worked up with. The FD is only to deal with the most egregious cases of bias, to the point where they do the public a DISservice as opposed to serving the public interest. No one voice should dominate, especially on public airwaves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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

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? 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?

No, just with people in general who try to misuse media manifestations of fears to attempt to logically squash any debate on the topic.

"We can't do that, we'll end up just like 1984!"
"Your speech is Orwellian in nature!"

And the like do nothing to add to the discussion at all but are rather just people playing off of fears of domino affects creating dictators which is rarely the case.

So having a different opinion than you 'adds nothing to the discussion' and making a reference to 1984 is an attempt to incite fear and 'logically squash any debate on the topic'? You sir have an interesting perspective. :roll: