Fairness Doctrine

[dphantom]

A fair readio environment is one in which the free market rules and I can decide what I want to listen to and when. The last thing I want is the government deciding I've listened to too much of one type of radio program and now have to listen to another.

it is about freedom of choice...a very liberal position last I heard.

 

[foghorn67]

The bottom line is that listeners decided. That's the way it should be. If nobody wanted to listen to conservatives, then you wouldn't have so many programs on the air that are conservative.
Now, people want the government to step in and decide, when they can't answer how they are going to make it fair?
That is scary.
Sorry, there were plenty of chances, and liberals screwed themselves.

And, yes right wingers always complain about a lib bias in the media, but not one wanted legislation.

Geez, some people sicken me.

 

[piasabird]

So does this fairness doctrine extend to all the Leftist Newspapers?

This is a slippery slope if ever I saw one.

You either believe in the freedom of speech or you are for censorship. When the media is controlled by the government, that is called communism.

 

[Craig234]

Apart from the real issue of the fairness doctrine, I see righty after righty making a basic error in their rhetoric - calling the fairness doctrine "government control of the media".

That's hyperbole that confuses the "communism", yet another type of error made by piasabird, of a govermment control like Pravda under the USSR, with the fairness doctrine enforced by the US government in the 1960's and 1970's (and early 80's).

It just goes to show how wrong they are on the basic concept involved. Their equating *any* government role in the content of media, such as the fairness doctrine, with the government completely running the media can be seen as foolish when you notice the implications of the 'no government at all' standard.

Who do they think bans porn on Saturday morning tv? Who do they think enforces laws punishing illegal slander on evening tv? Who do they think enforces the laws for copyrighted material from being broadcast, protecting the creation of content? On and on, there's a government role that's helpful. But they're ignorant ideologues, so...

If PBS didn't exist and were suggested, they'd go nuts arguing how horrible an idea it was because it would turn the nation into the USSR, it's a communist thing to do, it'd create the total government propagandization of the people at worst, and irresponsibly compete with private, makret-drive media at best, and so on.

The fact that PBS has existed for decades with all of that false, with nice nature shows, the best documentary series on TV Frontline, good childrens' programming and such, disproves their ideological claims, but doesn't make them notice it. Instead, they'd *still* be happy, for the most part, to see it shut down for ideological reasons.

Don't ever accuse them of being rational.

I suggest they watch more PBS, and learn how they're wrong.

 

[foghorn67]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
Apart from the real issue of the fairness doctrine, I see righty after righty making a basic error in their rhetoric - calling the fairness doctrine "government control of the media".

That's hyperbole that confuses the "communism", yet another type of error made by piasabird, of a govermment control like Pravda under the USSR, with the fairness doctrine enforced by the US government in the 1960's and 1970's (and early 80's).

It just goes to show how wrong they are on the basic concept involved. Their equating *any* government role in the content of media, such as the fairness doctrine, with the government completely running the media can be seen as foolish when you notice the implications of the 'no government at all' standard.

Who do they think bans porn on Saturday morning tv? Who do they think enforces laws punishing illegal slander on evening tv? Who do they think enforces the laws for copyrighted material from being broadcast, protecting the creation of content? On and on, there's a government role that's helpful. But they're ignorant ideologues, so...

If PBS didn't exist and were suggested, they'd go nuts arguing how horrible an idea it was because it would turn the nation into the USSR, it's a communist thing to do, it'd create the total government propagandization of the people at worst, and irresponsibly compete with private, makret-drive media at best, and so on.

The fact that PBS has existed for decades with all of that false, with nice nature shows, the best documentary series on TV Frontline, good childrens' programming and such, disproves their ideological claims, but doesn't make them notice it. Instead, they'd *still* be happy, for the most part, to see it shut down for ideological reasons.

Don't ever accuse them of being rational.

I suggest they watch more PBS, and learn how they're wrong.</end quote></div>

I don't think you get the picture. You can have non-partisan arguments about banning porn on tv. You can have non-partisan arguments about the regulation of indecent words on radio, tv, etc.
You can have the government enforce indecency in a non-partisan way.

You cannot push a law with a partisan backing expecting it to be non-partisan. It doesn't work for either side.
And still, nobody is going to dare answer the previous question on who decides.
Doesn't that seem wrong? America decided that conservative talk radio show are good in the ratings, and you want to regulate what listeners want?

 

[QTArrhythmic]

I think that we need a clarification, because we are not all on the same page. I am NOT advocating censorship.

WIKI LINK

Quote from 1969 Supreme Court Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." -quoted off wiki page.

The Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that the Fairness Doctrine is consititutional.
However, I acknowledge legal scholars and journalists have questioned its constitutionality.

History of the Fairness Doctrine

QT

 

[ProfJohn]

I don?t think it would stand up in a court now days.

And I can?t believe how downright stupid the libs who support this are.
You guy want government censorship?
You want some guy in Washington deciding what you can and can?t hear on the radio on the basis of ?fairness.?

If we are going to apply ?fairness? to the radio then we need to apply it to over the air TV channels as well. We need to balance out 30 mins of Catie Curic with an acceptable conservative news person. Where does it stop?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don?t think it would stand up in a court now days.

And I can?t believe how downright stupid the libs who support this are.
You guy want government censorship?
You want some guy in Washington deciding what you can and can?t hear on the radio on the basis of ?fairness.?

If we are going to apply ?fairness? to the radio then we need to apply it to over the air TV channels as well. We need to balance out 30 mins of Catie Curic with an acceptable conservative news person. Where does it stop?

What is more amazing those who support this have not answered some very basic questions.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So does this fairness doctrine extend to all the Leftist Newspapers?

This is a slippery slope if ever I saw one.

You either believe in the freedom of speech or you are for censorship. When the media is controlled by the government, that is called communism.

Putting aside your imaginary "Leftist Newspapers", yes, it would apply ... if they start printing them on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.

(Sorry, getting annoyed at the idiots who still can't or won't grasp the difference between broadcasting using the public airwaves and privately-owned methods of dissemination like cable and print media.)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: piasabird
So does this fairness doctrine extend to all the Leftist Newspapers?

This is a slippery slope if ever I saw one.

You either believe in the freedom of speech or you are for censorship. When the media is controlled by the government, that is called communism.</end quote></div>
Putting aside your imaginary "Leftist Newspapers", yes, it would apply ... if they start printing them on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.

(Sorry, getting annoyed at the idiots who still can't or won't grasp the difference between broadcasting using the public airwaves and privately-owned methods of dissemination like cable and print media.)

Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shrumpage
[ ... ]
Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing.

So do you think it's bad the government regulates the broadcast of pornography? If not, your assertion fails. (I also disagree that the Fairness Doctrine materially regulates speech, but that's covered in other posts.)

Pornography is another subject. If you expose yourself to a 6 year old, and get arrested is that having your free speech squashed?


We are talking about the government demanding the regulation of political speech.

You are making two mutually exclusive statements. First, you assert "Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing." (Your exact words.) You then turn around and say that having the government regulate pornography is a good thing. Both statements cannot be true. Either you think censoring porn is a good thing, or you recognize that not all government regulation of speech is bad. Which is it?

I suspect it's the latter, i.e., you recognize the government has a legitimate public interest in regulating some speech. If that's the case, we're just disagreeing on where to draw the line. My position is consistent: controlling porn and requiring balanced coverage of issues on broadcast media both serve the public interest. You seem to hold to a double standard.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.

Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. Rush & Co. still get heard, but they would have to share the public airwaves with those holding opposite views.

You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.

 

[ProfJohn]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.</end quote></div>
Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differeing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.</end quote></div>
So censorship is ok as long as it is in the 'public interest'?

You may be right, I know there are a lot of dictators out there who would agree with you.

(let me ad we are talking about political speech here, not pornography, don't try to cloud the issue with something like that.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
[ ... ]You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. ...

And you know damn well the only reason you oppose this is because it impedes your quest to shred the Constitution and sell our children into corporate slavery.

Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points.

 

[JD50]

1. Why is it that the ONLY form of media targeted is the ONLY form of media where conservatives are the minority, don't you find that a bit odd?

2. How can you be in favor of enacting legislation when you have no idea what it actually means? You still have not answered the question as to how this will be enforced, who will decide what is allowed on the air and how they will decide that.

3. Since only conservatives listen to talk radio because we need to be told how and what to think, why does the left want to force conservatives off the air to make room for liberals, if they have no interest in being told how or what to think?

4. Can anyone point to some proof that shows that liberals are being deliberately denied the use of public airwaves? Especially after liberals got their own station, but it failed miserably. Could it be that people just don't want to listen to liberals on the radio?

5. Stop effing telling me what I should or shouldn't listen to on the radio. Go watch your liberal news, liberal movies, read your liberal newspapers, and leave me the hell alone while I try and listen to conservative talk radio on my way to work.

You keep slamming anyone that listens to conservative talk radio with your idiotic insults which doesn't help your argument one bit.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.</end quote></div>
Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. Rush & Co. still get heard, but they would have to share the public airwaves with those holding opposite views.

You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.

Ummm...aren't you trying to push people off the air that you disagree with, so that you can do just that, listen to only people that you agree with?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So censorship is ok as long as it is in the 'public interest'?

You may be right, I know there are a lot of dictators out there who would agree with you.

Stuff it.

(let me ad we are talking about political speech here, not pornography, don't try to cloud the issue with something like that.)

On the contrary, the issue of porn doesn't cloud the issue, it clarifies it. If you acknowledge the government has a legitimate interest in regulating broadcast pornography, then you have, in fact, acknowledged that some forms of regulation are beneficial. The discussion can then focus on where we draw the line and why. As long as you continue to pretend no broadcast regulation is acceptable, we have no basis for productive discussion. I strongly oppose "censorship" in general (see my .sig), but I recognize there needs to be some ground rules for the use of our public airwaves, a very limited, valuable, and powerful resource.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So censorship is ok as long as it is in the 'public interest'?

You may be right, I know there are a lot of dictators out there who would agree with you.</end quote></div>
Stuff it.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>(let me ad we are talking about political speech here, not pornography, don't try to cloud the issue with something like that.)</end quote></div>
On the contrary, the issue of porn doesn't cloud the issue, it clarifies it. If you acknowledge the government has a legitimate interest in regulating broadcast pornography, then you have, in fact, acknowledged that some forms of regulation are beneficial. The discussion can then focus on where we draw the line and why. As long as you continue to pretend no broadcast regulation is acceptable, we have no basis for productive discussion. I strongly oppose "censorship" in general (see my .sig), but I recognize there needs to be some ground rules for the use of our public airwaves, a very limited, valuable, and powerful resource.

Is it really that hard to see the difference between censoring something that is obscene (porn, curse words, etc..) and political speech?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
[ ... ]You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. ...</end quote></div>
And you know damn well the only reason you oppose this is because it impedes your quest to shred the Constitution and sell our children into corporate slavery.

Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points.

You just can?t make stuff like this up?
Someone who wants to limit the speech of people he opposes is accusing the other side of wanting the ?shred? the constitution.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.

Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. Rush & Co. still get heard, but they would have to share the public airwaves with those holding opposite views.

You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.

Ummm...aren't you trying to push people off the air that you disagree with, so that you can do just that, listen to only people that you agree with?

Hmm, let me check. Nope, not at all. I haven't listened to AM in years.

I think the reason you guys can't get your head around my position is because you simply cannot imagine someone taking a position based soley on principle. A Fairness Doctrine won't affect me personally. I simply believe in the principle of ensuring the public airwaves serve the public interest. I would hold the same position if it was liberal talk radio that ruled, or even if it was dominated by an ideology that matches my own eclectic mix of positions. I even thought it was the right idea 30 years ago, when political talk radio was an inconsequential oddity. Fair and balanced is simply the right position to take, and I'm astounded that so many are so nakedly partisan they reject this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So censorship is ok as long as it is in the 'public interest'?

You may be right, I know there are a lot of dictators out there who would agree with you.

Stuff it.

(let me ad we are talking about political speech here, not pornography, don't try to cloud the issue with something like that.)

On the contrary, the issue of porn doesn't cloud the issue, it clarifies it. If you acknowledge the government has a legitimate interest in regulating broadcast pornography, then you have, in fact, acknowledged that some forms of regulation are beneficial. The discussion can then focus on where we draw the line and why. As long as you continue to pretend no broadcast regulation is acceptable, we have no basis for productive discussion. I strongly oppose "censorship" in general (see my .sig), but I recognize there needs to be some ground rules for the use of our public airwaves, a very limited, valuable, and powerful resource.

Is it really that hard to see the difference between censoring something that is obscene (porn, curse words, etc..) and political speech?

I'm not going to hold your hand. You need to read and consider all the words.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sorry bowfinger, but we can't understand the idiots who don't understand that censorship is censorship.
Tell me how you implement the idea of ?fairness? without taking someone off the air or forcing them to cut back on the length of their show.</end quote></div>
Ahh, now you're moving the goal posts. Until now, the clamor has been on the red herring that Rush, et al, would be silenced. That is and always was nonsense. The real issue is that the 7x24 broadcast of one particular partisan agenda would have to end, in favor of a balanced presentation of the issues. Rush & Co. still get heard, but they would have to share the public airwaves with those holding opposite views.

You can call that censorship 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that the public is best served by a balance of differing views. Those sheep who never want to hear anything they disagree with can still do so, but not on the public airwaves. Willful ignorance does not serve the public interest in a representive democracy.</end quote></div>
Ummm...aren't you trying to push people off the air that you disagree with, so that you can do just that, listen to only people that you agree with?</end quote></div>
Hmm, let me check. Nope, not at all. I haven't listened to AM in years.

I think the reason you guys can't get your head around my position is because you simply cannot imagine someone taking a position based soley on principle. A Fairness Doctrine won't affect me personally. I simply believe in the principle of ensuring the public airwaves serve the public interest. I would hold the same position if it was liberal talk radio that ruled, or even if it was dominated by an ideology that matches my own eclectic mix of positions. I even thought it was the right idea 30 years ago, when political talk radio was an inconsequential oddity. Fair and balanced is simply the right position to take, and I'm astounded that so many are so nakedly partisan they reject this.

If you are so principled on this issue, then shouldn't you be fighting for this in all areas of the media? Every other form of media is dominated by liberals, that doesn't give conservatves very many options, that doesn't serve the public interest and it doesn't give us a very balanced view on things. It doesn't matter whether its the public airwaves, print, or cable, you are interested in serving the public interests right? And yes, conservatives are free to start their own newspapers and cable channels, but so are liberals when it comes to radio. Now if you can show me where liberals are getting shut out of AM talk radio for any reason other than the fact that they have crap ratings and the station would lose money due to loss of advertisements, you might have a point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
[ ... ]You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. ...

And you know damn well the only reason you oppose this is because it impedes your quest to shred the Constitution and sell our children into corporate slavery.


Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points.

You just can?t make stuff like this up?
Someone who wants to limit the speech of people he opposes is accusing the other side of wanting the ?shred? the constitution.

ROFL! With that you've leaped squarely into the camp of the willfully stupid. What part of "inane unsupported accusations" exceeds your intellectual capacity? Why don't you put down the knee-jerk propaganda points and try firing up a few neurons for a productive discussion.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So censorship is ok as long as it is in the 'public interest'?

You may be right, I know there are a lot of dictators out there who would agree with you.</end quote></div>
Stuff it.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>(let me ad we are talking about political speech here, not pornography, don't try to cloud the issue with something like that.)</end quote></div>
On the contrary, the issue of porn doesn't cloud the issue, it clarifies it. If you acknowledge the government has a legitimate interest in regulating broadcast pornography, then you have, in fact, acknowledged that some forms of regulation are beneficial. The discussion can then focus on where we draw the line and why. As long as you continue to pretend no broadcast regulation is acceptable, we have no basis for productive discussion. I strongly oppose "censorship" in general (see my .sig), but I recognize there needs to be some ground rules for the use of our public airwaves, a very limited, valuable, and powerful resource.</end quote></div>
Is it really that hard to see the difference between censoring something that is obscene (porn, curse words, etc..) and political speech?</end quote></div>
I'm not going to hold your hand. You need to read and consider all the words.

I gues you need it spelled out more clearly, or you can stop being a condescending ass and explain what you mean. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSCENITIES AND POLITICAL SPEECH.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50
1. Why is it that the ONLY form of media targeted is the ONLY form of media where conservatives are the minority, don't you find that a bit odd?

2. How can you be in favor of enacting legislation when you have no idea what it actually means? You still have not answered the question as to how this will be enforced, who will decide what is allowed on the air and how they will decide that.

3. Since only conservatives listen to talk radio because we need to be told how and what to think, why does the left want to force conservatives off the air to make room for liberals, if they have no interest in being told how or what to think?

4. Can anyone point to some proof that shows that liberals are being deliberately denied the use of public airwaves? Especially after liberals got their own station, but it failed miserably. Could it be that people just don't want to listen to liberals on the radio?

5. Stop effing telling me what I should or shouldn't listen to on the radio. Go watch your liberal news, liberal movies, read your liberal newspapers, and leave me the hell alone while I try and listen to conservative talk radio on my way to work.

You keep slamming anyone that listens to conservative talk radio with your idiotic insults which doesn't help your argument one bit.

?