Fairness Doctrine

[RecoveringJournalist]

I think it's time to openly discuss bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

I know this is a hot-button issue for some people - especially conservatives. But consider the shape of the country while it was in place up to the mid 1980s. Overall, things seemed a lot more civil. And conservatives STILL got elected to majorities in congress, to the presidency, etc. So it's not like reinstating it would damage conservatives' elections.

I truly think that Americans today can too easily burrow into their own points of view by watching FOX, MSNBC, etc. on their evening tubes and listening to only Rush, Schulz, etc. in their cars on the way to and from work. When non-critically thinking people who have strong opinions hear and see over and over from their chosen shows that not only are they correct in their beliefs, but also that people who believe differently are "out to destroy this country" and not to be trusted, it can easily start creating a monster. And that's what we have today, many monsters who will never see or hear any point of view that differs from their own, people who are more likely to shout down any dissenters rather than openly exchange points of view with them. It's a recipe for what this country has become - and what it could become even more so in the future.

While it has and always will be a tough sell for conservative mediums (which know it would destroy their hate-filled, yet very profitable business model,) it could lead to a more civil and educated society. Bottom line, do you remember the America of the 70s and early 80s? I do. And I surely do miss it.

[el_bryanto]

1. Counter-argument

I should say at the outset that I think you make some good points, and I'm not convinced either way - but here's one potential counter argument.

People already have access to viewpoints all across the spectrum if they want them. You can get conservative view points; you can get liberal view points. Why do we need to force stations to provide view points they don't want and that their viewers/listeners don't want?

Bryant

[RecoveringJournalist]

3. Ok

Understood. But how do you know these viewers/listeners don't want these alternate viewpoints if they never even have access to them in the first place? You know as well as I that it's very easy today for someone to get their information from ONLY FOX, Breitbart, etc. or only HuffPo, MSNBC, etc.

To be a better and more Democratic society, we need to be exposed to multiple ideas - not just our own opinion served over and over on a silver platter with a side of hatred.

[R. P. McMurphy]

8. ^^EXACTLY^^ eom

[WillowTree]

26. Who has access to Fox and not MSNBC?

Or to Huffington Post and not Breitbart? In today's atmosphere, people are going to tune out or change the channel when "the other side" gets their turn.

Are going to tell me that you'll hang around and listen to Rush if his show follows, say, Cenk? Really?

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Back in the 20s there were maybe a hundred local newspapers in NYC...

and each catered to its own audience. Just like now, people gravitated toward the media they agreed with, not to actually learn anything.

[RecoveringJournalist]

43. ^^^^^^^^^^

Yep! Yellow journalism! It's alive and well today - thriving actually.

[GGJohn]

63. Those that listen to Faux, Breitbart, etc.

are not going to want to listen to counter arguments, same for those that listen to MSNBC, Huffpo, etc.
If they want to listen to counter arguments, most people are aware of where to go, and with the internet, conservative and liberal viewpoints are all over the place.
The Fairness Doctrine was needed when the airwaves were dominated by the cons, but it's now a dinosaur that needs to be placed in the dustbin of history.

[RecoveringJournalist]

71. And this...

This is why it is needed once again, this exactly! You're right, people don't want to listen to counter arguments. So it's far too easy to be immersed in your own delusional bubble these days. If all you have is the lie repeated over and over, the lie becomes the truth.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."

Those are both quotes by Hitler.

[GGJohn]

77. You're not making any sense.

What makes you think that people of a certain political persuasion would listen to the opposing viewpoint?
Should people be forced to listen? Should there be a govt agency that forces people to listen to what they don't want to hear?

People just aren't going to listen to what goes against their viewpoints, period.

And how would you force it on cable stations and the internet? The FCC has no authority over them so they would just tell the FCC to go pound sand.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

84. You can

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
IMHO the Fairness Doctrine won't do much since people won't listen to, watch or read stuff they have no interest in.
Just like when most sports shows come on I change the channel.
Most people have the internet these days, including me and I live way out in the sticks.
I only go looking for things that interest me and ignore the rest.

[daleanime]

4. You would weigh a podcast....

against Faux News?

[tech3149]

12. I partially agree, wide viewpoints are available if you want them

My problem is I realize that some people, too many people, don't have the resources to access them. The primary resource being time the other is money. I see the best solution as restoring severe limits on media ownership not just in a particular market but nationally. The consolidation of ownership eliminated local content providers and narrowed discussion drastically. It also drastically cut employment in the fields of broadcasting and journalism.
In discussions with media personnel who were willing to give up terrestrial broadcasting for Sirius, internet or whatever, I make the point that you can't afford to give up on the lowest common denominator.
It's like running for president and only competing in a handful of states.

[LanternWaste]

24. Lacking cable, the televised access to both points of view is non-existent.

Lacking cable, the televised access to all points of view is non-existent.

[melm00se]

31. internet eom

[Omaha Steve]

46. IF you have the net

I'm fine with the doctrine coming back.

[melm00se]

52. internet users in the USA

85 - 90% of US population has access to the internet.

one interesting question is: of those who do not have access to the internet, how many of them would avail themselves of any kind of current event/news style programming?

another interesting stat is the pay TV penetration rate is 84%.

[Omaha Steve]

53. Cord-Cutting Gets Ugly: U.S. Pay-TV Sector Drops 566,000 Customers in Q2

U.S. pay-TV penetration flat at 84% of homes … and Netflix has little to do with it, study says
September 2, 2014 | By Daniel Frankel


I have a relative in cable, and they are worried.

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/cord-cutting-gets-ugly-u-s-pay-tv-sector-drops-566000-customers-in-q2-1201559878/

Cord-Cutting Gets Ugly: U.S. Pay-TV Sector Drops 566,000 Customers in Q2

AUGUST 8, 2015 | 05:39AM PT
Todd Spangler
NY Digital Editor
@xpangler
Cord-cutting headaches for pay TV have now progressed beyond just a dull, throbbing pain.

Cable, satellite and telco TV companies suffered their worst-ever quarterly subscriber declines for the three months ended June 30, collectively shedding more than half a million accounts — an accelerating erosion that’s put new pressure on operators and media companies exposed in the pay-TV biz.

No. 1 satcaster DirecTV, now part of AT&T, disclosed in a 10-Q filing Friday that it lost a net 133,000 U.S. subscribers in Q2, dramatically worse than its decline of 34,000 in the year-earlier period. Overall, traditional pay-TV distributors lost a whopping 566,000 video subs in the quarter, compared with 321,000 in Q2 2014, according to MoffettNathanson estimates.

Historically, Q2 has always been the softest for cable and satellite TV ops. But what should concern the industry is that the number of pay-TV households is now shrinking at an annual rate of 0.7%, compared with 0.1% a year ago, says analyst Craig Moffett. “That may not seem like a mass exodus,” he wrote in a research note, “but it is a big change in a short period of time.” Moreover, the declines come as U.S. household formation has picked up, Moffett noted, meaning pay-TV penetration rates are falling even faster.

FULL story at link.

[TipTok]

50. Addressing all points of view is pointless and unrealistic...

There is no need to mandate a truther special after a documentary on 9/11 for example...

Some points of view aren't worth the energy and don't deserve recognition.

[1939]

66. and who decides that? NT

[TipTok]

73. Sorry, my point was setting aside the obvious bit...

... Where laying out every stupid point of view is also unmanageable...

Good thing there's a million sources of media today and we can stop with stupid ideas like the fairness doctrine that hit peak freshness sometime in the 50s....

[LWolf]

90. Just for the sake of discussion...

whether it's a new version of the fairness doctrine, or something else...

How do we get propaganda off the airwaves? That's really the point.

It's true that people have access to viewpoints all across the spectrum. Can we separate "news" from "view points," and ask that anybody claiming to report news do so in a neutral manner without the spin?

Can we break up the monopoly of just a few corporate news sources controlling all that news, and what viewpoints are pounded into people repeatedly, all day long, every day?

[el_bryanto]

101. I don't know how you do this but I would love more accurate fact checking

But even fact checkers are seen as partisan these days (and in some cases are) - so I don't know how you get around this. But I think the misinformation, and in some cases deliberate misinformation, is a huge problem.

Bryant

[PatrickforO]

108. I think the answer to this particular counter argument is that

regardless of where people are getting their news, the same outlet should present both sides. That way, a person can't deliberately cut themselves off from opposing viewpoints as happens now. I don't think MSNBC is quite as bad, but Fox doesn't even tell the truth much of the time. It has served the right as a huge, swollen propaganda organ, spewing hatred and divisiveness for years and has literally poisoned a whole generation of Americans.

Honestly, I think we'd be much better off bringing the fairness doctrine back.

[GGJohn]

109. The Fairness Doctrine would not apply to cable

the FCC has zero authority over cable, of which the majority of "news" networks are on, and even if it the FCC did have authority over cable, people would just turn off or change the channel when a viewpoint not in line with their viewpoint came on.
You can't force people to watch what they don't believe in.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. It made some sense back when there were only 3 TV networks, but...

it was difficult to enforce even then.

The problem is just how to enforce "fairness" when there are so many shades of meaning and and questionable "facts" out there?

[daleanime]

5. Yeahup, it would be hard....

and why do hard things?

[Nye Bevan]

7. "Why do hard, pointless things" would be a more applicable question here (nt)

[daleanime]

10. Honest dialog, pointless....

got it, thank you. Have a lovely day.

[LanternWaste]

25. No doubt, fairness is indeed, pointless to the myopic and dogmatic.

No doubt, fairness is indeed, pointless to the myopic and dogmatic.

[Nye Bevan]

34. Should DU be required to allow a Republican "right of reply"?

Should DU be required to allow a Republican "right of reply"?

[GGJohn]

64. So, DU, Huffpo, should be forced to allow RW views?

Naw, if I want to read that shit, there are plenty of sites on the net who cater to those whack jobs.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. More to the point is that it only applied to TV stations...

not to print or radio. And even then it was difficult.

To try to reinstitute it today with an almost infinity of media would be impossible.

[daleanime]

16. There by equaling.....

Faux News and a podcast.

[Snobblevitch]

19. You are mistaken.

The Fairness Doctrine applied to all FCC licensed broadcast stations.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. That's true, but it never did affect local stations, or radio, all that much...

and certainly not print, which was considered to have 1st amendment immunity.

And since cable stations, bloggers, etc are not "broadcasters" it would have even less effect now.

[Snobblevitch]

59. You are mistaken once again.

I worked in radio broadcasting for many years, including prior to the repeal. The Firness Doctrine applied to radio just as much as television. It did restrict what programming could be done. There was a lot of requirements that needed to be documented and put into the public file. 

Prior the the repeal, there were not a lot of politically oriented talkshows. 

[RecoveringJournalist]

69. ^^^^^^^^

As a former radio employee myself, this is the exact truth. And this is the environment that we need to have back again.

[GGJohn]

70. No, it doesn't,

there are a myriad of sources for various viewpoints out there, Cable, Internet, etc.
And the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't apply to Cable or the Internet, the FCC has no authority over them.

[Snobblevitch]

72. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.

I would prefer the ownership rules to revert back to what they were prior to 1996, but that isn't going to happen either.

[melm00se]

23. The Fairness Doctrine

applied to any broadcast outlet regulated by the FCC so it most certainly did apply to radio stations.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. But was rarely, if ever, enforced against radio.

[melm00se]

35. back when I worked in radio (1980's)

we kept copies of EVERYTHING: news stories, transcripts of local public service programming, letters to station management and the like.

All to be made available when our license came up for review and/or if the FCC came knocking (which they did twice - - which management attributed to the fact that our listenership skewed older - 55+).

When the new ownership came in, the news department was given new marching orders: everything was middle of the road - - nothing controversial, nothing even vaguely political (except during election season which was excluded from FD oversight). we joined just about every other news outlet in town: information pablum.

[Snobblevitch]

80. What I find interesting is that there radio stations that still broadcast

local public service programming early on Sunday mornings when there are few people listening.

We used to do quarterly community ascertaintment meetings to gather information and topics that were important to our listeners. There a lot of stations that didn't do these sort of things, but they were also exposed to a fine if a complaint was ever made. The result is that they did not put much effort into their news and public affairs programming.

We had a newswire and NWS teletypes running 24/7/365.

[melm00se]

88. I am not sure if the PICON requirement

still applies (PICON = Public Interest Convenience or Necessity) but stations do that god awful boring Sunday morning block to meet the Public Interest component.

I remember engineering 2 shows that made the eyes roll back into my head:

one was about changing the diameter of water mains and the other was about changing the paint scheme on fire trucks from fire engine red to the pukey looking green.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Should it apply only to over-the-air broadcasts?

Or to cable? Satellite? Webcasts? News websites? Forums with news sections such as DU? Blogs?

Those pushing for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" seem to think that we are still in a world where the only broadcast news comes from 3 networks. You want the right's point of view? Go to Fox or Newsmax. The left? Head to the Guardian, Salon, or even DU. So what's the point of a Fairness Doctrine? For zombies who sit glued to a single news network all day?

[Dr. Strange]

51. Seems like applying it to DU is what gives us Discussionist.

That's a strike against, if you ask me.

[madinmaryland]

61. I think broadcasting Rush...

the band should be regulated under a fairness doctrine of not playing bad music.

[Dr. Strange]

62. Under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine, the following alternate viewpoint has been provided:

The Dallas Cowboys suck. Long and hard. It's as if Jerry Jones was trying to run a football team in north Texas, but instead ended up with the Cowboys.

[brooklynite]

9. What would be the point?

The fairness doctrine existed when there were three commercial TV networks. What happens on cable, and what happens of the internet are not under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

[moondust]

11. There's perjury for lying in court.

Why not a penalty for willfully lying to the public in general?

[Nye Bevan]

37. Who decides what a "lie" is?

It's usually not that clearcut. That's why the Washington Post factchecker, for example, doesn't say "true" or "false", it rates between zero and four Pinnochios.

[moondust]

42. One example:

Fiorina's claim about the Planned Parenthood video is demonstrably false. Not everything is provably false but some things are.

As long as there is no penalty for lying to and misleading the public, it will continue. Of course such penalties could destroy the Republican Party and perhaps some corporations like Volkswagen.

[Nye Bevan]

45. And even Fox News acknowledges that:

Fox New personality Chris Wallace pointed out to Carly Fiorina on-air that “every fact checker” has confirmed that “there is no actual footage that you just mentioned.” When faced with the opportunity to come clean or be called out, Fiorina doubled down on her earlier false statement: “I’ve seen the footage and I find it amazing that all these supposed fact checkers claim it doesn’t exist.” She then encouraged the public to watch the non-existent video for themselves.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fox-news-admits-carly-fiorina-is-lying-about-planned-parenthood/22484/

So why do we need a "Fairness Doctrine"?

[moondust]

49. Chris Wallace is only one broadcaster.

What about everybody else on Fox? And Limbaugh? And Pat Robertson? etc.

In this case the penalty applies to Fiorina and anybody else willfully misleading the public about Planned Parenthood or anything else.

The old Fairness Doctrine pertained to broadcasters. A new doctrine could conceivably apply to anybody willfully misleading the public. Donald Trump, for another example.

Of course one potential downside is that some of the same people who may be guilty of spreading untruths and propaganda could at some point get control of the "truth squad" and abuse that as well.

[Volaris]

44. Perhaps the solution is as follows..

If you're going to do news and current events on your television, cable, or radio staion, and NOT be required to label it 'entertainment' at every commercial break, it cannot turn a profit for the parent company, it MUST be non-profit in nature, and Standards and Practices guidelines (like fact checking and sourcing) must be met.

Rush would be off the air at the end of next quarter.

[moondust]

55. Dunno.

[Travis_0004]

82. You would see the end of all news

Except Cspan and a few big events like the state of the union address all news generates profits. If it didnt turn a profit instead of airing news they would find other programming, and news would be less available.

[deathrind]

13. I agree with you 100%

My grandmother who was in a nursing home for the last part of her life and if she wanted to watch tv pretty much had to watch what they put on so ensuring that every channel has to give a fair representation of what they broadcast seems...fair.

But there needs to be more. There needs to be penalties for blatantly misrepresenting facts to suit a particular view.

Watching the last Lastweek with John Oliver and seeing the segment where fox put up a video from several years ago as a recent video of the immigrant situation in Europe needs to stop.

[daleanime]

17. +1

[Throd]

15. I don't see this as a workable idea considering all the different ways media is consumed these days.

[RecoveringJournalist]

18. Neither are speed limits

Speed limits are impossible to enforce. But they are still on the books. And when people are caught, they are ticketed. Why? Because vehicles going too fast on a road with other vehicles are dangerous. So authorities attempt to enforce it.

A large group of people only exposed to a single set of ideas are also dangerous.

[Throd]

36. Excessive speed is an immediate and identifiable hazard.

There has to be a better analogy.

[Nye Bevan]

38. "A large group of people only exposed to a single set of ideas are also dangerous".

So presumably websites such as DU should also be required to offer balancing opinions, in order to ensure that those people who only get ideas from that website are exposed to different viewpoints.

[Throd]

39. Nope, it's only the morons who disagree with me that need to hear the truth.

[RecoveringJournalist]

41. Seriously?

You really don't know me at all, do you. I made sure to include BOTH sides, because both have guilty parties.

[RecoveringJournalist]

40. DU

Why does DU exist in the first place? I would have no problem if there was no need for it to exist.

[RecoveringJournalist]

74. And of course

And of course in this thread, there are no dissenting views at all. We are all 100% on the same page about this topic. The posts prove that.

[jwirr]

20. I don't think the fairness is the problem. I think the real

problem is the communications act that allows monopolies in ownership. Think Murdoch. Of course there is a lot of problems with who can afford to own the media also. Most it owned by huge corporations (MSNBC/GE/Comcast).

About the only way progressives get their own stations is through contracts like LINK where we viewers support them with our money.

[Snobblevitch]

22. I agree.

The Communications Act of 1996 destroyed radio broadcasting in the U.S.

[melm00se]

28. the question that I have

is:

How many people (as a percentage of the population) actually listen to the radio?

Customized musical play lists are available on portable devices (phones, ipods etc). My nieces and nephews all jack their phones into their cars and pull their entertainment content from streams.

maybe radio is going the way of the LPs and CDs?

[Snobblevitch]

60. I just looked it up.

Nielson research says that a bit over 90% of people in the U.S. listen to radio broadcasting. I know that number will slide down because of smartphones, but peoPle have been predicting the demise of radio for about 65 years.

[jwirr]

75. Many do riding home from work or other places.

[1939]

68. NBC had always been corporately owned.

NBC was started by RCA. GE bought RCA for their electronics business and not for that fact that they ran a TV network.

[melm00se]

21. In addition to el_bryanto's comments

the original Fairness Doctrine was applicable only to over the air (OTA) broadcast new outlets. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and the like would have been unaffected by by the Fairness Doctrine.

Additionally, what leverage would the FCC have over these outlets? Cable news stations, to my knowledge, are not licensed by the FCC as OTA stations are. Under the old FD, a station could lose their license to use the public airwaves if they were not compliant.

Extending the Fairness Doctrine to cable outlets could create a launching point for it to apply to internet content especially seeing so much of today's content is internet based and those numbers are destined to go nowhere but up.

This could lead to sites like DU being regulated under the "new" Fairness Doctrine which could force DU to battle it out in the courts (costing significant money) or open up the gates to a balancing volume of conservative viewpoints.

back to el_bryanto's point:

The media landscape is radically different today than it was almost 70 years ago when the FD was originally implemented. Back in the 1950's, many markets had (at best) 3 TV stations (ABC, NBC and CBS) which acted as the primary electronic news outlets and most, if not all radio stations (mainly AM at the time...FM didn't really come into play until the 1960's) were music oriented with limited news content.

Fast forward to today:

Consumers have at their fingertips not only the 3 outlets of yesteryear but also a plethora of web based video content: BBC (both America and UK based), al-Jazeera, HLN, Bloomberg, and on and on. In addition, they have immediate access to hundreds (if not thousands) of other news outlets and uncounted numbers of pure opinion sites.

The need to control and ensure that the consumer has access to balanced coverage of stories and events is long since past. In fact, trying to enforce control over content might have the completely opposite effect than intended: outlets, instead of dealing with the inevitable complaints to the FCC (or whatever agency will have regulatory control) and the resultant investigations, will become far more bland in their content. News outlets might let stories slide by rather than deal with the almost inevitable level of compliance necessary to avoid getting sanctioned (if sanctions, as mentioned before, are even possible).

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. With only 6 corporations controling 90% of the media.

The fairness doctrine would be a good first step to returning an honest media industry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

[onenote]

47. There is too much concentration in segments of the media industry, but the six control 90 percent

meme is a made up number.

First of all, what is mean to control 90 percent? Ninety percent of viewing/reading hours? Ninety percent of programs?

Second, what is media -- the typical chart supporting this claim shows not only broadcast and cable networks, but also newspapers and movie studios. Yet, three of the top ten (by number of viewers) cable networks aren't controlled by the six corporations listed (Comcast/Time Warner/Fox/CBS/Viacom/Disney). And neither are seven of the top ten newspapers (and dozens and dozens of smaller newspapers). While there definitely is too much consolidation of broadcast radio station ownership, both at the local and national levels, most of the big radio station groups are not controlled by the "six corporations" listed above. Add to that magazines, program producing and distribution entities like Netflix and other online sources of content and its pretty obvious that the 90 percent figure is pure fiction.

The problem with repeating this claim is that it is easily disproved, thereby undercutting the more important point that there is too much concentration of ownership of broadcast and national cable networks.

[LanternWaste]

33. I'd love to see it reinstated for the major commercial networks

I'd love to see it reinstated for the major commercial networks (not channels-- a relevant difference) newscasts for either local or national broadcasts-- with the additional stipulation of no commercial broadcasts during the news programming.

It would be nice to see the networks once again fulfilling their half of the FCC's "Public Interest Bargain" (getting free license to broadcast over airwaves as opposed to, say, cellphone companies that often pay billions for their airwaves at FCC-run auctions)

[Sam_Fields]

48. In a few years all broadcasting will be over the Internet

Broadcast AM radio is dying, FM is barely hanging on and TV is going to the Internet. You can't roll back the clock. Today people can select their podcasts or Internet broadcast anytime they want with their computers or smartphones.

[brooklynite]

57. No it won't

US doesn't have the bandwidth to support streaming by all 300 M people.

[jeff47]

54. They'd just put on a whiny-sounding moron to speak for the liberal side. (nt)

[frankieallen]

56. The fairness doctrine is outdated and unnecessary.

There are literally thousands of news and information outlets available today, you can always find a different view on any topic. Besides, it's unenforceable.
Seriously, do you really want the government telling broadcasters what they can and cannot say? It amazes me that some here would suggest that lying should be some kind of criminal offense.

[bluestateguy]

58. That is kind of my view

A reasonable rule in the days where broadcast TV and radio predominated, but outdated, hard to enforce and rather obsolete in the digital/internet age.

So talk radio isn't our thing on the left. So what? We have other outlets that our people prefer.

[Octafish]

67. Not when most Amerkuns get their news from tee vee.

Six corps sing from the same Corporate songbook, meaning no one asks why Bush, Cheney and warmongerbanksters walk free.

[RecoveringJournalist]

76. Agreed

Ask the vast majority of people of all ages, colors, backgrounds, ethnicities, etc. where they get the MAJORITY of their day to day news. TV will have more answers than any single other source.

[GGJohn]

81. Correct,

but the vast majority is from the cable networks, of which the FD would have no effect.

[Octafish]

86. ABCNNBCBSFIXEDNOISENUTWORKS put on cable what they air.

FD would impact cable that way.

[GGJohn]

91. No it wouldn't.

The FCC has no authority over cable, so once those networks went to cable, the FD would no longer apply to them.

[Octafish]

93. You must misunderstand. Networks on cable run what they air.

ABC, for one. CBS, for another. There aren't that many.

If they have to adhere to FD, their cable broadcasts will as well, seeing how they carry on cable what they broadcast on-air.

The Fairness Doctrine was a cornerstone of honest journalism. Since its repeal, we've gotten the corporate-state perspective, along the lines of what Mussolini called fascism or Joe Sixpack calls Rushbo.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

95. They would just change

the programming to be different between OTA and cable.
Heck you don't see CNN, MSNBC or FOX spews over the air around here.
They're only on cable and sat.

[Octafish]

99. If that's so, the FD should apply to cable.

Otherwise, the news will be all right wing, all the time, just like the fascists like it.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

111. Sorry, but

when you pay for something (cable-sat) you don't expect to be watching stuff that is FORCED on you.
It's bad enough when I buy a DVD/BluRay that I have to put up with a bunch of previews etc, it's not what I wanted to buy.

Let's carry this out to the extreme: I like Rock music and do not want to have the station be forced to have a mixed of country, classical etc thrown into the mix just to make things 'fair'.
No matter how hard you may try people will just tune out when the crap comes on.

Should a Christian station be forced to air the Satanic POV?

[Octafish]

118. My point has to do with news broadcasting.

The First Amendment thing.

[melm00se]

112. So basically

you would give the FCC (or whatever regulatory agency is given this task) control over the content on the internet and that could very quickly reach into websites, bloggers and the like.

As has been mentioned above: would like to see DU forced, by the Fairness Doctrine, to carry opposing view points?

Before you say "craft the law to..." you must understand that how the law is crafted today is not how it is enforced tomorrow.

[Octafish]

117. No, the broadcasters on cable.

Television is where most Americans get their news.

I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out how to accomplish that regulation. I hope there are still some Democratic lawyers interested in the subject.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. Why not just mandate

people watch X number of hours of RW news with an equal number of hours of news from Progressive sources? You can track their viewing habits through their cable boxes and then charge them for any violations through their annual tax filings.

I mean, as long as you're in the mood to dictate what people have to watch, and all.

[Octafish]

120. Nice stretch.

The point is presenting all sides, not just those who agree with Rush Limbaugh.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

122. No, the point is you want people to be forced to watch what you agree with.

So, instead of diluting content -- requiring Limbaugh to sacrifice X number of broadcast minutes means Maddow has to sacrifice X number of broadcast minutes -- you should have the courage of your convictions to go straight to the heart of the matter and place the mandate on the audience, not the content providers.

Limbaugh is on the air for 3 hours a day, Maddow only one. Equal time means you could cut Limbaugh down to 90 minutes but then Maddow would be reduced to 30 minutes; or whatever the scheme would be, though it would have to be applied equally. Under the audience mandate you could say, "Okay, you can have 60 minutes of Limbaugh but you have to have 60 minutes of Maddow as well" and vice versa.

But since this betrays the dictatorial impulses of those proposing this silliness they tend to be embarrassed by the suggestion. That's why dictators-by-proxy are as cowardly as they are contemptible.

[Octafish]

124. You should make that an OP.

I'd like to see what people think about a free press and freedom of expression.

What you got to say is also interesting.

[GGJohn]

127. The point is that all sides are presented,

there are, literally, thousands of opposing viewpoints out there, they're very easy to find.

[Nye Bevan]

92. No, with any new "FD" the cable channels would become completely distinct.

The networks would put their "fairness mandated" programs only on their over-the-air broadcasts, and all of the cable shows would be the same as they are today. A new "FD" would only affect people who only get TV through an antenna on their roof.

[Octafish]

94. Then FD should extend to cable.

Lots to think about:

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-fairness-doctrine/

[GGJohn]

97. No it shouldn't.

The FD isn't needed any longer, there are literally thousands of sources these days to get differing viewpoints and even if the FD were brought back, cable should be left alone.

[Octafish]

102. You must not mind, but I don't like Scalia and Cheney.

FD kept their lies in check because most people don't bother to read The Nation or In These Times or the thousands of web sites; they watch Fox or CBS or television news.

[GGJohn]

103. I don't like either of them either, so I don't listen to them,

I get my news and opinions from elsewhere, ergo, the FD is no longer needed.
Back in the day when there were only a few broadcast stations, then yes, the FD was needed, but now with the explosion of the internet and cable, there are a myriad of sources to find differing viewpoints.

And if most people don't bother to find the viewpoint that clicks with their ideology, then shame on them for being lazy.

[Octafish]

105. Not a matter of 'viewer' being lazy...

...it is the job of the network to tell the truth, not just one side.

[GGJohn]

107. The truth according to who?

Some govt. agency? As I said, it's easy these days to get both viewpoints.

[Throd]

121. The Ministry of Truth. It's right there in the name!

[GGJohn]

65. The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't affect cable at all,

the FCC has no authority over cable stations, so Faux, MSNBC, etc, would just tell the FCC to go pound sand.

[stevenleser]

78. Agreed and any radio broadcasters affected would go to satellite. nt

[GGJohn]

79. Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that,

but it makes perfect sense.
Thanks.

[Travis_0004]

83. Donald Trump 2016!!!!!

Trump is not such a bad guy. He wad right. Once. Probably.





Just enforcing the fairness doctrine for DU.

[Nye Bevan]

116. And some would like the FCC to come knocking on Skinner's door if he hides your post (nt)

[X_Digger]

85. Nostalgia is a comforting blanket for some folks' memory.

Much as you think you'd like to, you can't force people to listen to your point of view.

[Octafish]

96. Nostalgic for Democracy.

How many broadcasters talked about Bush stealing Florida?

[GGJohn]

100. The internet was full of bloggers lamenting the stolen election.

Hell, that's why DU came about, because of the FL. debacle.

[Octafish]

104. Great. Ask people away from DU what they know about it.

Most will repeat what they got off the tee vee: Bush won.

Here's the more complete story from ConsortiumNews:

https://consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

Good luck getting that on-air.

[GGJohn]

106. Then that's on them for being to fucking lazy to learn about the stolen election.

And what makes you think that people would not just turn off the tv when a viewpoint different from their viewpoint was presented?
The FD can't force people to watch what they don't believe in.

[Octafish]

87. President Obama sided with GOP to reject reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine

Obama FCC Kills 'Fairness Doctrine' Dead, As Requested by Congressional Republicans

By BRAD FRIEDMAN on 8/22/2011, 3:35pm PT

In apparent response to GOP leaders of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee who requested in June that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Julius Genachowski "strike the Fairness Doctrine from the agency's rulebook," the former corporate media executive has announced exactly that today, striking the rule, and 82 others, from the official FCC rulebook...

SNIP...

Ending enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, which had served the nation well since the early days of radio in 1949, paved the way for Rush Limbaugh and other hard right commentators to use the public airwaves as little more than a one-sided propaganda tool. The situation was exacerbated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as signed by President Bill Clinton, under the pretense that it would allow for greater competition in the broadcast media market. The act allowed for virtually unrestricted corporate ownership of local radio and television stations and ultimately gave a handful of corporate outlets unfettered control of almost all of the nation's limited broadcast bandwidth.

CONTINUED...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8689

[LWolf]

89. Yes.

This has been a recurring topic here since the beginning.

I want neutral airwaves...not propaganda.

[OneGrassRoot]

98. We need less opinion, more fact-oriented, evidence-based journalists and anchors.

Allowing the wide spectrum of views is all well and good, but we seem to have that now (if we search, of course), but the media outlets are not pointing out what is fact vs what is opinion.

The media reports what is said like stenographers, or they allow the various people to speak, but rarely comment on the veracity of what was said.

Conservatives know this, so lying through their teeth now is second nature. When their main source of news (Fox) is the preeminent liar, the shit flows from the top.

[sorefeet]

110. I just want to know how to STOP

the propaganda. Because there are lots of people in this country that eat it up. They love it and believe every word of it. Then they repeat it. 1 thru 10 ratings? One is solid propaganda (Hannity) and ten is factual (whoever that is). Fact check for all.

[melm00se]

113. Propaganda, like beauty,

is in the beholder.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. You think Jesse Ventura should be given equal time during televised 9/11 retrospectives?

[X_Digger]

125. Yeah, don't expect a coherent answer to that one.

It only works one way, don'cha know! Cause.. 'MERIKA!

[ZX86]

119. The solution is simple.

Make the fairness doctrine voluntary and tax free like churches.

To qualify:

1. You must be exclusively a public affairs news gathering/opinion outlet (website, newspaper, broadcaster). Sports, entertainment, general interests etc. would not qualify.

2. You can not have financial interests outside of public affairs news gathering/opinion. You can not be a division of some larger corporation like Fox, Comcast, or Viacom.

3. You must devote 10% of your website, publication, or broadcast to responsible parties and citizens for rebuttals, critiques, and corrections.

Benefits:

1. Enterprising journalists not afraid of peer and public review will flock to start tax free businesses.

2. It is voluntary. No 1st Amendment issues. Would not initially affect current business models. They can operate as they always have, just not tax free.

3. Over time it will become apparent that news outlets that publish/broadcast reviews and critiques of their own work are more credible than the Fox News and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

It should be remembered that the Constitution mentions only two entities for special protection. Churches/religion and newspapers/freedom of speech. They both should be tax free for the same reasons. They provide important functions for the public and should not be tainted by outside monied influence or interests.

[mmonk]

123. We need to return to it or don't complain

living in the world's largest third world country in economics. F*cking case closed.

[reddread]

126. the more relevant approach would be net neutrality AND

infrastructure improvements.
take it away from crooked monopolies and put the hub of our communications in the publics possession.