Anyone else uncomfortable with the idea of the fairness doctrine?

[rumguy]

I believe in the marketplace of ideas.

I don't want government regulating the content of political shows.

When I listen to Air America I don't want to have to hear right wing views.

Conservatives have the same right.

Maybe I've misunderstood the fairness doctrine, but they way I understand is that every political show has to have both sides....

It just sounds messy and inherently undemocratic and contrary to the idea of free speech.

It sounds like a clusterfuck waiting to happen.

[kentuck]

1. I'm more uncomfortable with the "unfairness doctrine"...

With the advent of television, it is more important that neither political party dominate the media...There is no "marketplace"...

[mopinko]

2. well, you should look it up

it didn't say anything of the sort. it didn't refer to shows, it refereed to stations.

[rustydog]

17. It refers to both sides being represented in electioneering

if one station has a candidate on espousing his position during election campaigning, they need to supply equal time to the challenger.

[NMDemDist2]

3. hmmmm, no i think the loss of the fairness doctrine has given us

Faux etc.... since it only says that in a controversial issue you have to have both sides represented.

Case in point, on the run up to the war, fairness in media (or someone like that) surveyed all the news broadcasts and less than 10% of the "talking heads" were for peace.

the news had war guys over and over and almost no one taking the peace side, and see where that got us?

[kentuck]

6. I think they have to offer the time if it is requested...

It's not automatic, is my understanding.

[ClassWarrior]

9. It only pertained to broadcast (through-the-airwaves) stations.

Not cable. But it did give rise to Rush and Hannity and Boortz and the rest on the AM band. I have long believed we need to reinstate the FD because of the rightward tilt of the media owners, but now that I've had a taste of liberal radio I'm not sure I want to give it up or have it "balanced."

[Eloriel]

28. First, you wouldn't need "liberal" radio, and second

much of "liberal radio" already is balanced.

One of the key elements of balance is not skewing the facts. If anything, liberal radio (and other media) present far more of the facts than are found in mainstream outlets.

We've gotten to a place where the mainstream media treats opposing sides' pronouncements as if they are equal, even when one side is patently lying. I think that would stop with the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine -- as long as it had some teeth in it, of course (like potential loss of license, as in the good ole days).

Finally, don't imagine "balance" requires equal time. You didn't say that, but I don't want anyone thinking that's what it requires. It doesn't. As I've had to post nearly every time I've seen this subject posted, the FD only required stations to give "responsible parties" an opportunity to present opposing viewpoints if those were not covered in the original broadcast. There was nothing requiring any specific amount of time. Typically, those "responsible parties" would get 30 - 60 seconds, often aired well before dawn or well after midnight. In large measure, the FD was effective mostly for its nuisance factor (as well as that potential loss of license thingie), because it was a pain in the nect for broadcasters to comply, so they pre-emptively (for the most part), did the right and responsible thing.

So, to comply with the FD, if it were to be implemented along the lines of the old one, a broadcaster would only need to make sure a sentence or two outlining the opposing viewpoint were included in the coverage.

[ClassWarrior]

47. You are correct.

Liberal radio is inherently more fair than mainstream outlets to begin with. And it's true that real value of the FD was its threat to broadcasters if they got too extreme. But if it was reinstated, while it'd serve to temper the Rush stations, don't you think that the RW would turn it full barrel against liberal stations? Look how the FCC has been used to go after Pacifica and stations like that, while the major networks get slaps on the wrist.

I'm still in favor of reinstating the FD, but the thread author raises an interesting question, imho.

[Viking12]

4. Yes, you've misunderstood the fairness doctrine n/t

[rumguy]

5. So how does it work?

[Nambe]

11. Censorship never works. BUT

In a country that now seems far away, radio and television broadcasters had an obligation to operate in the public interest. That generally accepted principle was reflected in a rule known as the Fairness Doctrine.

... However, by 1987 the Fairness Doctrine was gone - repealed by the FCC, to which President Reagan had appointed the majority of commissioners.

That same year, Congress codified the doctrine in a bill that required the FCC to enforce it. President Reagan vetoed that bill, saying the Fairness Doctrine was "inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." Thus, the Fairness Doctrine came to an end both as a concept and a rule.

The concept, IMO, is a good one. Society should not allow the promotion of sexism, slavery, illegal wars, etc.... on publicly owned airways without repute. Since the Doctine was killed, common sense programing like NPR is virtualy labeled a terrorist organization while the likes of Limbaugh tell the rest of us to go f.ck ourselves.

In my Oregon city; there are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative hosts of political talk radio, with not so much as a second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

[rumguy]

18. People have the right to advocate their poltical beliefs

Whether they be liberal or conservative...

You shouldn't force programs to put on certain people in the interest of 'balance'...that is to much governmental control...

[sendero]

7. Not in the slightest....

.... the airwaves are a public resource and should not be used solely to make a profit. Neither political party should have a monopoly on their use.

[dumpster_baby]

8. The Lion makes the Lamb think the lamb is the Lion!?

You wrote:

I believe in the marketplace of ideas.


Ah, that's grand! Yer quite the egalitarian philosopher, ye are!

You wrote:

I don't want government regulating the content of political shows.


THat is because you don't know what is at stake.


You wrote:


Maybe I've misunderstood the fairness doctrine, but they way I understand is that every political show has to have both sides....



Why only 2 ways?



You wrote:
It just sounds messy and inherently undemocratic and contrary to the idea of free speech.


There ya go with that "philosopher king" schtick again!

You wrote:

It sounds like a clusterfuck waiting to happen.


Sounds like you really slurped that koolaid with gusto.

Look, Big Money is the Lion, you and me, we are the Lambs. We need all the help we can get. The government is our bodyguard, ya see. Just like ya see on them there teevee shows.

Big Money has been able to organize and buy decades of propaganda meant to portray the world in a certain way. Guess what? It portrays a world view that favors Big Money! Sur-prize! Sur-prize! Sur-prize!

People who listen and accept to this propaganda for decades don't have much of a clue about how the world really is. They accept the propaganda-world as it is presented to them. Curmudgeonly contrarians like me eat it up and spit it out just for fun.

Do me a favor: watch the movie _The Truman Show_, and then read the essays here:
http://www.tcfrank.com

[dweller]

10. and for grins

rent 'VIDEODROME'

dp

[rumguy]

15. Break up the big monopolies

but don't go to each program and say you have to have this or that person on...

that's to much government control...

[Eloriel]

34. Read my post upthread

You're WAY off re the Fairness Doctrine.

[rumguy]

38. Whats the point of this:

"So, to comply with the FD, if it were to be implemented along the lines of the old one, a broadcaster would only need to make sure a sentence or two outlining the opposing viewpoint were included in the coverage."

Why even bother? It would be so obvious anyway to anyone listening that it was the spoonfed shit the government was forcing in there...

To much government control...for really nothing at all...

[StopThief]

12. Exactly!!!!

There are so many sources of information, the idea of the fairness doctrine is obsolete.

[davekriss]

13. Big here on the Fairness Doctrine (and the Rule of Sevens)!

Rumguy: "I believe in the marketplace of ideas." Gee, is that what we have? Seems like you are unaware of the anti-democratic effect of the asymmetry of power.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
---A.J. Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" The New Yorker, May 14, 1960

The FCC was given broad, elastic powers to protect the public trust in its administration of the airwaves, part of the "commons" that belong to all U.S. citizens. Over the years, several key regulations emerged, two of which I think are key: The Fairness Doctrine and the Rule of Sevens.

The Fairness Doctrine says essentially that, in order to qualify for the privilege of broadcasting for profit over the airwave commons, the broadcaster had to agree, as part of (required) news, to present issues of controversy in their communities, and to present spokespeople on all sides of the issue. The belief was that this ensured that all voices would be heard, a healthy thing in a democracy, and no one voice would be able to drown out the others via advantages of ownership.

The Fairness Doctrine was challenged in court and overturned in (I think) 1987. So, instead, congress passed (in 1989) legislation that codified the FCC regulations, which George Herbert Walker Bush promptly vetoed. There have been several attempts over the years to resurrect this legislation, but in every case it has been beaten down by various rightwing and pro-business lobbies.

The Rule of Sevens initially said that no single enterprise could own more than 7 television stations, 7 FM radio stations, and 7 AM radio stations. It was even more restrictive in any given market. This evolved over the years until the "Sevens" became 20. Then, with the Communications Act of 1996, the counts were (I think) removed and instead the limit became a market reach of no more than 35% (that's not market "share", just "reach" -- meaning the potential to reach 35% of the U.S. population). The FCC recently, under Colin Powell's son's direction, attempted to drop all ownership-share restrictions and settled on a 45% reach (which was overturned in the courts).

The result of this has been twofold: (1) massive media consolidation to the point where today 6 large corporations own almost all of the major media (29,000+ radio, TV, and press outlets), and (2), freed of the FCC mandate to fairly "inform", news has been forced to compete for advertising dollars in the same manner as the rest of a broadcaster's entertainment portfolio -- resulting in the devolution of news into the "infotainment" that we see today. And Fox has the audacity to call itself fair and balanced "news"!

To say that Rebublicans did this to intentionally allow powerful interest to amass more power is flat out wrong (its not a conspiracy, however that can be the consequences). The march to deregulation is idealogically consistent with the conservative factions of the Republican party: The libertarian element would have "government off our backs" on principle, and the pro-business element would strip all rules out that might introduce economic inefficiencies (AKA anything that stands in the way of profit and capital accumulation). So a Republican President, and later a Republican congress, removed another brick from the edifice of the public trust (surely) in good albeit flawed faith that in so doing a greater good would emerge. But it hasn't. Instead we have the "terror" we see today, the steady manufacture of a frightened populace ready to tradeoff liberty for "security".

It may not be "conspiracy" (the steady events of the last 25 years), but that's not to say there aren't conspiratorial elements that pounce on the opportunities created and lobby to keep the doors thereafter open for their personal gain. There are such elements, and they contribute mightily to the campaign coffers of those they believe will help them, but this is beside the point, just a background noise to the greater wail of a dying democracy.

My position -- critique, if you will -- is that democratically (small d) sanctioned laws and regulations can (and often do) serve as a brake on the advantaged position of power. Remove those brakes, and the system naturally rolls further to their advantage. The issue is concentration -- of monopoly approximated -- and its untoward impact on a nation as a whole. The case of the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and Rule of Sevens is illustrative.

Note how, in the majors and just hours after 9-11, we learned that "they hate us for our freedoms".

Note, for example, how quickly in 2002 all the major broadcast and news media, ahead of the public, jumped to an agenda that included discussion of how to execute the war, not if we should go to war. ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC all rose as if a choir singing praise for war. I believe this enabled the GWB cabal to advance on Iraq and will enable them to continue to rollout the new imperium unimpeded. Is this a good thing? No. Even if Iraq tomorrow emerges as a beacon of Jeffersonian Democracy, the fact that the U.S. skipped informed debate in favor of a Rovian imitation of Goebbels portends ill for the future of liberty.

Note also that, early after we illegally invaded Iraq, there was almost zero coverage in the major media of the Anti-American uprisings; instead we saw hours of coverage of the staged toppling of Saddam's statue in front of the Palestine Hotel. (Even with careful cropping it was obvious that the crowd numbered in the dozens; this hardly looked like the celebratory toppling of the Berlin Wall. So why the surfeit of coverage?) This hardly encourages thoughtful public consideration of the real issues -- instead the vast "center" of the American body-politic is even more likely to gladly ready itself for the next military adventure. Who made these editorial decisions and why?

Someone elsewhere today asked whatever happened to Siebel Edmonds lawsuit, or the Mariani lawsuit. Instead we get revived coverage of the Laci Peterson trial. Which is more important to a healthy democracy?

Note back in the nineties, when the Clintons were trying to reform health care, that there was almost zero discussion of a single-payer health plan in the major media even though several major polls demonstrated that a majority of citizens were interested in it. It was off agenda. Why?

Note also how vehemently the "free press" covered the various Clinton scandals, from whether or not Bill "inhaled", from Whitewater to Fostergate, from the various alleged affairs to Monicagate, enabling a biased Republican House to impeach a President for a minor lie arrived at, essentially, by entrapment. Then note the scant discussion in the majors about GWB's DUI and alleged abuse of cocaine; Harken Energy insider trading; his year spent AWOL from the National Guard. Why such an imbalance?

Now that 6 corporations own the majors, it does seem to me there has been selective framing of the agenda. And the frame sure does seem to serve the interests of the few over the many. An American tragedy. Of course, by extension, that means a tragedy for the world.

I'm convinced there's much more "fun" to come; 9-11, Afganistan, and Iraq are just the beginning. Now one ideological party, controlled by its ideological fringe, controls the Presidency, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court (and the CJS in general), as well as, in my belief, the Press (via extension of the board rooms of those 6 massive corporations that essentially own the media lock, stock, and barrel). Conservative Republicans even control the 3 private companies now installing unauditable electronic voting machines around the country. In addition, this administration has put in place tools to suppress dissent (the PATRIOT Act, HSA, and soon to be introduced Patriot Act II) and has announced an agenda (my analysis of the NSS) to make the world over as some kind of vast protectorate of the United States serving the interests of our corporate masters. And now they float the trial-balloon of cancelling elections!

Did I hear FASCISM anyone?

(Sorry for the length of this post, everyone.)

[rumguy]

14. I agree with breaking up the media monopolies

But I still don't like the idea of government telling what each program has to feature...

That's to much government control.

I want to be able to listen to Air America without hearing some right wing jerk offered up as 'balance'....

[DemBones DemBones]

46. So stick your fingers in your ears and go 'LALALALA

I CAN'T HEAR YOU' while the conservative view is being aired for fairness.


Right now, without the Fairness Doctrine, the "free marketplace of ideas" you tout is getting its ass kicked by right wingers with the bucks to buy media time and government officials.

You asked a question, now why don't you listen to the answers from those of us who remember the Fairness Doctrine and know what it did?

[rumguy]

50. This stupid fairness doctrine won't help one bit

Having a sentence or two inserted into the program or airing the opposing viewpoints at the end of the program whatever - it'll be obvious to anyone listening that what they're hearing is the spoonfed shit the government is force feeding them.

We can grow our own programs. Which is happening. We don't need the government to help us promote our ideas.

[Senior citizen]

25. Good post, davekriss, no apology needed.

My area has elected liberal Democrats, yet we didn't have a single leftish talk show for years. I had written my reps to ask for legislation that says that if an area has elected liberal reps, that area should be entitled to at least one liberal media voice. To be in the majority and not have your views expressed on the public airwaves is extremely painful. This is the sort of thing I had always associated with authoritarian dictatorships. Indeed, this is fascism.

Lately my talking point has been that while the rich should have the right to buy mansions and yachts if they can afford 'em, freedom of speech is not a mere commodity available only to those with the bucks, but a Constitutional right that is guaranteed to all citizens. Our problem is that we have a partisan majority on the Supreme Court who can't tell the difference between a commodity and a Constitutional right, and think people should only have as much freedom of speech as they can afford.

[davekriss]

54. Yes!

"freedom of speech is not a mere commodity available only to those with the bucks" -- I agree wholeheartedly! Really, the solution I think is to get the authoritarian rightwing away from all levers of power. No easy task considering the two-plus decades of damage that has been done.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Do NOT apologize for a lengthy post when it's

such a good post!

:yourock:

[Eloriel]

37. Dave -- the FD was overturned by the FCC itself under Reagan

I'm not aware of any court challenge that preciptated it.

AND, they FCC did so in an orwellian flourish of rhetoric about this move "furthering free speech." :puke:

A belated welcome to DU -- and oh, btw, one of the things I love about the place is that NO one complains about the length of posts. That means, you don't have to apologize for same. ;-)

[davekriss]

51. I think you are right

The FCC rescinded the FD in 1987; but I thought they did so after deliberating a judicial decision from the previous year. If it was just more Reaganesque political heavy-handedness, then all the more reason to regret this victory for the right!

The case I refer to was Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, and it invalidated the "scarcity" argument that was used previously in defense of the FD. The FD, it was argued, is justified because of the inherent scarcity of the broadcast medium -- not everyone gets bandwidth, therefore the State (as protector of the public interest) has a say in who gets bandwidth and how it is used. TRAC v. FCC established (wrongly) that this is an arbitrary distinction. Broadcast bandwidth is not anymore "scarce" than print media (it was argued), and it had been long established that content regulation of print media was unconstitutional. Therefore content regulation of broadcast media was nullified. Or something of the sort.

In any case, the FCC used TRAC v. FCC (1986) to justify rescinding the FD (in 1987).

ON EDIT: What TRAC v. FCC does not address is the artificial scarcity created by monopoly. Maybe rumguy's emphasis on the Rule of Sevens has merit (I of course argue for both)...?

[Zorra]

16. The airwaves should not be a marketplace.

They should be a public trust.

Wealthy special interests will always naturally monopolize a market, and in the case of information dispersal, will disperse information for their own interests, and not the public interest.

I don't know how to accomplish this, but it is clear that the present system is a failure and needs to be corrected in the public interest.

Entertainment, politics, news, and editorial opinion may have to be seperated somehow. Journalists should never have to be subject to the political dictates of media ownership.

Entertainment can be left in the private sector.

Air America is a needle in a giant conservative mass media haystack.

[walldude]

20. Funny how the conservatives

complain about the "liberal dominated" media then bitch about the fairness doctrine..

[mmonk]

19. I would like enough unvarnished truth

in the media news category. An ignorant populace can make long lasting mistakes.

[rumguy]

21. Everyone here talks about the 'public interest'

Well what the hell is the 'public interest'?

Really the public interest is whatever the fuck you want to say it is. It's whatever the people in power say it is.

This kind of talk is exactly the kind of BS that is getting Howard Stern in trouble. It is exactly the kind of BS that allowed the government to crack down on controversial people like Lenny Bruce....it's the same mindset.

We're all adults. We can choose who we want to listen to. We don't need the government spoon feeding us.

[mmonk]

23. Too bad

the truth doesn't sell in the marketplace.

[rumguy]

26. First, what is 'the truth'?

Who's to say? You?

Second, I think the progressive viewpoint can be sold in the marketplace. No doubt about it. The question is doing it well and putting in the time and effort. Movies with progressive messages often to very well at the box office. Shit look at F911. And Air American is doing better and better.

I want to win this battle head to head. I don't want government to win it for me.

[mmonk]

29. Truth can be reporting

not spinning. Truth can be searching for answers or asking questions and not giving politicians and elected officials a free ride or pass. Truth can be not deciding to censure information the government might prefer you not to know.

[Eloriel]

39. I'd agree with you if you had a point

That is, if you understood the FD and your argument applied to it. IT DOESN'T. Go read my first post upthread.

[rumguy]

42. I read your post upthread

and I responed to it...

It just seems like an idea that only increases government control and really would accomplish nothing.

[davekriss]

30. The Public Interest

rumguy: "well what the hell is the 'public interest'?"

What is in the public interest is that which best serves the public. We once limited the definition of that "public" to just white, propertied males. Today I like to think it's more expansive than that (but perhaps I delude myself).

Does the profit of the (relatively few) significant shareholders of a Clear Channel or a Viacom trump our need to hear informed debate about whether or not we should've attacked Iraq before the war? Ever wonder why MSNBC appeared to delight in the prospects of war? Could it be because its corporate master, GE, is a major manufacturer of high-tech weapons systems (all those exploded munitions need to be replaced, ya' know -- this war just another instance of "planned obsolesence"!).

I repeat from my previous post, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" (Liebling). The issue I have with your libertarian view of these things is once you own enough presses you have the nearly unopposed capability to drown out ideas inimical to your interests. Someone like me can still get up on a soapbox out here in the desolate isolate free speech zones (like DU), but Disney and General Electric have the capability of cementing reactionary establishmentarian memes in millions of brains before a progressive idea ever has a chance to be heard.

After all, we've always been at war with Eastasia, heard it on the "legitmate nooze", but hey they tell us choco rations are up too!

[rumguy]

32. that's why I support the rule of sevens or any other break up of

the largest of the media monopolies...

But each program has the right to be sovereign and air what it wants without the government coming in and telling them what to put on. Shit that is like Orwell's 1984...

[davekriss]

52. We agree on Rule of Sevens, but I add

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.
---Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

I'm not so dismissive of the sovereign right of democratic citizens to set the rules of the game in such a way as outcomes benefit everyone instead of just a few.

[Zorra]

53. We are supposed to be the government.

If we are the government, we can feed ourselves diversely with the things we choose to consume if we put the choices there.

Otherwise, RW corporations will feed us only whatever they want us to consume, and we will have little choice, exactly like we do now.

I want choices, and there are very few choices available at this time due to RW media ownership.

Have you ever spent time in rural America? There are no choices whatsoever there. You either watch and listen to RW bullshit, or you don't listen to or watch anything. There is no Air America in Caspar, Wyoming or Bozeman, Montana, or Idaho Falls or Yakima, Washington. It's all Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel, Pox News, Alphabet soup, and Murdoch newspapers.

Yes, there's always the internet, but not everyone owns or knows how to use a computer and most people don't have a computer when they are driving home from work. Believe me, rural America is brainwashed by RW sludge because that is their only media choice.

[Merlin]

22. I'm only uncomfortable with the fact that it's not in force NOW!

It is ESSENTIAL to democracy.

Complain all you want about how cumbersome it is. That's just too bad for the broadcasting industry.

The fact is that nothing has the impact on voters that broadcasting has.

As far as freedom of the press goes, as we all know the only people who enjoy freedom of the press are those who own a press, or a radio station or a tv station. That is not tolerable.

If the public does not have access either to factual news or to balanced debate, then it cannot get the information it needs to make decisions.

It would be entirely different if the entry barriers and limitations on the number of broadcasting entities weren't so severe. But there is no way for people without megabucks to own them, and they represent a different political point of view.

I see no reason why the doctrine can't be modified to say that a program can be wholly imbalanced provided it is balanced by another program in the same time slot that is imbalanced in the opposite political direction.

[rumguy]

24. So Air America has to have a couple of token conservative programs?

[Merlin]

27. If that's what it takes, yes.

Rather that than have 10,000 hours of right wing talk radio vs 100 hours of left wing talk radio.

And that's not even mentioning TV.

[Eloriel]

31. The marketplace of ideas

Oh, how deeply I despise that phrase.

Ideas are free. They can't even be copyrighted. There is no NEED for a "marketplace" of ideas. Market forces don't apply to many if not most ideas (unelss you can patent, trademark or copyright them, of course), and shouldn't.

I hate the phrase because it elevates the concepts of "the market" and "market forces" and gives them more power than they deserve, while at the same time trivializing ideas, and discourse. It also crudely profanes (commoditizes, or purports to) what should be FREE in this country -- the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS that is the hallmark of a democracy.

The rightwing has kept America dopey by peddling the notion, for example, that liberal radio fails because there's "no market" for it. That's been shown to be wrong, and before Air America, too. They used it on Mike Malloy, tried to use it on Randi Rhodes, and definitely unfairly and inaccurately tarred Phil Donahue with it. Where is your marketplace of ideas in such a climate? Nowhere.

[rumguy]

36. It refers to differing ideas being offered up and scrutinized

You can call it the free exchange of ideas - whatever - it comes down to the same basic concept. Eventually some ideas pass into history. They lose out. There are memes that are on the way out in our culture right now. New ideas come out and are embraced.

You can call it whatever ya want.

[Eloriel]

41. Well, then, CALL it "free exchange of ideas" instead of

legitimating and promoting rightwing talking points.

[rumguy]

43. it isn't a right wing talking point

I don't know where you get that....

[DemBones DemBones]

48. If you don't know what the Fairness Doctrine did,

what makes you think you know whether something is a right wing talking point? It seems you've always lived, within memory at least, in a world without a Fairness Doctrine and thus, because they have more money, in a world with an excess of right wing talk in the media. How do you know how much of their propaganda you've absorbed as "truth"?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[U4ikLefty]

56. Is that how you ended your debates...with insults

like "Lighten' the fuck up.." or perhaps "You're acting like a language Nazi.."???

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davekriss]

44. Bravo, Eloriel! I applaud your critique of the marketplace of ideas! eom

[Gregorian]

35. We need an informed public. Or we don't have a republic.

Whenever money is involved, there will be a slant. We need a balanced media. Ideally, we would have a free press. Something like, say, the internet. Or fair and balanced reporting, which we haven't had for many years, despite what the dipshits on the tv would like us to believe.

The framers wanted us to be informed, in order to preserve the very thing that sustains our democracy. That means hearing all sides. All voices. Everything from the KKK to Malcolm X. THEN we can make informed decisions. Right now we have hair, pretty hair, and amazingly fantastic HAIR. Meanwhile, the country burns.

[rumguy]

40. Break up the biggest monopolies

But let each program be independent.

I don't know what you're arguing for exactly in your post. But we don't need the government forcing in the KKK or Malcom X viewpoints into every medium...

[Gregorian]

45. I'm just saying that those with the money

are able to make the biggest noise, at the exclusion of the rest.

Even playing field. That's it. Yes, break up the monopolies. But even then, it's about an even playing field.

Right now it's about who can lie the most and loudest by throwing the most money around.

The bottom line is that the media needs to be our form of communication. Right now it's just a mouthpiece with an agenda.

[davekriss]

55. I think you're focused on the bigger problem

The problem: Monopoly approximated. If the 29,000+ major media outlets were owned by 10,000 media companies, chances are many more voices would be heard as these outlets strive to survive in every available idealogical niche. A multiplicity of ownership (not just a few broadly owned media giants) would go a long way toward obsoleting the need for a Fairness Doctrine.

Note, though, that we have a multiplicity of media today. Especially given this disintermediated media called the "internet". However, notice the strength of corporate support behind a National Review compared to a struggling Z Magazine. Now we get into Herman's and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. There's far more amiss in our socio-economic systems and institutions than any one visible demon might suggest.