Fairness Doctrine

[piasabird]

Freedom of speech.

How can you have fairness when the press is obviously liberal?

So who is going to tell Rosie O'Donnell to shut up?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Freedom of speech.

How can you have fairness when the press is obviously liberal?

So who is going to tell Rosie O'Donnell to shut up?

Another example of the impracticality of this concept/law.

Will we need a legion of new governemnt employees to monitor all public broadcasts and keep a scorecard?

How many citizen action groups will monitor and complain (and attempt to refute an opinion's classification as conservative v. liberal)?

The concept of getting (most) all viewpoints out is laudable. But given the internet, cable & satelite availability we've got it already for the most part.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz

the fairness doctrine does not suppress any speech.

"You can't say that unless you do this..."

I don't see how that is anything but a restriction of my freedom of speech.

I guess, then, that having a license to broadcast, the old requirements of 'public interest' programming for some hours of the day to get a license, etc., were 'suppressing' speech.

The difference was the airwaves belonging to the public as a finite resource, and those who used them for profit having to give something back to the public in exchange.

It worked fine for a few decades through the 'golden age' of television without almost anyone complaining, until Reagan.

That's what Fern seems to be missing with his theoretical arguments why it's 'unworkable', ignoring the history that it worked fine for decades.

Like so many libertarian ideological fantasies, the people arguing against this are ignoring what really helps the public be better informed.

Oh, waaaahhhhh, we hear, someone might not be able to put only exactly what they want on the public airwaves without any balance. The horror, having to add balance.

In the meantime, our Reagan-created system has led the public to be more ignorant, so that many people thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 for example.

Most citiens go around unaware of even basic facts, such as the way the government borrows hundreds of billions a year 'off the books' through the social security additional tax to save for the baby boomers - money all spent already and owed back to the fund - another Reagan disastrous scheme. We need less ideology from the libertarian types preventing democracy from working better and giving us GWB, and more things that help the public be informed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: jrenz
A few Democrats including Kucinich and Pelosi are pushing very hard to bring it back.

Pelosi is too busy chumming it up with Dictators.

Kucinich couldn't make his way out of a paper bag let alone pass any legislation. He's a first rate kook that no one takes seriously.

 

[jrenz]

Oh, waaaahhhhh, we hear, someone might not be able to put only exactly what they want on the public airwaves without any balance. The horror, having to add balance.

Acutually, that's exactly what we are hearing from proponents of this bill. They aren't hearing what they want on the airwaves, so they are forcing their message to be heard through legislation.

In the meantime, our Reagan-created system has led the public to be more ignorant, so that many people thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 for example.

You're blaming this on the radio shows? How many millions more people get their news from TV than from the radio? Why, then, are the Dems only targeting radio? If your argument is true, then this should apply to TV AND radio equally. Why not?

Most citiens go around unaware of even basic facts, such as the way the government borrows hundreds of billions a year 'off the books' through the social security additional tax to save for the baby boomers - money all spent already and owed back to the fund - another Reagan disastrous scheme. We need less ideology from the libertarian types preventing democracy from working better and giving us GWB, and more things that help the public be informed.

You're stuck in a world where radio is one of the biggest and only means of delivering news. You talk about a finite resource.... etc... when we have radio, TV, and more importantly the almost INFINITE resources of the internet (maybe you have heard of it). Why are the Dems targeting radio now? Why don't they change the doctrine to include TV? This is purely a political ploy to try and remove the influence that their opposition has in one form of media, and is a blatant restriction on speech. You're partisan blindness, however you try and hide it, is showing through plain and clear.

 

[chucky2]

You know Craig234, for government and/or state funded programs, I can agree with your views in principle, because when I'm watching PBS or listening to NPR, I expect to be hearing both sides of the argument and from equal quality representation (ie don't have a guru representing one side and some newb representing the other to be "fair and balanced'").

Back in the day, from my understanding, the 3 major news outlets made it a point to report real news. They made it a point to get it right. Do actual real work in doing so.

What we have now from the majors is soundbites and largely this second news only to be replaced by the next news in a few minutes. Then they have all their experts and shrinks, all who are so on top of their game that they make their living not in it, but on the fringe. :roll: Someone told me once that the 3 majors used to have news bureau's all over the world gathering news and reporting on it, and reporting on it with standards. I seriously doubt folks could say that about any of the majors now.

So, while in principle I can agree with what your saying for publically funded radio/TV, in reality, it will never happen for the reasons pointed out already.

The best your going to do is listen to PBS, NPR, and Fox. Blend all three together and you've reached the middle ground.

Chuck

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your whole post is based on supression of speech, and the fairness doctrine does not suppress any speech.

1. Craig there are only 24 hours in a day. If WGOP wants to air right wing talk radio for that entire 24 hours they could not do it under the fairness doctrine. Instead they would be forced to offer 12 hours a day to some liberal talk show.

2. Let?s not forget that radios are in business to make money and liberal talk radio is not a money making venture. So forcing stations to be 'fair' would also be forcing them to lose money as well.

3. If this is such a great idea why don?t they want to apply it to newspapers and TV as well? Why only radio? hmmmm

Finally, you come across as such an elitist with your ?the quality of the content on airwaves, which are owned by the public and the radio stations get for free, has declined dramatically.? comment. As if you are sole arbiter of what is defined as ?quality content.?
Ten years ago the only AM radio show I listened to was Rush, and maybe a little sports radio.
Now I can turn on the AM radio and almost any time of the day and find a program that I will enjoy. Neil Bortz, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Mike Gallager etc etc. While YOU may not enjoy their shows, I and millions of others do.
The fact that right wing radio hosts dominate the list of top 10 rated shows might be a sign that it is your ability to judge quality content that is the problem here.

BTW radio stations don?t use the airwaves for ?free? they pay for their broadcast licensee.

BTW 2 from my understanding Air America used pretty much the same type of format as most right wing shows; the only difference was the people who they made fun of.
If you want ?quality content? turn on PBS or BBC radio. Please don?t pretend that the fairness doctrine is going to turn AM radio into some high minded source of news and information.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our political parties are a competition between who can reach communism first. Fairness doctrine is merely an attempt to one-up the Patriot Act. Until we deal with the authoritarians who want to grow government these abuses of power will continue to come up.

If they manage to pass more abuses, we shall have to have tea in Boston once again.