"Renew the Fairness Doctrine" - sign the petition

[housewolf]

here

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/

[Jeebo]

1. The worst thing Ronald Reagan ever did...

From the text of the petition:

"In 1986, a federal court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not have the force of law and could be overturned without congressional approval. Congress passed a bill to make the doctrine law but the bill was vetoed by President Reagan in 1987 and the Fairness Doctrine was abolished."

The second worst thing Reagan ever did, in my humble opinion, was one of the very first things he did on becoming president: On Inauguration Day 1981, he removed Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. And look at what our continued dependence on fossil fuels is doing to us 24 years later.

I signed the petition, but I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of it accomplishing anything. The notion that Congress would actually override Bush's veto is only a little more ludicrous than the notion that Congress ever would pass such a law in the first place.

Ron

[FizzFuzz]

4. I'm kicking this, but sighhhh, You're right Jeebo

:(

I didn't know that about reagan removing solar panels.

Honestly, I'm so so tired of shortsighted hypocritics.

[depakid]

14. It's also the worst thing Clinton didn't do

The Fairness Doctrine could have been put in place by the FCC during the Clinton Administration simply by doing honest fact finding and going through the process set out in the Administrative Procedures Act.

Then, it would have been up to congress to muster a veto proof majority to overturn it!

Clinton, however, was a 1st class panderer to the corporate media- for what reason, I surely don't know, because they never gave him a break and slimed him mercilessly, even before he took office.

If you ask me, what he did was no different than giving aid and comfort to the enemy- and he did far more lasting (and probably permanent) damage to the Democratic Party through his media policies- such as the Telecommunication bill and his appointment of Michael Powell, than he ever did through lying about a blow job....

Don't like Clear Channel and Viacom? You can lay the blame for that squarely at Clinton's feet.

[cry baby]

2. Done, thanks housewolf

[cry baby]

3. Housewolf, did you post this in any other forums? You should

spread it out. Very important!

[cry baby]

5. kick - sign up DUers, it's easy! n/t

[laura888]

6. done! great petition! n/t

[ErinGoBraghLess]

7. Can't mandate fairness

As an attorney, I have a lot of trouble using the power of the government forcing radio stations, t.v. stations, etc. to be "fair." That of course leaves someone in charge of deciding what is fair, what content represents the other side's view, etc. Do you want someone in charge of that? I am much in favor of letting the free market decide. AirAmerica is a great model. We can see that it is spreading. If the Left will put on good quality shows, the audience is there. Rush and Sean and Boortz didn't get millions of listeners by making someone put their programs on. We need to win an audience the same way they did. Grass roots. Plus -- forgive me for criticizing, but the fairness doctrine is akin to whining about losing, i.e., no one is listening to our side so let's have the government force them to listen.

[laura888]

8. wrong. People's beliefs are molded by the media.

Currently Fox-news, for example, is EXTREMELY adept at cloaking opinion as fact. This is just plain wrong.

You just can't expect the average American to discern what is opinion and what is fact, to peruse the internet for other opinions, etc.

If the only TV station I watch tells me that the war was justified, there's a really really good chance that I will believe them.

[ErinGoBraghLess]

11. Can't force people to be aware

Laura: First, you don't show much respect for the American public by saying that you can't expect the average American to be discerning. I think you can. Second, our system of government is predicated on having a responsible citizenry. If someone is too lazy to read a newspaper or use the Internet or buy a magazine, that is their own fault. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of sources of good honest information in this world, most of it free of charge. If someone wants to sit on their duff all day and just watch t.v., don't say it's the government's job to spoon-feed them information. Tell them to get their minds engaged. I think we need a more active and engaged base, not one that just sits back and waits for information to come to them.

[laura888]

16. wishful thinking

"I think we need a more active and engaged base, not one that just sits back and waits for information to come to them."

This is just not the case, and it ain't gonna happen. Most people are working (some 2 jobs), busy with their own lives. They crash and turn on the tube with a couple of TV dinners. As I said in my previous email, most people do not have the time or inclination to search for the truth.

My question is: why SHOULD they?

A responsible media will give these people facts and not corporiate opinions.

[cry baby]

9. I think the bigger problem is the corporatization of our media.

Erin, what could happen that would help in this regard? And Welcome to DU!:hi:

[ErinGoBraghLess]

10. Corporate media

Thanks for the welcome. I guess I am not as leftist as some on here, as I am still in favor of free markets. As for corporate media, what is the alternative? Government ownership of media? We all know how that turns out in countries where the government owns the media. Media is a product (maybe a service too) just like any other product in this world. An important one for sure, but it is still a product. Products are made by companies who do it to make money. If the consumers want a different product, then someone will come along and make it to satisfy that need. That is how the economy works.

The government has a lot of good functions to help the people. Getting into the information business is not one of them. If Fox News wants to put out its version of the news so be it. We just counter with a better program or network. I don't want the government forcing Fox to have a show with Phil Donohue just to try to be balanced. What if Donohue's ratings are as bad as they were on his own show. Does the government have the right to hurt Fox's bottom line? Do you want the government telling you what products you need to sell in your business, even if there is no market for it?

Ramble over.

[depakid]

12. As an attorney

You might want to read the Red Lion case, or maybe you might read some of the other dozens of cases both adjudicated at the FCC or in federal court that pertain to the various rules that were collectively known as the fairness doctrine.

There are actually a fair amount of law reviews out there that can get you up to speed, too- and they're easy to find on Lexis/Nexis.

It might give you a broader understanding of the issues....

[ErinGoBraghLess]

13. red lion

Thanks for the info. Always good to learn more. I don't practice in that area. I have the pleasure of representing doctors getting sued for malpractice.

[depakid]

15. I have a friend who does med mal defense

Curiously, he didn't support the initiative in Oregon re: limiting damages (probably becuase he knows a lot about how insures actuall set rates- and because he knows how rare large verdicts are in this state).

The Fairness Doctrine went much further than requiring air time for "opposing opinions from responsible spokespersons." It applied to initiatives, for example, where under current law, one side with all of the money is allowed to flood the airwaves with lies and distortions, with no countervailing views- and of course, the media isn't going to "bite the hand that feeds it," so there's no incentive for them to criticise or expose those lies.

In fact, station managers and senior news editors have been known to kill stories that might have the effect of curtailing those advertising revenues. So, issues of public concern do not get a fair hearing- which has proven extremely detrimental both to adopting rational public policy and to honest, direct democracy itself.

The Fairness Doctrine guarded against that (among other things like uncontroverted personal attacks).

IMO, had it been pursued properly, it could have accomplished much of what campaign finance reform is meant to- but largely prohibited from doing by Buckly v. Valeo (the leading money = free speech case).

[Vidar]

17. Done, thanks for posting.

[laura888]

18. kick! n/t

[musette_sf]

19. kick

:kick: