FCC Chairman Plans to Delete "Fairness Doctrine" From Federal Code

[Double Trouble]

The "fairness doctrine" is a lot like unions. At one point they were needed and beneficial, but society has since changed and now neither is needed or wanted, and neither benefits society. Do away with it and make it official.

When you had one or two tv stations available and no internet or access to other alternate sources of information, it was important to put measures in place to make sure different viewpoints were represented. Now that there are an abundance of ways to get whatever information you want, no matter where you live, the whole 'fairness doctrine' is unneeded and is just a tool to try and "fix" the fact that the marketplace has decided they want to hear certain things that one party does not agree with.

 

[matt0611]

Yet it worked well for very many years.



That works both ways. Given that there are so many media options out there, special interests should have no problem finding ways to spread their messages. They are not entitled to use a scarce public resource like broadcast airwaves.

That's the crux of the issue. Broadcast spectrum is, in fact, a scarce, shared resource. Rather than taking a free-for-all approach (he with the strongest transmitter wins), society recognizes the public interest is best served by having the government manage these resources.

The government therefore issues licenses to use portions of this public resource. In the case of commercial broadcast spectrum, these licenses are exclusive within a geographic area. In return for giving commercial interests these exclusive licenses, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to impose restrictions that serve the overall public interest. Those who don't like the restrictions are perfectly free to choose alternate media. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the public airwaves.

Those who oppose the Fairness Doctrine want to have their cake and eat it too. They feel entitled to the benefits of using the public airwaves, usually at a profit, yet are outraged that this privilege might come with strings attached. It is an irrational and unreasonable expectation.

"Worked well" according to some. Its subjective. Irrelevant.

The fact that its a scarce resource doesn't mean shit.
It should be sold off to the highest bidder and they should be in complete control.

Don't like it? Don't tune in.
There are plenty of channels or other forms of media for you.

Glad this garbage is being wiped from the books.

 

[CPA]

Does McDonald's sell salads? Yes, but it doesn't make them a health food restaurant. Standards have to be set somewhere or we'd all be eating sawdust and PCBs.

If it was up to the libs, yes, they would be, and I would argue that's where they're headed.

But in any case, there's not much difference between the networks and their "news" coverage nowadays. Have you seen local news in the big cities lately, it's 5 minutes of actual news, 25 minutes of garbage.

 

[Bowfinger]

"Worked well" according to some. Its subjective. Irrelevant.

The fact that its a scarce resource doesn't mean shit.

You realize you're just repeating yourself without addressing a single point raised. The fact that "radio" spectrum is a scarce public resource means everything.

It should be sold off to the highest bidder and they should be in complete control.

That simple-minded positions suggests you are driven by partisan dogma and lack a basic understanding of the resource. Central planning and control is essential to using the broadcast spectrum effectively, including providing the greatest potential for commercial exploitation. Without it we wouldn't have services today like satellite, cell phones, or digital television.

Don't like it? Don't tune in.
There are plenty of channels or other forms of media for you.

Once again, you have this backwards.

Don't like the terms? Don't use broadcast. There are plenty of other forms of media for you to sell your message.

You need to lose your entitlement mentality. You are not entitled to profit unconditionally from a shared public resource. The government is not required to prop up your flawed business model just because you don't want to adapt.

Glad this garbage is being wiped from the books.

I suspect you'd be squealing like a stuck pig if your party's talking point was yammering about "liberal" radio. Remember the pendulum always swings back. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to best serve everyone's interests ... today and tomorrow.

 

[piasabird]

Most media outlets to me seem to be controlling speech and selectively guiding the news to a liberal democratic point of view. Did you even pay attention during the last election????

I would even go as far as to say the Media was against electing Hilary Clinton in favor of their anointed one because he was more liberal and black. I think some medea outlets are guilty of election rigging.

 

[matt0611]

You realize you're just repeating yourself without addressing a single point raised. The fact that "radio" spectrum is a scarce public resource means everything.



That simple-minded positions suggests you are driven by partisan dogma and lack a basic understanding of the resource. Central planning and control is essential to using the broadcast spectrum effectively, including providing the greatest potential for commercial exploitation. Without it we wouldn't have services today like satellite, cell phones, or digital television.



Once again, you have this backwards.

Don't like the terms? Don't use broadcast. There are plenty of other forms of media for you to sell your message.

You need to lose your entitlement mentality. You are not entitled to profit unconditionally from a shared public resource. The government is not required to prop up your flawed business model just because you don't want to adapt.



I suspect you'd be squealing like a stuck pig if your party's talking point was yammering about "liberal" radio. Remember the pendulum always swings back. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to best serve everyone's interests ... today and tomorrow.

Nope, don't have any problem with "liberal" talk radio. As long as none of my dollars are going to prop it up. People should be free to say what they wish.

Its only "public" because you say it is. Thats your philosophy. I have my mine.
Fairness doctrine is fail.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Its only "public" because you say it is.

:facepalm;

Thus confirming you are driven by partisan dogma and lack a basic understanding of the resource. Have you taken any science classes? Do you understand at all what the electromagnetic spectrum is and how it works? Do you understand electromagnetic waves spread out at the speed of light, cross all property lines, are shared by everyone within range? For you to hint that they are somehow anything other than a public resource suggests either vast ignorance or an extreme, absurd level of blind partisanship.

Thats your philosophy. I have my mine.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. You're demonstrating you are unwilling to consider fact at all in clinging to your opinion.

Fairness doctrine is fail.

Certainly true if you put party before country. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Atreus21]

Does McDonald's sell salads? Yes, but it doesn't make them a health food restaurant. Standards have to be set somewhere or we'd all be eating sawdust and PCBs.

I'm going to give you the same line I get all the time from the pro-abortion crowd.

If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it.

 

[Atreus21]

I can't believe we're arguing about this.

There is exactly one reason the Fairness Doctrine might ever exist. Because certain political speech doesn't match someone in power's view of what it ought to be.

It's the same argument that exists against free markets. The objection is that it provides for people what they want, rather than what they ought to want.

 

[Bowfinger]

I can't believe we're arguing about this.

There is exactly one reason the Fairness Doctrine might ever exist. Because certain political speech doesn't match someone in power's view of what it ought to be.

Once again, you have that exactly backwards, projecting your own partisanship upon others. The Fairness Doctrine exists because once upon a time, long before there was any hint of conservative talk radio, the FCC took its role as a steward of the public interests seriously. It wanted to ensure that broadcast transmissions served the overall public interest by NOT being one-sided. Therefore they required that the airwaves be used fairly, that competing points of view and political agendas were heard.

It worked well until the Reagan admin decided that fairness was for suckers, that it was perfectly fine for broadcasters to offer a single point of view. (That point of view being one the Reagan administration agreed with, of course.)

It's the same argument that exists against free markets. The objection is that it provides for people what they want, rather than what they ought to want.

Free markets are fine when they aren't built upon a limited public resource.

 

[ProfJohn]

One upon a time long ago there weren't 13,000 radio stations nor were there three 24 hour a day news channels nor were there a dozen other cable shows about 'news' nor were hundreds of web sites full of news and information.

The doctrine might have made sense when we had 4 TV channels and a few local radio stations with no other news outlets, but today it is completely outdated and not needed.

But it is nice to see that you support government censorship when it fits your political view.

 

[Craig234]

But it is nice to see that you support government censorship when it fits your political view.

PJ is the Energizer liar.

He keeps lying, and lying, and lying.

 

[spidey07]

Once again, you have that exactly backwards, projecting your own partisanship upon others. The Fairness Doctrine exists because once upon a time, long before there was any hint of conservative talk radio, the FCC took its role as a steward of the public interests seriously. It wanted to ensure that broadcast transmissions served the overall public interest by NOT being one-sided. Therefore they required that the airwaves be used fairly, that competing points of view and political agendas were heard.

It worked well until the Reagan admin decided that fairness was for suckers, that it was perfectly fine for broadcasters to offer a single point of view. (That point of view being one the Reagan administration agreed with, of course.)



Free markets are fine when they aren't built upon a limited public resource.

The mind of a liberal. Free speech is great, as long as you agree with me.

The mind of a liberal on full display here. It's what they honestly think to their core. It's a mental disease.

 

[ProfJohn]

PJ is the Energizer liar.

He keeps lying, and lying, and lying.

What am I lying about? Specifically?

How do you enforce "fairness" ??

Someone somewhere has to make a decision as to what is 'fair' and what is not.

Let's use the Washington Post as an example and let's pretend that we have decided to make the Washington Post "fair"

Now I think the Post is left wing and therefore should run more right wing points of view.
But another poster in this forum claimed just a day or two ago that the Post is right wing and therefore would have to run more left wing points of view to be 'fair'

Now who decides which of us is right? And who decides what the Post should print in order to make it 'fair'??

 

[Bowfinger]

Once again, you have that exactly backwards, projecting your own partisanship upon others. The Fairness Doctrine exists because once upon a time, long before there was any hint of conservative talk radio, the FCC took its role as a steward of the public interests seriously. It wanted to ensure that broadcast transmissions served the overall public interest by NOT being one-sided. Therefore they required that the airwaves be used fairly, that competing points of view and political agendas were heard.

It worked well until the Reagan admin decided that fairness was for suckers, that it was perfectly fine for broadcasters to offer a single point of view. (That point of view being one the Reagan administration agreed with, of course.)

The mind of a liberal. Free speech is great, as long as you agree with me.

The mind of a liberal on full display here. It's what they honestly think to their core. It's a mental disease.

Spidey, I know it's a stretch for you but try not to be such an idiot. You are exactly backwards, yet again. I am encouraging free speech for everyone. It's those who oppose the Fairness Doctrine who are trying to squelch others.

And as far as "mental disease" goes, well, all I can say is you continually push the boundaries on irony.

 

[Atreus21]

Once again, you have that exactly backwards, projecting your own partisanship upon others. The Fairness Doctrine exists because once upon a time, long before there was any hint of conservative talk radio, the FCC took its role as a steward of the public interests seriously. It wanted to ensure that broadcast transmissions served the overall public interest by NOT being one-sided. Therefore they required that the airwaves be used fairly, that competing points of view and political agendas were heard.

It worked well until the Reagan admin decided that fairness was for suckers, that it was perfectly fine for broadcasters to offer a single point of view. (That point of view being one the Reagan administration agreed with, of course.)

That's a very noble accounting for what is actually simply enforcement of what those in power view as fair. What is fair? I find Fox News fair. You don't.

Fairness means someone decides what's fair, and that isn't freedom.

What happens in a free society is exactly what has happened: Many, many different points of view. You have fairness in that all points of view are heard pursuant to demand.

Free markets are fine when they aren't built upon a limited public resource.

Such as what?

 

[Craig234]

What am I lying about? Specifically?

How do you enforce "fairness" ??

That the Fairness Doctrine is "censorship".

That's a lie.

Now, some people did have the concern that having to air the other side to issues could create a chilling effect on speech. "Oh, don't do that piece saying that ACORN is sponsored by Al Queda, because if you do we'll have to let their supporter say we're terrible liars, and we don't want that pointed out."

The Supreme Court considered that argument, and ruled against it. In an 8-0 ruling.

Conservative Warren Burger did write that IF the court later found that the Doctrine started to have more chill than benefit, the court would reconsider. It never did.

Someone somewhere has to make a decision as to what is 'fair' and what is not

.

No, no one does, showing how you appear to be completely ignorant about it.

It has nothing to do with a government official saying "oh that statement is not fair, so they can't say it." That's not the Fairness Doctrine.

If you can identify that a station airs something that takes a political position, that attacks a person, etc., then that's all that's needed for the 'other side' to have a say.

In practice, the Fairness Doctrine was infrequently used, as I understand it. On occasion, some attack would get aired, and someone would ask to have a say.

The counterpoint did not have to be the same length as the original content.

Let's use the Washington Post as an example and let's pretend that we have decided to make the Washington Post "fair"

Now I think the Post is left wing and therefore should run more right wing points of view.
But another poster in this forum claimed just a day or two ago that the Post is right wing and therefore would have to run more left wing points of view to be 'fair'

Now who decides which of us is right? And who decides what the Post should print in order to make it 'fair'??

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled the Doctrine did not apply to newspapers.

Not to mention even if it did, that's not how the Doctrine worked.

Now, some of your points, I understand are not lies, just ignorance, but the 'censorship' you keep saying after being corrected repeatedly is a lie.

 

[Atreus21]

I am encouraging free speech for everyone. It's those who oppose the Fairness Doctrine who are trying to squelch others.

You've got to be kidding. You wish that government would regulate political speech, and then you accuse others of squelching speech?

 

[Craig234]

That's a very noble accounting for what is actually simply enforcement of what those in power view as fair. What is fair? I find Fox News fair. You don't.

Fairness means someone decides what's fair, and that isn't freedom.

What happens in a free society is exactly what has happened: Many, many different points of view. You have fairness in that all points of view are heard pursuant to demand.



Such as what?

First, free markets *require* intervention against monopoly, or they become monopolistic tyranny. Not unlike talk radio has practically become.

Second, in this case, the finite public resource in question are the airwaves, licensed by the government, for no charge to for-profit companies, with strings attached.

(I recall there being some discussion of charging for the licenses as the companies make fortunes off of them, but IIRC it didn't go anywhere.)

 

[Craig234]

You've got to be kidding. You wish that government would regulate political speech, and then you accuse others of squelching speech?

Yes. Allowing only one side to be the only side aired is less free speech than each side of public issues getting a say.

 

[Bowfinger]

One upon a time long ago there weren't 13,000 radio stations nor were there three 24 hour a day news channels nor were there a dozen other cable shows about 'news' nor were hundreds of web sites full of news and information.

The doctrine might have made sense when we had 4 TV channels and a few local radio stations with no other news outlets, but today it is completely outdated and not needed.

The assertion was there is "one reason the Fairness Doctrine might ever exist." My reply addressed that and showed why it was wrong.

As far as it not being needed today, all the reasons you list -- plus print, cable, satellite, Internet, etc. -- are exactly why it is not unduly restrictive to keep it. Anyone who is not satisfied with broadcast fairness requirements have ample opportunity to sell their messages through other media.

But it is nice to see that you support government censorship when it fits your political view.

And it's nice to see you have no qualms lying about anything if it serves your political view. There is no censorship here. Special interests are free to express their views. If they want to use the public airwaves, however, then the broadcaster must fairly server the public interest by giving time to alternate points of view. That is the opposite of censorship.

 

[ProfJohn]

First, free markets *require* intervention against monopoly, or they become monopolistic tyranny. Not unlike talk radio has practically become.

Second, in this case, the finite public resource in question are the airwaves, licensed by the government, for no charge to for-profit companies, with strings attached.

(I recall there being some discussion of charging for the licenses as the companies make fortunes off of them, but IIRC it didn't go anywhere.)

Talk radio monopoly??

The most popular talk radio show in the country is on 600 out of the 13,000 available stations.

How is that a monopoly?

BTW there are 900 NPR stations in the country. Maybe we need to come up with a way to provide 'fairness' from the NPR monopoly.

 

[ProfJohn]

And it's nice to see you have no qualms lying about anything if it serves your political view. There is no censorship here. Special interests are free to express their views. If they want to use the public airwaves, however, then the broadcaster must fairly server the public interest by giving time to alternate points of view. That is the opposite of censorship.

Who determines what that 'alternate point of view' is?

 

[Bowfinger]

That's a very noble accounting for what is actually simply enforcement of what those in power view as fair. What is fair? I find Fox News fair. You don't.

Fairness means someone decides what's fair, and that isn't freedom.

That's a phony argument. The Fairness Doctrine worked for years, successfully ensuring multiple points of view were aired. Kindly cite examples showing there was any significant problem with government abuse.

What happens in a free society is exactly what has happened: Many, many different points of view. You have fairness in that all points of view are heard pursuant to demand.

For someone who has access to a broad diversity of media, perhaps. For someone who only has access to radio, for example ... not so much.

Such as what?

The public airwaves, as I've mentioned many times.

 

[Craig234]

Who determines what that 'alternate point of view' is?

The person who requests the time to present the other side. The station gets to evaluate the request and approve or deny it. If they deny too much, the FCC can get involved.

This worked for decades with little controversy. People approved for equal time tended to be directly involved, or credible organizations, as I recall.