• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fairness doctrine

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: shrumpage



That doesn't sound like you are interested in fairness at all, just going after specific people and not the idea of presenting political discourse.

I can produce and hour long episode of West Wing promoting gay marriage, and showing how dumb the argument is of the other side. Presenting conservatives as idiots and morons who can't defend themselves. Be seen by millions of people over the public airwaves - but it wouldn't count? In reality it would count, because over half the people who saw it would complain and channel would have to allow a rebuttal or fear fines from the FCC.

Boston Legal presents current news items from a liberal view point, with the conservatives opinion portrayed as idiotic. It has a very one sided political point of view that would qualify it for the fairness doctrine.

People just assume the fairness doctrine would affect conservative talk radio, it wouldn't. Anything that promotes ANY political or social idea broadcast over the airwaves would have to allow for its rebuttal, period. If shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report were on broadcast they would be neutered, and quickly. Because of the dissenting view points they would have to allow to 'be fair.'

What would be easier: toning down their political pieces, or providing air time? Guess which one is cheaper, guess which one the profit orientated broadcast companies will choose.

And the worse part is who decides what that dissenting view point is? In the end a government bureaucrat. That is the last person i want deciding what kind of political discourse gets heard.

All the fairness doctrine would do is make the airwaves a lot more bland, and a less lot interesting. Which would be fair to who?
Well, as I said before, it is pretty clear that Boston Legal and West Wing were purely entertainment. Sure, they can express political views, but they don't pretend to be a place for real debate and/or news reporting to occur. You seem to be missing my point there. I don't want to "go after specific people" as you claim, just allow others to have a foot in the door so they aren't completely shut out.
People argue now that Rush is just entertainment now, just because the content of his show is political and socially oretenated then he should be subject to the fairness doctrine. Should there be a set standard i.e. 40% political commentary would make a show fall under fairness doctrine. Or only if it has a talking head?

How do you officially determine what show is what? Another government agency? You can't be arbitrary you must have predefined guidelines. And onc those guidelines are in place how soon is it before every show changes itself to be in those guidelines and then goes about spouting the same stuff?

An hour long drama on gay marriage, political satire skit on SNL, a David Lettermen ant-McCain monologue, and an opinion by Rush. How can you say only one of those opinions is allowed to be responded to by the fairness doctrine?

The FCC should show some backbone and not cave into every request of bias without fully investigating it. The number of callers complaining shouldn't matter if they are WRONG. Shows that aren't direct debates, political opinion speeches, news items, etc. would be exempt from this kind of "rebuttal". You seem to be confusing a station "allowing" time for a rebuttal and the station allowing for any party that wants to rebut, the chance to buy equal airtime to do so at the same rate. Besides, the government isn't supposed to decide who represents the dissenting view. Any party that disagrees and wants to pony up the resources for the airtime should be allowed to. No government beurocrat decision there.
A government bureaucrat will be the decider of what is a valid political opinion. Besides the obvious abuse that will take place - why do you want government dictating political speech on the air?

Besides, if you are concerned about for-profit boradcast companies having to make a decision to either tone down their political opinion pieces or provide air time, they are still allowed to raise their rates for purchasing airtime, as long as they do so equally for all groups. Heck, you could even make a business case that INCREASING their political content would be better for them as opposition groups would be all the more willing to pay for such a rebuttal. Purely news coverage is a bit different as they are required to do so in a non-biased manner, and this is part of their community service for obtaining the license.
Ah now you start getting at it "tone down their political opinion pieces" that is the key. It will be easier and more cost affective do tone down, then allow the KKK to present their opinion of why Obama is a bad choice.

You also leave it open so that only the rich can respond, leaving poorer folk unable to voice their response - it will make it even more difficult with rates going up.

So basically you accomplish LESS POLICITCAL discourse all in the name of promoting it? Brilliant!

I didn't realize that there is a forced requirement of a community service via news.

Rush and his ilk will be fine. They were on the air many years while this doctrine was still in place by the FCC. There is plenty of precedent about the fairness doctrine not killing off political discourse. They prospered. If anything, since the demise of the fairness doctrine and the Clear-Channelization/consolidation of media companies, the airwaves have become dangerously homogenized. I think it is time for a return.
Fairness doctrine neutered talk radio that is why it didn't take off in till after it was removed. I'd love you to show that there was more range of discussion on the air during the fairness doctrine.

You do realize that there is rarely a purely two side argument about issues right? What about the varying degrees of opinion do they all get equal time? Or is it once again left to a government bureaucrat to decide that tom, dick and harry's opinion is OK but rob's isn't?

There are more choices now on the air, free to everyone then ever before and there is still room! But what you want is a government agency to decide what is a permissible content before a show is demeaned worthy of being balanced. And then you need that same agency to determine what is allowable political speech.

All that law will do, is what it did before, lower the amount of public discourse on the air. it will also force satire, comedy, and drama's to think twice before presenting a political issue.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Topic Title: Fairness doctrine
Topic Summary: is it coming back?
God I hope so

Blowhards like Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican America haters should be mopping floors not brainwashing Americans.
Yeah, cuz free speech is sooo annoying.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Topic Title: Fairness doctrine
Topic Summary: is it coming back?
God I hope so

Blowhards like Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican America haters should be mopping floors not brainwashing Americans.
Yeah, cuz free speech is sooo annoying.

Can you believe there are actually people like dmcowen who want the government to decide who can have a political radio show? He is waaaaaay out there.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.

Exactly there are several democrats talking about the fairness doctrine including Pelosi. Unless the republicans can keep 41 seats this will pass and be signed into law by Obama. I have seen nothing from Obama that he would have the stones to veto Pelosi's pet project.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.
Sure he will if it means pissing off the media, which this would. Remember, the media is supposed to be liberal already, why would they want to be penalized and forced to present the conservative viewpoint on every issue? And who really wants that anyway? There is always more than 2 sides to any issue as it is.
I agree that this election might cause some to consider the need for a toning down of some of the craziest of the crazy political talk out there, but the wingnuts can fix that issue themselves by not being so over-the-top paranoid all the time, and not encouraging their talk radio hosts in this regard.

I predict that this will, at most, become one of those countless fringe issues that some politicians talk about, one or 2 champion and routinely introduce legislation, but which never makes it out of committee.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.

Exactly there are several democrats talking about the fairness doctrine including Pelosi. Unless the republicans can keep 41 seats this will pass and be signed into law by Obama. I have seen nothing from Obama that he would have the stones to veto Pelosi's pet project.
Have you EVER made a post here without mentioning Pelosi?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Topic Title: Fairness doctrine
Topic Summary: is it coming back?
God I hope so

Blowhards like Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican America haters should be mopping floors not brainwashing Americans.
Yeah, cuz free speech is sooo annoying.
Can you believe there are actually people like dmcowen who want the government to decide who can have a political radio show? He is waaaaaay out there.
I know... he's paranoid just like you nuts, except leftist.

I think what would be talk radio's biggest threat is not a new Fairness Doctrine, but a re-tightening of slander laws with regards to public figures, which have been wide-open loose since Hustler Magazine v. Falwell in 1988.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.
Sure he will if it means pissing off the media, which this would. Remember, the media is supposed to be liberal already, why would they want to be penalized and forced to present the conservative viewpoint on every issue? And who really wants that anyway? There is always more than 2 sides to any issue as it is.
I agree that this election might cause some to consider the need for a toning down of some of the craziest of the crazy political talk out there, but the wingnuts can fix that issue themselves by not being so over-the-top paranoid all the time, and not encouraging their talk radio hosts in this regard.

I predict that this will, at most, become one of those countless fringe issues that some politicians talk about, one or 2 champion and routinely introduce legislation, but which never makes it out of committee.
Except with a super majority they can rewrite it to only affect talk radio. They can leave all other media alone. That and Obama can put someone in charge of the FCC who would always side against talk radio. The democrats want talk radio shut down to kill any voice of opposition. Soon as talk radio is shutdown foxnews will be next.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.
Sure he will if it means pissing off the media, which this would. Remember, the media is supposed to be liberal already, why would they want to be penalized and forced to present the conservative viewpoint on every issue? And who really wants that anyway? There is always more than 2 sides to any issue as it is.
I agree that this election might cause some to consider the need for a toning down of some of the craziest of the crazy political talk out there, but the wingnuts can fix that issue themselves by not being so over-the-top paranoid all the time, and not encouraging their talk radio hosts in this regard.

I predict that this will, at most, become one of those countless fringe issues that some politicians talk about, one or 2 champion and routinely introduce legislation, but which never makes it out of committee.
Except with a super majority they can rewrite it to only affect talk radio. They can leave all other media alone. That and Obama can put someone in charge of the FCC who would always side against talk radio. The democrats want talk radio shut down to kill any voice of opposition. Soon as talk radio is shutdown foxnews will be next.
They wouldn't be able to shutdown fox news...its cable!
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,220
26
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Topic Title: Fairness doctrine
Topic Summary: is it coming back?
God I hope so

Blowhards like Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican America haters should be mopping floors not brainwashing Americans.
Yeah, cuz free speech is sooo annoying.
Can you believe there are actually people like dmcowen who want the government to decide who can have a political radio show? He is waaaaaay out there.
I know... he's paranoid just like you nuts, except leftist.
Id be interested in hearing what kind of nut I am, or what "group" I fit into.

It's easy to pick out the people with the little brains. They fall predictably along traditional "party lines" for each issue. They dont even really need to post, because you know what they are going to say anyway.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
Is this like Rush's last desperate pitch at the election or something? Vote for McCain or you won't be able to get your daily outrage fix anymore?

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT coming back. PERIOD.

I swear, Obama hasn't even been elected yet and already the ODS is out of control.
Obama won't bring it up, and i don't' think he even cares about it.

But some democrats do, and care about it very much. With a dem controlled house and senate i could see some form the the legislation happening, and there is no way Obama would veto a piece a legislation from his own party.
Sure he will if it means pissing off the media, which this would. Remember, the media is supposed to be liberal already, why would they want to be penalized and forced to present the conservative viewpoint on every issue? And who really wants that anyway? There is always more than 2 sides to any issue as it is.
I agree that this election might cause some to consider the need for a toning down of some of the craziest of the crazy political talk out there, but the wingnuts can fix that issue themselves by not being so over-the-top paranoid all the time, and not encouraging their talk radio hosts in this regard.

I predict that this will, at most, become one of those countless fringe issues that some politicians talk about, one or 2 champion and routinely introduce legislation, but which never makes it out of committee.
Except with a super majority they can rewrite it to only affect talk radio. They can leave all other media alone. That and Obama can put someone in charge of the FCC who would always side against talk radio. The democrats want talk radio shut down to kill any voice of opposition. Soon as talk radio is shutdown foxnews will be next.
No, they can't. Congress is not all powerful, neither is the President. The idea you're presenting here, that they could shut down 2 of the most powerful media organizations in this country (News Corp and Clear Channel) as easily as you describe, is about as stupid paranoid as anything I've read here yet.

And the Democrats don't want talk radio shut down "to kill any voice of opposition," they're worried about the constant crazy partisan/ideological lies and accusations, and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
Look, let's see if you have a capability for understanding 2 sides of an argument. Let's suppose that, instead of the wimpy milquetoasts on NPR and Air America, left wing media was full of nothing but constant outrage and lies, cries of "nazi conservatives!", "McCain is going to pull all Democrats in concentration camps after the election!", repeated calls for revolution, and other such bullshit 24/7 and it was relatively popular, listened to by a few millions spread across the country. What do you suppose would be the Republican response if that were the case? Why... they'd call them terrorists and act accordingly, now wouldn't they?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Topic Title: Fairness doctrine
Topic Summary: is it coming back?
God I hope so

Blowhards like Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican America haters should be mopping floors not brainwashing Americans.
Yeah, cuz free speech is sooo annoying.
Can you believe there are actually people like dmcowen who want the government to decide who can have a political radio show? He is waaaaaay out there.
I know... he's paranoid just like you nuts, except leftist.
Id be interested in hearing what kind of nut I am, or what "group" I fit into.

It's easy to pick out the people with the little brains. They fall predictably along traditional "party lines" for each issue. They dont even really need to post, because you know what they are going to say anyway.
That was sarcasm, noob.

Everyone here knows that even the leftest of the left think McOwen is waaaay out there.

But while we're on the subject of "little brains," you just go around here doing absolutely nothing but dumping wingnut talking points and bizarre partisan accusations in every thread, and then when called on it, you try to pretend you're non-partisan. Sorry, but that doesn't fly very well with me. I don't care about sides, but I do care about people who refuse to defend their own arguments, especially when they're assholes about it. But that is the "group" you have seem to have placed yourself in. Next, you'll probably start ending all your posts with a LOL :laugh:
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
No, they can't. Congress is not all powerful, neither is the President. The idea you're presenting here, that they could shut down 2 of the most powerful media organizations in this country (News Corp and Clear Channel) as easily as you describe, is about as stupid paranoid as anything I've read here yet.

And the Democrats don't want talk radio shut down "to kill any voice of opposition," they're worried about the constant crazy partisan/ideological lies and accusations, and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
Look, let's see if you have a capability for understanding 2 sides of an argument. Let's suppose that, instead of the wimpy milquetoasts on NPR and Air America, left wing media was full of nothing but constant outrage and lies, cries of "nazi conservatives!", "McCain is going to pull all Democrats in concentration camps after the election!", repeated calls for revolution, and other such bullshit 24/7 and it was relatively popular, listened to by a few millions spread across the country. What do you suppose would be the Republican response if that were the case? Why... they'd call them terrorists and act accordingly, now wouldn't they?
You know I've never heard anyone compare Bush to Hitler, or the Nazis in the last 8 years, or call for revolution.

sarcasm aside, you've just showed that you assume all on the right side of the airwaves believe and say the same thing. I'd think you'd be surprised how much of it ISN'T the same and *gasp* disagreement among righty talk shows.

i love this:

and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
I guess we should limit all other sources of forum and speech too, do to the potential it could incite violence. Unless you have proof of a talk show host actually committing the crime of inciting violence I'd suggest you re-evaluate your paranoid claim.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,541
9,535
126
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
No, they can't. Congress is not all powerful, neither is the President. The idea you're presenting here, that they could shut down 2 of the most powerful media organizations in this country (News Corp and Clear Channel) as easily as you describe, is about as stupid paranoid as anything I've read here yet.

And the Democrats don't want talk radio shut down "to kill any voice of opposition," they're worried about the constant crazy partisan/ideological lies and accusations, and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
Look, let's see if you have a capability for understanding 2 sides of an argument. Let's suppose that, instead of the wimpy milquetoasts on NPR and Air America, left wing media was full of nothing but constant outrage and lies, cries of "nazi conservatives!", "McCain is going to pull all Democrats in concentration camps after the election!", repeated calls for revolution, and other such bullshit 24/7 and it was relatively popular, listened to by a few millions spread across the country. What do you suppose would be the Republican response if that were the case? Why... they'd call them terrorists and act accordingly, now wouldn't they?
You know I've never heard anyone compare Bush to Hitler, or the Nazis in the last 8 years, or call for revolution.

sarcasm aside, you've just showed that you assume all on the right side of the airwaves believe and say the same thing. I'd think you'd be surprised how much of it ISN'T the same and *gasp* disagreement among righty talk shows.

i love this:

and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
I guess we should limit all other sources of forum and speech too, do to the potential it could incite violence. Unless you have proof of a talk show host actually committing the crime of inciting violence I'd suggest you re-evaluate your paranoid claim.
Wow... way to twist my arguments into things I completely did NOT say. I was explaining what I believe to be the viewpoint from those who might favor a return of the Fairness Doctrine, and NOT any personal opinion of my own (edit: as I am strongly opposed to anything like the Fairness Doctrine, have said as much in this thread, along with my belief that it is not coming back).

Clearly, you fail at the "capability for understanding 2 sides of an argument" litmus test for intelligence.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Vic
No, they can't. Congress is not all powerful, neither is the President. The idea you're presenting here, that they could shut down 2 of the most powerful media organizations in this country (News Corp and Clear Channel) as easily as you describe, is about as stupid paranoid as anything I've read here yet.

And the Democrats don't want talk radio shut down "to kill any voice of opposition," they're worried about the constant crazy partisan/ideological lies and accusations, and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
Look, let's see if you have a capability for understanding 2 sides of an argument. Let's suppose that, instead of the wimpy milquetoasts on NPR and Air America, left wing media was full of nothing but constant outrage and lies, cries of "nazi conservatives!", "McCain is going to pull all Democrats in concentration camps after the election!", repeated calls for revolution, and other such bullshit 24/7 and it was relatively popular, listened to by a few millions spread across the country. What do you suppose would be the Republican response if that were the case? Why... they'd call them terrorists and act accordingly, now wouldn't they?
You know I've never heard anyone compare Bush to Hitler, or the Nazis in the last 8 years, or call for revolution.

sarcasm aside, you've just showed that you assume all on the right side of the airwaves believe and say the same thing. I'd think you'd be surprised how much of it ISN'T the same and *gasp* disagreement among righty talk shows.

i love this:

and their subsequent potential for inciting violence.
I guess we should limit all other sources of forum and speech too, do to the potential it could incite violence. Unless you have proof of a talk show host actually committing the crime of inciting violence I'd suggest you re-evaluate your paranoid claim.
Wow... way to twist my arguments into things I completely did NOT say. I was explaining what I believe to be the viewpoint from those who might favor a return of the Fairness Doctrine, and NOT any personal opinion of my own.
Clearly, you fail at the "capability for understanding 2 sides of an argument" litmus test for intelligence.
My mistake.

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
People argue now that Rush is just entertainment now, just because the content of his show is political and socially oretenated then he should be subject to the fairness doctrine. Should there be a set standard i.e. 40% political commentary would make a show fall under fairness doctrine. Or only if it has a talking head?

How do you officially determine what show is what? Another government agency? You can't be arbitrary you must have predefined guidelines. And onc those guidelines are in place how soon is it before every show changes itself to be in those guidelines and then goes about spouting the same stuff?

An hour long drama on gay marriage, political satire skit on SNL, a David Lettermen ant-McCain monologue, and an opinion by Rush. How can you say only one of those opinions is allowed to be responded to by the fairness doctrine?
People arguing that are either deluding themselves or know full well that a possible return of the fairness doctrine is imminent. Any show that discusses ONLY politics/news would certainly fall under that category. It is a matter of scale. If you cannot tell the difference between Rush and SNL/Letterman, then I honestly don't know what to say. It should be fairly obvious.

A government bureaucrat will be the decider of what is a valid political opinion. Besides the obvious abuse that will take place - why do you want government dictating political speech on the air?
IIRC, the government isn't dictating nor altering the content of the speech at all in this case. Many voices >>> Few voices >>> a single voice, regardless of what those voices are or say.

Ah now you start getting at it "tone down their political opinion pieces" that is the key. It will be easier and more cost affective do tone down, then allow the KKK to present their opinion of why Obama is a bad choice.

You also leave it open so that only the rich can respond, leaving poorer folk unable to voice their response - it will make it even more difficult with rates going up.

So basically you accomplish LESS POLICITCAL discourse all in the name of promoting it? Brilliant!
No, I was merely responding to that. I don't think that this will be the end result.

As far as only the rich being able to respond, that will (and has been) the result of media consolidation, not the fairness doctrine. As time has gone by, there have been fewer and fewer voices heard on OTA broadcast as they are slowly getting gobbled up by a handful of corporate interests. The poor are already unable to voice their responses for the most part unless they happen to agree with the station or show's POV. This is another part of why the fairness doctrine is becoming necessary again.

Fairness doctrine neutered talk radio that is why it didn't take off in till after it was removed. I'd love you to show that there was more range of discussion on the air during the fairness doctrine.
The rise of FM radio (and new formats), more OTA broadcasters, cable TV, even the internet probably had more to do with it. There are fewer voices now than there used to be, it is just that they have gotten louder. :/

You do realize that there is rarely a purely two side argument about issues right? What about the varying degrees of opinion do they all get equal time? Or is it once again left to a government bureaucrat to decide that tom, dick and harry's opinion is OK but rob's isn't?

There are more choices now on the air, free to everyone then ever before and there is still room! But what you want is a government agency to decide what is a permissible content before a show is demeaned worthy of being balanced. And then you need that same agency to determine what is allowable political speech.

All that law will do, is what it did before, lower the amount of public discourse on the air. it will also force satire, comedy, and drama's to think twice before presenting a political issue.
You are right in that there are rarely only two diametrically opposing opinions on any one issue. Should every side be included in equal time? Probably not, as there are time constraints and other practical realities. Will broadcast ever be completely balanced? No, but it can't be allowed to become any more one-sided.

The FCC does filter content via its regulations, but only with regards to indecency/profanity, and not political speech. These regulations have nothing to do with the fairness doctrine. Besides, there are plenty of shows I believe that aren't worthy of being broadcast and are anyway, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. This isn't about censorship from the gvt, but about the prevention of censorship by large media conglomerates.

I can see that the fairness doctrine has its faults, and you do bring up quite a few of them. However, if and when it does come up for debate amongst congress again, these should be addressed to include those realities. However, my position stands that an updated fairness doctrine should be reinstated.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
People arguing that are either deluding themselves or know full well that a possible return of the fairness doctrine is imminent. Any show that discusses ONLY politics/news would certainly fall under that category. It is a matter of scale. If you cannot tell the difference between Rush and SNL/Letterman, then I honestly don't know what to say. It should be fairly obvious.
We are talking about balancing opinion, not the format in which that opinion is given. This only shows your true intention, only going after a very specific format.

IIRC, the government isn't dictating nor altering the content of the speech at all in this case. Many voices >>> Few voices >>> a single voice, regardless of what those voices are or say.
Once again if a dozen people petition the FCC about a specific program, all 12 have a different opinion, do all 12 get to go on the air by law? If not how/who decides what is valid? Does the government just give a blanket statement that they all MUST be allowed on the air or does the FCC decided which of the 12?

No, I was merely responding to that. I don't think that this will be the end result.

As far as only the rich being able to respond, that will (and has been) the result of media consolidation, not the fairness doctrine. As time has gone by, there have been fewer and fewer voices heard on OTA broadcast as they are slowly getting gobbled up by a handful of corporate interests. The poor are already unable to voice their responses for the most part unless they happen to agree with the station or show's POV. This is another part of why the fairness doctrine is becoming necessary again.
So you admit that it won't change the influence of the rich, so what is the point?

The poor vote the way they always do, with their dollars. They don't like they tune out, the like they tune in. It's reason certain formats are popular: reality shows! Shock jocks! conservative talk! If people like it they tune in, the market creates more of the same to of product. Its the one reason those three formats are so prevalent. The moment people stop listening/watching that stuff will go away and be replaced - without government intervention.

The rise of FM radio (and new formats), more OTA broadcasters, cable TV, even the internet probably had more to do with it. There are fewer voices now than there used to be, it is just that they have gotten louder. :/
So wait there are MORE stations on a limited resource then previous? Yet you claim, no facts mind you, that there is less now. Twenty years ago there was stern how many shocks jocks have come chasing this market? 0? I think not. Any major rock station in any major city has some flavor of that show going. And they call can't run the same show in the same market. That is right there are actually more voices then before.

otherwise, show me the data.

You are right in that there are rarely only two diametrically opposing opinions on any one issue. Should every side be included in equal time? Probably not, as there are time constraints and other practical realities. Will broadcast ever be completely balanced? No, but it can't be allowed to become any more one-sided.
You are one claiming this fairness doctrine needs to be reinstated, how is the above problem addressed, who decides who's opinion is valid to get on the air. KKK? PETA? WWF? Pro-life group 1, 2 or 3?

The FCC does filter content via its regulations, but only with regards to indecency/profanity, and not political speech. These regulations have nothing to do with the fairness doctrine. Besides, there are plenty of shows I believe that aren't worthy of being broadcast and are anyway, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. This isn't about censorship from the gvt, but about the prevention of censorship by large media conglomerates.
Yes, but who is going to force broadcaster to put on all the other opinions? the government.

BTW, what speech is being censored by media conglomerates? If a show has a market it will get filled. Shoe horning an idealogoy for sake of the idealogoy into a show doesn't work - prime example Air America. If there was money to be made that format would be all over the place. Period.

I can see that the fairness doctrine has its faults, and you do bring up quite a few of them. However, if and when it does come up for debate amongst congress again, these should be addressed to include those realities. However, my position stands that an updated fairness doctrine should be reinstated.
Yes a version of the fairness doctrine that only targets a very specific group - which i'll say again - isn't very fair.
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
and would the "Fairness" Doctrine give equal time to political parties besides Democrats and Republicans?

Free market and free speech begins to disappear and we have cheerleaders for this?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,246
3,783
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Topic Title: Fairness doctrine
Topic Summary: is it coming back?
God I hope so

Blowhards like Rush, Hannity and the rest of the Republican America haters should be mopping floors not brainwashing Americans.
Nothing like tyranny of the majority to get the blood flowing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY