Bring back the Fairness Doctrine

[warrprayer]

Enough of the corporate media collusion is enough.

A democratic President and Senate should be enough to pull it off.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Not with a Republican House and it wouldn't apply to cable-TV. n/t

[Taitertots]

3. The so-called fairness doctrine is fascism

AND, it was never fair in the first place.

[warrprayer]

56. I am sick

Of Trump getting 90% of network airtime, the nonstop banging of the emails drum, etc.

You?

[Taitertots]

63. I don't have a TV.

Why do you want to listen to what rich people (owners of the media corps) want you to think?

I got sick of it years ago and decided to stop supporting it.

[warrprayer]

64. Because I still believe

That the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC. (the people).

The owners of the media corporations stole the airwaves.

I want them back.

[LWolf]

4. Or something

that holds the media accountable in some way.

I don't want to limit free speech. I do want it to be FREE, though, and not orchestrated, choreographed, to manipulate the masses.

Maybe the first step is to break up the media monopolies. Maybe to draw a better line between "news" and editorials.

[get the red out]

7. Breaking media monopolies would be great

And not just for the RW propaganda. I remember the local radio of my childhood and it was great. It got our small town through a near catastrophe when a nearby damn almost broke during a flood. It would have swept through our community with a wall of water. Thankfully the local station told people how long to stay out of harms way, and when we could go home.

[ellennelle]

8. the fairness doctrine does NOT limit free speech!!!!!

see my previous comment here.

it merely gives targets of lies and hate equal time to defend themselves!

there are limits to free speech, such as not yelling fire in a crowded theatre; this is perfectly parallel to that limit. everyone remains free to say whatever they want, they will just have to allow the targets of anything they claim or accuse to defend themselves.

think of this as the parallel to the difference between free and fair trade. i'm all for both free trade and speech, until it is no longer fair, targets and/or threatens anyone, and risks starting a fight.

we as a community and a people owe it to ourselves to recognize the importance of placing limits on dangerous behaviors, no?

[NYC Liberal]

32. "it merely gives targets of lies and hate equal time to defend themselves!"

Fairness doctrine NEVER required equal time. It was perfectly fine to give one "side" 59 minutes and the other 1 minute.

It also never required that the subjects of whatever controversy be given airtime, only that the views be presented. So, under the Fairness a doctrine, NBC could have some right-winger talk for 59 minutes about Trump's position on an issue and then read a 1 minute prewritten description of Hillary's position.

The Fairness Doctrine would also not affect cable channels like CNN or Fox at all.

[warrprayer]

58. A resounding YES

Well said.

[warrprayer]

57. Equal time

Would at least prevent a Trump from monopolizing media airtime.

[ellennelle]

5. A-FRIKKIN'-MEN!!!

all you have to do is chart the plummet of national discourse with the rise of shock jocks and faux snooze; it all started with the abandonment of the fairness doctrine.

if that is not enough for you, just imagine how different the media discourse and rhetoric would be if it were brought back. every. single. time. a pundit poophead tried to make outlandish and inflammatory claims on OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES, whichever individual or organization that targeted would be allowed equal time in the same time slot.

seriously; think about the difference that would make! and DID make, until it was killed.

folks who resist it, like taitertots here, are either young or rightwing, or simply have not investigated it thoroughly or thought it through. the fairness doctrine is the opposite of fascism in that it allows the public to regain control over OUR airwaves. it is NOT thought police; the FCC is not the hall monitor; instead, the target of any such insanity and incivility can demand the equal time. FCC mediates, but they do not police it. (they save that for the swear words and boobs.)

just for the record, right (heh) on cue, as soon as obama was elected, all the rightwingnuts were clutching their pearls and calling for the smelling salts about, of all things, the fairness doctrine. anyone unaware of the power of that simple rule was likely caught off guard, if they even noticed; why are they apoplectic about that, of all things? but i had predicted it; the rightwing faction was petrified they'd no longer be able to spew their propaganda and hate speech with impunity.

and not necessarily as an aside, the nasty mentality the loss of that rule has bred in our public discourse has of course bled into the internet, where things are even less transparent. the nightmare of web trolling and bullying and lie-spreading and propaganda was also predictable from the demise of that rule.

so i say, hey howdy, good on ya, warrprayer! this is in my top 4 issues to pressure congress on, right up there with aggressive climate change action, disarmament and conflict withdrawal, and recovery of the commons. thx to ya!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Pat Robertson thinks much of modern media degrades society.

[ellennelle]

39. and your point is....???

unlike you, i'm able to see the differences here.

i'll try not to be offended by the comparison, but do allow me to spell out for you the distinction.

you and i and everyone here knows that what robertson despises is that the media is not completely under HIS control.

whereas, what i am promoting - and what was the case prior to the rescinding of the fairness doctrine - was that opinions would NOT be avoided or eliminated simply because the ownership of the network outlet do not like what is said.

see the diff there? or is that too nuanced for you?

i have to ask that last question simply because you appear to also miss the nuances of true anarchic principles.

just, you know, saying'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. "what robertson despises is that the media is not completely under HIS control"

Yet, what you propose would put the media completely under somebody's control. You seem antagonistic and easily offended enough to preclude my confidence in allowing you to suggest who the controller ought to be.

opinions would NOT be avoided or eliminated simply because the ownership of the network outlet do not like what is said.

You might as well be demanding laws requiring people to spend mandated percentages of time viewing diverse content. They own their TVs, they avoid or eliminate opinions simply because they own the TV.

Frankly, I don't see the need for Maddow, O'Donnell or anyone else to give up their time to share with RW talking heads.

[warrprayer]

61. Sounds like a profit oriented way of viewing things

Instead of a civic minded one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Civics isn't dictating what people can view.

As I said, feel free to suggest a law that requires equal viewing time requirements.

Even if you were able to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine you would have no guarantee people saw equal measures of content. They could skirt the law by patronizing internet outlets or the office water cooler or simply not tune in at all. If you want your so-called civic way of things you'll have to be certain the proper amount of indoctrination is occurring.

[warrprayer]

66. I realize

A reinstatement of the exact wording of the fairness doctrine would not fit todays world.

I'm sure some sensible legislation to encourage some token of fairness of news coverage could be hammered out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. "To encourage"?

I return to my original observation about Pat Robertson.

The government has no business attempting to influence the public.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. ^

[warrprayer]

59. Always welcome!

The fairness doctrine would take the right wings fat asses off the scales of public discourse.

[anoNY42]

6. Wow, it's been several months since this was last suggested,

and it is still a bad idea and a violation of the 1st Amendment!

Seriously, this was all the rage on DU prior to the start of Trump's complaints re the media rigging the election. Then, for some reason, the fairness doctrine proponents went silent for a few months...

[ellennelle]

9. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE DOES NOT VIOLATE 1st AMENDMENT!!

please read my comments above.

knowing what the actual text of the doctrine is helps to take informed perspectives on matters.

like knowing the actual wording - and history - of the 2nd amendment.

[anoNY42]

11. It does to a 1A absolutist like me

Of course, I disagree with any Court decisions that say otherwise.

Anyway, I love how you call opponents "right wingers" and in almost the next sentence state that actual right wingers were calling FOR the fairness doctrine after Obama was elected. Confused much?

1.) The fairness doctrine forces broadcast sources to make speech they otherwise would not make, that is the violation of the 1A protection of free speech and press.

2.) The doctrine would only apply, under your own reasoning, to broadcast where the public owns the airwaves. This would severely limit it's impact.

[classykaren]

12. It's a shame you were not around when this was the way news was . People listened to the news just

for the facts. One 5 minute station interpretation of the highlight news story. The next night 5 minutes of the opposite view. Was wonderful and really got you thinking.

[world wide wally]

21. Why can't they show sex acts with donkeys on CNN?

[NYC Liberal]

35. Other than beastality being illegal, nothing.

CNN can show hardcore pornography as much as they want just the same as Showtime can.

If shows on cable channels censor themselves it's because of advertisers (and the audience), not the FCC.

[anoNY42]

36. You tell me...

[ellennelle]

40. crikey

this is getting tedious.

first, good luck with that "absolutist" thing. even the SCOTUS long ago noted there are limits to free speech. see "crowded theatre" above.

second, no, you are the one who is confused. the rightwing was freaking out about the possibility obama would reinstate the doctrine. sorry that was not spelled out for you, but the implication is pretty obvious.

third, the FCC has jurisdiction over cable, as well, imposing certain limits on what can go over the cables, that entire system itself granted by THE PUBLIC and our taxes that set up the infrastructure (granting the cable networks heinous monopolies, but that's another kettle of fish....).

fourth, i can't help saying again, good luck with your 1A absolutism; it does not even pass SCOTUS muster. there are limits to ALL rights; they are called responsibilities.

[Native]

52. "There are limits to ALL rights; they are called responsibilities." - Worth repeating!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. You can scream fire in a crowded theater when there is a fire in the crowded theater.

[whathehell]

66. Yeah, well luckily most of us aren't Absolutists.

so that's not likely to count for much.

[PoliticAverse]

33. It didn't because it only applied to broadcasters using the public airways. n/t

[anoNY42]

37. That might have been a rationale for the Court

but I disagree that it should enter into the 1A analysis at all.

The 1A does not say anything about the mode of speech, it just says "speech".

[ellennelle]

43. our tax dollars funded cable

the entire cable network is part of our commonwealth.

we need to take that back, media and all of it!

[warrprayer]

62. Pssst

The fairness doctrine would stop Trumps proposed new version of "Fox News" in its tracks.

Some here seem upset about that.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

10. I would prefer an "Honesty Doctrine" of some kind.

I've been most bothered by outright lies and unsubstantiated accusations from conservative propagandists.

I can understand people getting facts wrong from time to time, but it's bothersome when the same people keep doing it while maintaining their access to our limited airwaves and bandwidth.

[Upin]

13. Call it what you want...

It's unenforceable in the modern age in addition to being subjective and just absolutely begging to be abused.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

14. Unenforceable?

Advertisements are removed for being deceptive. Is that an attack on free speech too?

[Upin]

15. Usually for being demonstrably false...

Head on contains no active ingredients known to science to influence headaches.

What would you consider to be such a black and white example in the news media?

Even nutjob Hannity had to apologize and retract recently when he was proven factually wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028265997

99.9% of what we consume is opinion and interpretation of a few base facts and it is a rare thing indeed to find a blatant, irrefutable, provable falsehood in the modern media that doesn't have that wiggle room.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

16. Demonstrably false is what I'd target.

Did you think I was arguing against opinions that I don't like?

Look up "Pants on Fire" in PolitiFact if you want examples.

[Upin]

18. Just adds to my point...

Picked at random...

"It’s possible that non-citizen voters were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina." - Mr. Tiny Hands

So what do you do? He's still technically a private citizen. He can say what he wants. He adds qualifiers. He finds one single solitary case where a non-citizen voted.

What happens? Do you fine him? Fine the network for airing it? Jail time after a certain number of falsehoods? Fine every website that ran the quote? Shut down their sites? Force him to correct it at gunpoint?

As I said, the idea is completely unenforceable. Exponentially so in our time with a million channels and a billion websites and more ways to communicate than ever before.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

20. Is that demonstrably false?

No? Then why provide that example?

To be honest with you, I'm moving on because of your low post count and the fact that you joined just a few days ago.

[ellennelle]

41. fairness doctrine solves it easily

none of the suggestions you offer are necessary. whatever content that a network airs targeting an individual or organization is the setup; the doctrine then ALLOWS THE TARGET to demand equal time.

see how that works? see how subtle?

i do realize subtlety and nuance are rare commodities here.

hence my exit for the same reasons buckeye dem offered you.

toodles.

[colsohlibgal]

17. We Need Some Version Of It

The damage Fox News has done over the years with it's wall to wall propoganda while calling themselves fair and balanced is staggering. Again it is not only what they say but what they choose to cover.

Over time the only alternative has become other corporate media on TV. And in radio....corporate owners have dumped higher rated liberal talk for conservative talk on many areas. The ratings often then tank but they do not care.

None of this would have gained much traction without the dumbing down of way too many, too many not willing to dig for truth.

The hope going foreword is younger people who have cut the cordons are trending populist, joining we older adults who refuse to be brainwashed and do things like....gasp....read and research.

[Upin]

19. Ever read or researched Illusory Superiority?

Last edited Wed Nov 2, 2016, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

[ellennelle]

44. ooh, aren't we touchy

[Upin]

49. Not at all...

I sincerely believe that the political left would gain significant ground if they stopped assuming that the political right was comprised solely of idiots.

That way takes us ever deeper down the road of division and leads to things like this train wreck of an election season.

[brooklynite]

22. The Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable news...

[SuperDem2008]

23. Porn Again Christians

If Democrats won't speak the truth giving them more air time won't help much.

Can anybody tell me why Democrat talking heads won't call Donald Trump's porn again christian campaign what it is, a porn again christian campaign? Don't they get it?

There is a word for the ruder, the cruder, the more vulgar, the more offensive the more socially unacceptable, the more un-PC the better..... PORN. Why are folks afraid to call it what it is?

Hey I understand nobody believed that what is called the evangelical christian right in the USA would buy into the Donald Trump campaign including Ted Cruz. Christians are opposed to porn. That is impossible. Everybody thought oh sure they might flirt around with Trump's porn for a goof but eventually they would come to their collective senses and do the christian thing. Well I got some news, everybody was wrong including their boy Ted Cruz. The USA is full of porn again christians. And, why anybody thought different is what is really the amazing thing.

How many Breitbart-type porn again christian websites producing porn again christian porn 24/7/365 does there need to be, how many porn again christian street preachers does there need to be on social media peddling porn again christian porn 24/7/365 does there need to be before people wake-up and smell the coffee. The USA is full of porn again christians.

Trump is no genius, he is a salesman selling what the public buys. And, in a USA full of porn again christians, porn again christian porn sales.

You have to call them what they are porn again christian and you have to call porn again christian porn PORN.

JMHO

[Native]

24. I've been thinking about this for a while now. Would it apply to the cable stations?

I'm wondering about this because the justification for the Fairness Doctrine had to do with the airways being free and belonging to all. Since we have to pay for cable, I'm assuming they'd be exempt. Anyone know about this?

I'm also thinking that the regular broadcast stations, if held to a higher standard, might become more attractive to the general public than the cable stations if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. People are obviously crying out for news that is fair and truly balanced.

[ellennelle]

45. it should, and could IF we insist on it

this is part of our commonwealth! we have to take it back!!

[Oneironaut]

27. Yuck. I would hate to legislate something as subjective as "fairness."

There's absolutely no reason to have a fairness doctrine anymore. Radio is a dying medium. Most people use the internet now. The original idea behind the fairness doctrine is no longer valid today.

I hate the idea of forcing a market on certain mediums. It wouldn't work.

[ellennelle]

46. do rethink this

you see no problem with the threatening trolls and incitement of riots, murder, and more, on the web? really?

you sound like chief justice roberts saying we don't need the voting rights act anymore because, hey, post-racism!

really??????

[Oneironaut]

60. How the heck would you enforce a fairness doctrine on the web? That makes no sense.

The Fairness Doctrine was for the radio, which is now a dying medium. It has nothing to do with trolls or the internet at all.

And furthermore, what does this have to do with the voting rights act? That's a nonsequitur and not even remotely related.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. YES!! PLEASE

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

[surrealAmerican]

29. It wouldn't matter if we did.

It only ever applied to "the public airwaves". Far fewer Americans get their information that way now.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

31. So that's what's wrong with young people!

Just kidding, millennials! Samantha Bee's imitation of one was pretty hilarious, though! (About two minutes into it.)

[stopbush]

34. Why? Doesn't the present system work just fine?

The media gave Trump billions of dollars worth of free air time and they allowed Hillary to buy millions of dollars worth of ad time as a counter. How is that not fair?

[Upin]

38. How would that be enforced?

Someone sits with a timer for every station counting?

[ellennelle]

47. any target of accusations or claims

if they don't feel they were given equal time in the same time slot, then they complain to the FCC.

worked right well for several decades. and as an old fart, i can tell you, kept the lid on the likes of the likes of trump and such.

[Upin]

54. Gotcha...

CNN reports that David Duke and his clan are intimidating voters in the south. CNN should be mandated to let him give his side of the story?

Fox reports that NAMBLA is in resurgence. They get a segment to show both sides of the story?

Etc.. Etc.. Etc...

That's not even scratching the surface. It may have 'worked' when there were three channels but it is absolutely and completely unenforceable in the modern era. How far does it go? Major networks? Cable? Radio? Blogs? Written articles? News only? SNL does an anti-Trump skit so they have to do an equally insulting one for Hillary?

That assumes that the system remains fair and unbiased which is also an impossibility.

[ileus]

42. Why can't the government control all media outlets.

I don't think we'll ever lose the office of the presidency again, so that being said we'd control ALL "news" from the point it's passed.

[Throd]

50. No, let's not.

It is a silly concept.

[Raster]

51. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reinstate the Voting Rights Act...

...and then let's take a look at the rouge, almost treasonous factions in the FBI.