Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

[Meeker Morgan]

Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory

FYI

[blogslut]

1. Wow.

I have totally not heard that before. Aside from the 10 other times I heard it before.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. 10? I've heard it 20 times.

So there!

[blogslut]

3. Well, I was trying to be diplomatic

What I find so hilarious is the fact that Johnny McSame doesn't support it either and he sure as hell doesn't support net neutrality or the elimination of media consolidation.

[midnight]

4. I have heard this before, and I have heard that this Fairness

Doctrine is not the focus of the problem for Obama. I hope I heard that right? But if I am right or wrong. I would think this doctrine would help those of us who don't have a pocket book for lawyers.

[Demit]

5. He would address the problem from another direction:

'...The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." ...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory

If he can slow down the media consolidation, open up ownership of media outlets to other than the usual conglomerates, that would help to dilute the power of the conservative voices that flood us now. Also, he supports net neutrality, which is a VERY big thing. I don't mind at all his different approach, because it shows that he recognizes that there is a problem.

[nc4bo]

6. I agree with your post. n/t

[Arkana]

10. Media ownership caps is a great idea.

It would keep fucks like Murdoch from controlling every news outlet in the world.

And net neutrality isn't too bad either.

[Armstead]

7. Obama's right on this one

The Fairness Docturne is the least of our worries when it comes to broadcasting.

What's really inportant are things like ownership limits, New Teutrality, etc.

If Obama means it about dealing with those things, he's right.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Stephanie Millar and Tom Hartmann don't support it either...

They repeatedly state on their shows that they don't need government intervention, other than to break up the Big Media monopolies (as is posted downthread). They believe that their shows do just fine on their own -- and I'm sure others like Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy do just as well.

[blondeatlast]

9. He's got a far better idea; that's one of the main reasons I chose him in the primary.

That's why the m$m hates him; he'll break up their old boy frat party with a itty-bitty stinkbomb.

Thanks for your concern.

[Demit]

11. Did you think up your sig line all by yourself?

[blondeatlast]

14. Well, yes. I've lived in Arizona my entire voting life. nt

[Occam Bandage]

12. Yeah. He has a stronger, more comprehensive plan.

[Cha]

13. So what?

Obama has something better in mind that encompasses media monopoly, network nuetrality, ect, ect, ect..

NYCGirl (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-29-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, because it does not address the more serious problems like media
consolidation. (And, BTW, it does not effect cable, the net, and other new media.) The Fairness Doctrine is, IMO, severely outdated.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html...

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6425825#6425887

[FrenchieCat]

15. Fairness Doctrine imposed on publicly owned airwaves only deal with network

programming and doesn't touch Cable/broadband.

Considering that 5 corporations own 90% of all media, including the print media, network programming is a drop in the bucket, making the Fairness Doctrine outdated unless it was radically altered.

First thing is to break up the monopolies and offer real diversity in programming. Anything done before would be a distraction.

Here's Obama thoughts on what needs to happen: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6015088

[LTR]

16. The Fairness Doctrine is outdated and completely useless

Here's what I wrote about it on my blog:

http://ltradio.blogspot.com/2008/06/fairness-schmairness-and-panic-in.html

I only support people like Pelosi talking about it because it makes right-wingers crap their pants.