Would you support the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?

[Lumpsum]

The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, and since then conservative talk radio has spread like a wildfire. There have been a lot of talks lately, especially with the election of Obama, of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated. This would force conservative radio networks to balance their content with an equal amount of time dedicated to a liberal viewpoint as well. Right now, liberal radio hosts such as Rachel Maddow can't even remotely compete with people like Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. Allowing Maddow to be on the same network as the aforementioned would certainly expand her audience while at the same time offering an alternative viewpoint that is missing from political talk radio.

So what do you think? Should they bring the doctrine back?

[dysfunctional press]

1. no.

nt

[Lumpsum]

3. Can I ask why?

Just curious. I'd like to hear both sides of the argument.

[dysfunctional press]

8. it's too cumbersome and vague to enforce.

is limbaugh a political statement, or an "entertainment show"? :shrug:

[Lumpsum]

9. While some could say he is entertainment

He uses politics to drive his show. Political entertainment?

[depakid]

25. It was enforced quite effectively up and until the Reagan administration

When someone like Limbaugh lies about an issue of public concern or commits one his trademark personal attacks, his stations will have to provide airtime for rebuttals by responsible spokespersons.

And they'll have to keep logs and show records indicating compliance at the time of license renewals.

Not vague or cumbersome at all.

[kevinbgoode]

87. Conservatives claim that it abridges their freedom of speech

. . .because they believe only those who OWN the stations have a right to dictate content.

[depakid]

91. Go back and look at the votes and the Congressional Record in the 1980's

You may find that many- including noteowrthy conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms were singing a different tune.

[verges]

113. Which is just silly.

Rush can say any damn thing he wants during his half-hour of hate. There would simply have to be equal time allotted to project the oposition.

[upi402]

37. Huh? It's EZ and it worked until Raygun nixed it! n/t

[smiley_glad_hands]

38. Doesn't matter, he is trying to promote political statements as fact.

He needs to be balanced if he wants to remain on broadcast radio, otherwise, he can go to satellite like Stern.

edit: you need to put nt in the subject line for it to work as intended.

[Enthusiast]

100. Limbaugh is pure propaganda

There is nothing entertaining involved. To suggest he is entertainment is to use his own definition. He has an agenda, just like Savage, Hannity, Beck and the rest.

Imagine it is 1930s Germany. Imagine radio is in as widespread use as today. They might call their radio show hosts entertainers. But instead of the constant lies about the dreaded "liberals" we would hear a constant stream of antisemitic dialog. Same thing exactly. They call it entertainment. Why should we allow them to define anything, they, the ones that turned Liberal into a dirty word.

[elizfeelinggreat]

109. "Why should we allow them to define anything"

Exactly. That's what got us into this mess and how they maintain it.

For example: "Our country is basically conservative, Obama has to govern center right"

[Enthusiast]

119. They would define us right off the cliff

if we allow it. This is how they have controlled this country for the past 25 years. We must start to define them as the fascists they are!

[djg21]

126. First Amendment violation.

It undoubtedly violates the First Amendment right to free speech. Any disparity in the expression of political viewpoints can be addressed if those with opposing viewpoints would express them.

Also, you can bet that if there was a market for more progressive talk radio, and advertising could be sold, the programming would exist. Likewise, if Fox News sees a drop in advertising revenue because viewers opt for other networks that actually are "fair and balanced," Fox will fire Roger Ailes and shut down his propaganda machine in a minute.

Think also about the potential effect of the doctrine on more progressive media outlets such as MSNBC. Should it be obligated to offer a hour of Michael Savage and Billy Cunningham for every hour of Olberman and Maddow it shoes. And who says that there are only two contrasting viewpoints? Need equal time be afforded to Ralph Nader? How about the American Nazi party? The Klan? Who is to make the determination as to what viewpoints are legitimate and therefore entitled to equal time

The Fairness doctrine is overly restrictive, and contrary to what I consider progressive ideals.

[rpannier]

156. Disagree

When Murdoch's TV stations and news outlets in Australia faultered he never changed course.

He's not as much the businessman that you give him credit for.
He's pushing an agenda and that is his goal.
If he fired Ailes, he'd go looking for someone as conservative to run his network.

As to it being contrary to progressive ideals -- again I disagree.
Allowing the airwaves more access to different political ideas should be the goal of the news.
It's not. Rather, it is an attempt to limit the amount of information out there.

We had the fairness doctrine prior to Reagan and it worked fairly well.

[The Wielding Truth]

43. I say YES! Accountability! Intelligent Responsible Media!

[Glorfindel]

2. Of course

no doubt about it.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Yes, in a heartbeat

[Taverner]

5. Yes Next question

[cliffordu]

6. Absolutely.

[tblue]

34. Absolutely.

[cali]

7. what's the point?

media consolidation is the real problem and it wouldn't apply to cable anyway. Besides that, they could simply put on weak as shit "balanced" programming that wouldn't accomplish jack

[Greyhound]

84. The revocation of the doctrine was the first step toward the consolidation.

Re-instituting it would not effect the consolidation itself, but would loosen the stranglehold that they currently enjoy.

[tammywammy]

10. No. n/t

[Mr. Blonde]

11. Would it do a lot of good?

Drive all of them to satellite radio. It wouldn't get people to hear more voices.

[Homer Wells]

12. YUP!

[Judi Lynn]

13. Its removal was totally improper, and engineered by opportunistic Republicans.

Just as _{George W. Bush} started, his first day in his stolen Presidency, removing all the steps forward made by Democratic Presidents, this filthy theft of equal access for DEMOCRATS and Independents should also be reversed immediately.

If this IS a fair, honest political system, one side cannot be allowed to control ALL speech, all information. A decent system can't exist as "survival of the fittest (or most power hungry, or wealthiest)."

[Judi Lynn]

14. Clearly it's possible to maintain the Fairness Doctrine, since we did until 1987.

There's no question it can be done, since we already DID IT.

[FormerDittoHead]

152. Exactly. It can be done. We're not talking about going back to the 1600's. n/t

[Lumpsum]

15. There's a press conference at 6:30 EST on CSPAN about Obama's FCC plans.

[bemildred]

16. Oh fuck yes.

The public airwaves should not be used to be brainwash the public. It might not be as exciting that way, but you get to live a longer and happier life, on the average, and the whole world does not hate you.

[baldguy]

17. Yes.

[endless october]

18. not a chance.

the fairness doctrine applied only to broadcast radio and television would be too archaic. it would have to be extended to include cable, satellite, and internet to achieve its intended purpose. want an hour after Olbermann and Maddow for the repubs to rebut? i don't.

want freepers on here?

the fairness doctrine is completely unnecessary when the entire spectrum of media is taken into account, and it should be avoided at all costs.

[Lumpsum]

19. I'm pretty sure it would only apply to radio.

[endless october]

then it would be pointless.

it would not achieve its purpose, as Limbaugh would just move to satellite.

the purpose of the fairness doctrine was to give both sides equal time in every medium at the time. to only apply it to AM radio seems to me to be a government sponsored revenge on neocon talk radio only. this has equal protection and first amendment issues if it isn't applied across the board. plus, the democrat party is better than petty revenge.

i was pretty satisfied with the revenge they got at the ballot box.

[smiley_glad_hands]

40. The broadcast radio and tv frequencies belong to the public.

He needs to be balanced or he can go to satellite like Stern.

[endless october]

65. but then the repubs

...will argue that NPR is left-leaning.

and there's very little libertarian on NPR.

sorry, i don't want NPR messed up. i listen to NPR daily, and i don't see any need for "equal time" for neocons on there.

ballot box was enough revenge, as i previously stated.

[eridani]

61. The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to the limited resource of puclic airwaves

If Limpballs went to satellite, that would be fine, because there is so much more bandwidth there that there's plenty of room for Mike Malloy ect as well as the righties.

[verges]

114. "the democrat party"

I think you just showed your hand.

[endless october]

135. i'm not sure i understand what you're implying.

[verges]

136. Democrat party is considered derogatory.

The correct term is the Democratic Party. Democrat party is a term used by the right wingers to minimize the Democrats and distance them (us) from Democracy. The term is quite often used by Freeper trolls.

[endless october]

137. i wasn't aware.

i understand that i'm a newb here, and newbs are often subject to probing and scrutiny. however, i am a registered Democrat.

it was not my intention to use a derogatory term, and you have my apologies if i did so even by accident.

[pnorman]

82. With all due respect, there's a serious misunderstnding here.

There is NO "Free Speech" issue here. That FCC license is a MONOPOLY, and very rigorously enforced by the feds. The ONLY justification for that monopoly, is that the station maintains a (plausible) level of service to the public interest. If you DON"T like the level of discourse in your area, your ONLY recourse would be to set up a Pirate Station (and you'll immediately feel the wrath of the feds!)

For the internet (provided it's maintained along "Common Carrier" guidelines), there is NO Monopoly. With a reasonable expenditure of time, energy, and $$$$, ANYONE can get his/her message out.

pnorman
On edit: Yes, I DO understand the nature of bandwidth requirements under present technology, as well as how going digital alters that. But that doesn't change my argument. But had the FCC opened the newly available bandwidth slots (perhaps several hundred fold) to the general public, it might have been a different thing.

[ChazII]

154. Thank you for your common sense.

I don't want to share. Call me selfish, I really don't care. I totally agree with you that after Keith or Rachel, I don't want to hear a Rush or a Laura.

[PennyP]

20. I say no. We have the internet and cable. Let 'em stink up radio all they want.....

their idiocy has been exposed and talk radio is almost obsolete nowadays anyway.
They are morally and ideologically bankrupt. I think letting them fall into extremism has HELPED us in the long run.
With talk radio and Fox they had a lot of rope for a long time, but we got to watch this election as they used it to hang themselves.
Had they been less hateful and more reasonable, Obama couldn't have won. It was the fact that they were SOOO odious that helped drive many skeptical moderate republicans and independents into our camp, at least as much as Obama's appeal did.

[creeksneakers2]

21. No

Freepers would just find one sided hateful lies somewhere else. Many from the left wouldn't tune in even if it were balanced. Hardly any lefties want to listen to one sided hateful lies.

An endowment to fund some investigative journalism on NPR and to set up NPR news stations would be more appropriate.

[Peace Patriot]

22. The "Fairness Doctine" and the equal time provision had far-reaching influence,

way beyond its specific rules and implementation, and beyond the media (public airwaves) to which it applied. It created a more ETHICAL TONE throughout journalism and punditry.

Think of it like you would regulation of investment banks and the stock market. You cannot rid our capitalistic system of all abuses, fraud, profiteering and brutal, irresponsible behavior, but you can SET AN ETHICAL TONE for the business community in which brutal and irresponsible behavior is frowned upon, and in which thieves and criminals think twice, out of fear of prosecution.

That's what the "Fairness Doctrine" did, and it influenced ALL media--TV, radio, print. It helped rid our society of the scabrous rightwing rags that used to call FDR a "dictator," for instance. It influenced newspapers and news magazines to be fairer and more balanced. It set a tone of objectivity in TV news broadcasts. It militated against the raw, greedy, powermongering that we see today in corporate control of the 'news.' It should, of course, be combined with busting up the monopolies. The two go hand in hand, to enhance the "free speech" amendment--the NUMBER ONE amendment--of the U.S. Constitution.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was (and would be) a compromise between capitalism and the Constitution. The corpos should not control our public airwaves the way they do today. The "Fairness Doctrine" is a mitigation of that problem--not a full solution. But, by God, it was better than the unbridled fascism we see and hear today spewing from every outlet.

It may not apply to cable, but it will influence cable programming. And it will have to be written and implemented with the latest developments in programming and technology in mind. Ideally, neither cable nor the airwaves nor the internet should be owned and controlled by private corporations. ACCESS by the public, and for a wide spectrum of opinion, should be the watchword.

The "Fairness Doctrine" would immediately begin the influence and mitigate the horrible situation we have today, where, basically, five fatcat, fascist, multi-billionaire CEOs control all 'news ' and 'opinion' in the country. It is intolerable--and a huge curtailment of free speech.

[Kurovski]

26. Kick. (nt)

[Mnemosyne]

50. And another.

:hi:

[dwilso40641]

132. And another

[Judi Lynn]

125. Perfect! It's doubtful it could be expressed better. Thanks for making the effort to explain why

a return to what was stripped away just might be a reasonable idea!

[PufPuf23]

23. Break up of media monopolies is more important

Media that is built bottom up from communities to regions to national best serves communitcation quality and people.

A forced de-couple across all media in favor of local and regional ownership (backed by a federal financing authority perhaps??)

[depakid]

24. It's the only way to bring accountability and an end to the culture of lies

and vile personal attacks in America.

I suspect most people who don't support the fairness doctrine(s) and equal time provisions don't understand what they did how they worked.

[Two Americas]

27. yes, of course

Why would this be controversial? Otherwise, big money players control all information. That destroys democracy. How can any Democrat support that?

[justinaforjustice]

28. Absolutely II. n/t

[leftofthedial]

29. yes,

but corporations would not, so it won't happen.

also, it would be seen by the right as divisive. Obama wants to play nice with the right, so it won't happen.

[lpbk2713]

30. Seems like I read somewhere that around 90% of the political talk shows ...

are RW/Conservative oriented. So yes, I'm all for it. It would be more their
loss than ours and the whole country would be better of in the long run.

[OnyxCollie]

76. The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio

from the Center for American Progress.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

[Mind_your_head]

31. Absolutely YES! eom

[Hippo_Tron]

32. For television maybe, radio not really necessary

Radio is quickly becoming an outdated medium for political discourse and rather than complain about how Limbaugh dominates that old fashioned medium, we would be better served working on better ways to enhance discourse.

[smiley_glad_hands]

42. What you fail to realize is that he is using public airwaves to get his listeners into a frenzy.

He can go to satellite like Stern.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Public airwaves that the public has clearly decided to hand over to corporations...

Who seek to make a profit. If the public wants to do that then that's their choice. I'm interested in trying to convince the public of the error of their ways when it comes to television but for radio, it's just not worth it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

46. So you say. Why should he get a free pass on any public media? eom

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Again, because the public has decided to give the airwaves to corporations

And in exchange we get all of that wonderful television and radio programming that the corporations provide for us.

I would like to see the public impose some regulations and go back to the model where the evening news was a public service and not profit driven. I would also like to see the networks forced to provide extensive coverage of the political conventions. But re-instating the fairness doctrine for radio just isn't worth the political hassle.

[smiley_glad_hands]

52. Again, so you say.

Political hassle? We just won a historic election. If limpnuts and those who would support his continued free pass on the PUBLIC airwaves don't like balance, they can go to satellite.

The airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not to corporations.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Again if you want to convince the public to take back their airwaves feel free

But I think they have other things on their mind right now.

[smiley_glad_hands]

55. If you want to support LIMPNUTS, feel free.

Who are you to speak for the American people btw?

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I think the politicians they vote for speak for them

And I cant think of anybody in recent years that has been elected to office by crusading for the fairness doctrine.

[smiley_glad_hands]

59. Dennis Kucinich supports the fairness doctrine, is he too liberal for you?

The PUBLIC airwaves deserve balance, don't like it, go to satellite.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaigns haven't fared too well

But more to the point, you're mistaken that I'm the one who needs to be convinced, and I'm not. Re-instating the fairness doctrine is something I support but unlike you, it's about number 999 on a list of 1000 things I want to see changed in this country. I would much rather Democrats put their efforts into doing some other things Kucinich supports like ending the war on drugs. That's much more important than ending Limpballs' control over an outdated medium.

[smiley_glad_hands]

62. But he did get re elected, and my statement had nothing to do with his presidential campaign.

Outdated medium? You do realize he has made hundreds of millions of dollars spreading his hate on the public airwaves? I'm not trying to convince you of anything, anyone with half a brain can rationally see that what is happening to the public airwaves by limpnuts and others is a travesty to democracy. That's enough reason to seek change for me.

I don't think Democrats will have to spend too much time getting it done, but according to you its OK to maintain the status quot of allowing HATE radio to maintain its dominance on the PUBLIC airwaves, and to continue brainwashing its listeners.

I can't believe I'm arguing with someone on DU who is defending LIMPNUTS and HATE radio. Word is freakrepublic is down, so go figure.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. We have a different set of priorities

While Limbaugh profiting off of the public airwaves is an injustice it is, as I said, about 999 on a list of 1000 injustices that IMO make a greater travesty of democracy.

And, BTW, you totally outed me. I have acquired 17,000 posts on DU after 5 years all so that I could come out and troll against the fairness doctrine.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

67. And your Michelle Bachmann style arguments give you no credibility

I disagree with you, therefore I must be a freeper...

:eyes:

[smiley_glad_hands]

69. Why don't you start a new thread:

I got attacked for defending limpnuts, OMG!!! See what that gets you.

LOLZ, Bachman style? With all those post counts, were you at least paid thru the month?

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Start a thread called "Hippo_Tron is a freeper" and see where that gets you

And while you're at it, you should call for an investigation into my history on DU to see if I'm loyal.

[smiley_glad_hands]

73. Could care less, honestly.

I just want balance to the public airwaves, really don't think thats alot to ask for in a democracy, and I KNOW I'm not alone on this.

[Heidi]

89. Hippo_Tron is about as far from a paid troll as they come.

He is a former DU Moderator. Just because some disagrees with you does NOT make them a paid troll.

[smiley_glad_hands]

92. Just surprise to see someone here defend limpnuts.

Don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, no less a "former" mod. I really don't think its unreasonable to have balance on PUBLIC airwaves.

All he had to say was "we'll have to agree to disagree" 15 posts ago.

[Heidi]

93. And you could also have said, "We'll have to agree to disagree."

Six of one, half dozen of the other. It's against the rules to accuse another DUer of being a troll, and it doesn't help your case.

[smiley_glad_hands]

94. You are probably right, I should have taken the high road.

just curious as to why he doesn't mind limpnuts preaching hate on PUBLIC airwaves.

[Heidi]

96. While Limbaugh is represensible, it would be ill-advised to drive him underground.

I'd rather him blather on public airwaves, where we know what he's saying and doing and rcan ebut it with rational arguments. If we drive that sort of shit underground, it will fester and grow in darkness. Please do not be so foolish as to describe my argument as a defense of hate speech. It's not. I view Limbaugh as no better than the KKK, Fred Phelps, etc. However, as long as bigots exist, we're better off knowing who they are and what they're saying.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Aww thanks Heidi, but they caught me red handed taking payments under my bridge

:evilgrin:

[smiley_glad_hands]

155. All you had to say was "We'll have to agree to disagree"

But I guess being a former mod has gone to head?

[Breeze54]

111. DK was just re-elected despite not getting air time in the debates but

if it wasn't FOR the internet, I doubt Obama would have been elected or DK re-elected. That is why we need it back asap!! You want change now? Then bring back fair and balanced reporting across the country on ALL channels and you will see the country permanently electing Dems and you'll see lots of change! Informing the electorate will make that change happen faster and in the next elections.

[kevinbgoode]

68. I must have missed that vote.

[dysfunctional press]

77. your congressional representative was probably there in your stead...

that's how it works in our representative democracy.

[kevinbgoode]

86. Well, then we just need to pass a constitutional amendment

After all, the PEOPLE should ALL decide who uses their property. We can't leave it up to congressional people who legislate from the....uh...

[dysfunctional press]

146. but constitutional amendments are done by "congressional people" as well..

:shrug:

[POAS]

101. I think if you check the reps had nothing to do with it

this was an FCC regulation and was done away with at the regulatory level within the FCC.

From WIKI (because it is quick and easy):

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce such a policy where channels were limited, but the courts have generally not ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.<1> In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.<2>

[ms liberty]

33. Yes, yes, yes. K&R n/t

[upi402]

35. YES!!!! k/r n/t

[smiley_glad_hands]

36. Yes, but it would only apply to broadcast radio and TV.

Not satellite or cable.

[verges]

118. Why is satellite not covered by the FCC? nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

39. Yes. NT

[smiley_glad_hands]

41. Since we all own the airwaves, I must insist on balance.

The right wingers (rush et all) can just go to satellite like Stern if they don't like it.

[Dennis Donovan]

45. I think the re-regulation and breakup of the Corporate Media trusts would be far more effective...

...than any sort of Fairness doctrine.

[NashVegas]

48. Absolutely, Yes

I live in a top 50 radio market where people voted for Obama over McCain by nearly a 2:1 margin, yet none of the commercial talk stations will hire a liberal talk host. They have been approached and refused, saying it would't be profitable enough.

[lelgt60]

49. Who decides who gets time? How does this work? n/t

[ChazII]

51. How would Mike Malloy

Randi Rhodes and the rest of Nova M and Air America be affected? Would they merge with Clear Channel and the like? Right now, I like things the way they are in the Phoenix market.

[Gregorian]

53. It's not 1987. But we do need an educated voting population.

It is the intended outcome of such a plan to give people all information from which to choose.

I would like to see only the truth being presented to Americans. But that doesn't seem to be something we can legislate. We haven't figured out how to prohibit lying.

In lieu of that, we need ideas. Bring together a new FCC and a fairness commission.

[curse of greyface]

56. No. NT

[MasonJar]

58. YES!

[barbtries]

63. yes

these are our airwaves and all viewpoints should be fairly represented.

[fed_up_mother]

70. Absolutely not. It's a bad idea.

For most folks, the meda "was" 3 major networks, a PBS station, a couple of local radio stations and the local newspaper. Now we have so much more than that. Democrats are going to have to learn to compete in the market place for ideas. We won this election - surely, we have a large enough audience to get some real talk radio going. :)

In my opinion, media consolidation and monopoly is a much more pressing issue.

[Breeze54]

110. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is to ensure ALL coverage of issues be balanced and fair

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

More.... http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

"The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue."

That is the problem right there. We know that they aren't fulfilling that obligation. We need the Fairness Doctrine returned!

[ChazII]

131. Here in Phoenix our Air America/Nova M

radio station is very successful. Cities with larger populations than ours should take a look at how 1480 accomplished this feat. It can be done in other cities as well.

[mwooldri]

72. No, because it's simply outdated and doesn't cover things like Internet and print media.

Libel and slander lawsuits are very rarely heard of here in the USA and aren't terribly successful.

In the UK it's a different story. Print a falsehood and find yourself in court.

If it was made easier to sue for libel and slander in the US court system, and in a way that was fairly expeditious and fairly accessible by all, then this would clip the wings automatically of the more extreme views (both right and left) that are disseminated to the general public.

As for "balancing broadcast media", you simply strengthen the public service remit of the terrestrial broadcasters to the point that news and opinion be broadly reflective of the local community as a whole.

[laureloak]

75. Yes. It would stop the slow warping of public opinion with

one-sided propaganda. No more FoxNews zoombies.

[jpak]

121. Rush broadcasts on the EIB **radio** network

and most dittoheads listen to him over the *radio*.

Outdated as radio might seem...

[The Hope Mobile]

74. yes n/t

[verdalaven]

78. I say Yes

I know educated people who are complete rw idiots because our area offers nothing but right wing rush-like radio and focus on the family crap. A little balance would be delightful.

[defendandprotect]

79. ABSOLUTE NECESSITY ....

[20score]

80. Yes.

[WhiteTara]

81. yes. it would take the money

out of politics.

[Dark]

83. No. It would violate free speech and free press.

Like it or not, they're allowed to publish the content they want.

Using the government to tell them what they have to put on, and to approve what's "liberal" or "conservative" is setting a dangerous precedent.

[depakid]

88. Something you might like to read

that adresses your concerns:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=367

[onenote]

116. red lion is an old case from a different era

I wouldn't bet on the FD being sustained against a constitutional challenge today.

[Enrique]

102. it has been upheld by the Supreme Court

so it has passed the 1st amendment test.

Regarding a precedent, it was in effect for 40 years. What did it lead to?

[djg21]

128. And SCOTUS has never been wrong?

I think you may be coming down with a case of Black Robe disease.

[Bluebear]

85. .

.

[Lumpsum]

90. So, what did you say? nt

[Why Syzygy]

95. No.

Conservatism is on the wane. Pretty soon they will be the ones benefiting from such a requirement.


Keep in mind that I'm not well versed, so this is just a lay opinion.

[rpannier]

97. Yes nt

[Vidar]

98. Hell, yes!

[Enthusiast]

99. Maybe The Fairness Doctrine

isn't the right answer. Clearly, something must be done. Aside from two or three hours on MSNBC the progressive perspective is mischaracterized full time on every station. Radio is worse yet. If there is no more appropriate measures taken, The Fairness Doctrine should be reimplemented.

[bobmorr1]

103. Definitely yes!

This should be one of the first issues passed. It will open up communications in the rural areas. People won't be force to listen to only the conservative viewpoints. No more brain washing from the right!

[Daphne08]

104. Yes.

[KharmaTrain]

105. Waste Of Time...Reregulation Instead

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine and it was designed for a radio that doesn't exist anymore. It required stations to give equal time in Public Affairs shows that were then mandated by the FCC. Most talk shows in those days were programmed as "Public Affairs" to cover this requirement and had to offer "equal time". This also was applied to radio station editorials...something you never hear anymore.

The other purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was to require stations to offer ALL candidates access to broadcast time for their adertising and at the station's lowest possible rate. This was to prevent a station from locking out a candidate it didn't support or to price gouge candidates.

Today's talk/hate radio bypassed the Fairness Doctrine by labeling their programming "Entertainment" rather than Public Affairs. The abolishing of the Fairness Doctrine gave some broadcasters justification for going with hate programming...but the real reason was financial. Airing a Rushbo was a lot cheaper than paying a local talent.

The real mess is what happened with the '96 Telcom Act. This opened the door for the warehousing of thousands of radio stations by a handful of large corporations who replaced local programming with cheap satellite crap...most of it hate radio on their AM stations and used these formats to curry favors with politicians who then passed even more deregualation. Thousands of local stations and voices were wiped away through endless rounds of consolidating, downsizing and other games. It's all but destroyed radio.

There is a desperate need to revisit Telcom '96 and put caps on corporate station ownership, give preference to local and minority ownership and promote new mediums, such as wireless internet.

The marketplace will be the ultimate judge on hate radio. The industry is in free-fall...the stock collapse has taken a big toll on most broadcast companies. They've seen their inflated "stick values" or the value of their broadcast licenses (which they kept high to keep out competition) collapse with no buyers out there...and revenues continuing to decline as the economy continues to tank. I suspect in the next year, we'll start seeing stations go dark as these drowning corporates try to cut more and more corners to keep their ships afloat.

Cheers...

[Breeze54]

112. The Fairness Doctrine IS Regulation!!

:eyes:

Cheers...

[KharmaTrain]

115. And It's Also A Right Wing Trojan Horse...

There's a grumbling that is soon to turn into a howl by the wingnuts about their own "Fairness Doctrine"...which would require stations to prevent stations from changing formats, even if the station is sold to a different owner. They want a "doctrine" that would codify their grip on the AM dial and use the term "Fairness Doctrine" as a stalking horse to push through their own bill.

Regulation of speech isn't the problem...and becomes a slippery slope as the political nature of the FCC will always change what defines "Fairness". The real need is to create more voices...encourage a diversity of opinions that can discuss issues on both a national and a local issue. Putting caps on the number of stations a company can own, shortening licensing renewal periods, making license challenges easier and encouraging local and minority ownership will create a new medium, just like the netroots and the internet empowered many.

Fairness isn't the issue...access is.

Cheers...

[Breeze54]

122. I disagree that Regulation of speech isn't the problem but the rest I do agree.

I've read (can't find the link right now) that there are places in the deep south or should I say 'the bible belt' that actually blocks certain shows from the public! They are over stepping their bounds, IMHO and I want that to stop ASAP! The Fairness Doctrine could help put an end to that censorship and as far as; "encourage a diversity of opinions that can discuss issues on both a national and a local issue" That's the ISSUE!! They are NOT doing that on the local or national level. We need the Fairness Doctrine back asap! If it wasn't for the internet, I suspect this elections outcome would have been quite different. 'The people' are NOT getting diverse viewpoints on TV or on radio. Not everyone has cable TV and with the economy, even less people will be able to subscribe to it and along with that goes the lack of access to the internet, especially in the poorer farm belt area's of the country and in poor urban area's as well. Not everyone has a computer or access to one either. I don't want to 'rely' on the judgement of TV/Radio station managers to provide diverse or what they perceive as diverse opinions. I want them to HAVE to do it! The airwaves are owned by us, the public and it should be regulated. Bring the Fairness Doctrine back. If it is as fair as you seem to claim, then what's the problem? Then it would mean they wouldn't have to do a thing different, wouldn't it? I mean, if they're so fair now, then they have nothing to worry about.

[KharmaTrain]

123. You're Refering To Religious Radio...

...that's a whole different whicket. It's the real silent network that was used by the GOOP to energize the "base". Call it Palin-FM these days. It's the thousands of big and little FM stations at the far end of the dial full of religious preachers and "family safe" formats. It's the home of the James Dobsons who use non-commercial stations to spread a lot of their "word"...the world where their codewords and dogwhistles are shouted loud and clear.

The Fairness Doctrine never applied to religious. And there's no laws requiring a station that exposes a specific religious belief from presenting those of another faith. Again, these people are using public airwaves and using their licenses to broadcast to a very narrow audience and excluding contrary opinions or ideas.

The problem is the marketplace. If Progressive radio was profitable, you'd hear it all over the place. When you start regulating content, you put those choices in the hands of the prevailing political winds. Turning broadcasting into the next netroots can bring more diversity and voices to the public and then into the "mainstream".

Cheers...

[droidamus2]

106. Yes

The Fairness Doctrine, surly updated to take into consideration any changes in the media since it was canceled, would make sure that especially in rural areas with limited media coverage that both sides would be heard. It shouldn't directly effect shows like Limbaugh's or Randi Rhodes but it would effect the stations those shows run on. The Doctrine would require that stations that want to run Limbaugh would have to then run another show with a non-conservative political point of view. I don't know if a far right wing show has to be balanced by a far left wing show or just a show that has a different point of view. If a Limbaugh or a Hannity or a Rhodes for that matter says things the are demonstrably untrue I have no problem with requiring tht somebody be given a chance to rebut the argument. It would be interesting to know how they reconciled the idea of balance and ideology and if there were any abuses of the Fairness Doctrine when it was in place.

[annabanana]

107. I would go further. . right to the root of the problem.

No company that is a customer of the Federal Government (or any State Government) would be allowed to own a media outlet.

PERIOD

[Breeze54]

108. yes, yEs, yeS Yes, YEs, YES!!!!!!!!!

YES!!!!! DO IT NOW!!! LET'S DO IT NOW!!!!

[bunkerbuster1]

117. Sure, for strategic reasons.

Wingnuts would spend so many hours out of their day fighting it that we could probably get ANYTHING passed.

Wingnuts are terrified of a Fairness Doctrine being re-imposed.

Having said that, I don't really give a shit, otherwise, because I don't think it's necessary given the nature of non-broadcast media taking over the world. Any "Fairness Doctrine" based on broadcast news opinions would be an irrelevancy in five years, I suspect.

[jpak]

120. Reinstate "Point - Counterpoint"!!!!1111

:evilgrin:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. I Say FUCK YEAH, If Only For The Bonus Of Seeing Hannity's Head Explode!

I've been waiting a long time now for the opportunity to arise, and I wouldn't mind one bit if the Dems put it back in place.

[Doctor_J]

127. Sherman Anti-Trust and anti-monopoly laws make much more sense

Our problem is not that Fox broadcasts lies and hate 24/7. Our problem is that everyone who owns major media agrees with and profits from the lies and hate. I would just as soon never tune into Fox "News". Just give me my own station (to watch).

[wtmusic]

133. There you go - media consolidation is the real issue. nt

[Zorra]

149. I agree completely...but the country would benefit from re-upping the Fairness Doctrine

at the same time.

[lib2DaBone]

129. Yes..bring back Fairness Doctrine or Re-Regulate..whatever you want to call it..

We must re-regulate station ownership. Right now, Clear Channel owns all 5 radio staions in our small town. They all play the same automated music and right-wing talk ,hatred , and lies.

At one time, we had 5 local news departments with editorials and opinions. We had local talk shows and local content.

Clear Channel is so hated by the local merchants, that no one will advertise with them. So we have 5 perfectly good radio stations sitting there 24 hours a day DOING NOTHING. Thanks Ronnie Ray-Gun.

[Liberal In Texas]

130. More important than reinstating the Fairness Doctirne would be changing ownership rules

back to where no company or group could own more than 2 radio stations (AM & FM) and 1 TV station in any one market.

This would break the monopolistic situation that exists now and bring back competition. With competition, there would be diverse opinion and viewpoints on the airwaves.

The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people, not corporations, and they are supposed to broadcast in the public interest. The FCC needs to regulate broadcasters again keeping this idea in mind.

[TayTay]

134. Bring back what part of the Fairness Doctrine

This is from wikipedia and is a pretty good summation of what it was:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The Doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

In TV this could be done by 2-3 minutes editorials. That could also be the case on radio. The Fairness Doctrine NEVER required equal time for opposing views, just that opposing views be given some time.

[depakid]

138. In communites (especially rural communities) all across America- there's not one Iota of time

devoted to opposing views- and no mechanism in place to check those who lie or spread hatred with impunity.

As another poster noted: this sort of thing has infested the ethos of the entire spectrum of the mass media. A return to some accountability by broadcasters- who profit from lucrative monopoly licenses on the public airwaves might help to turn that ethos around.

[TayTay]

141. So, how would it be implemented?

Mandate 2-5 minutes of a broadcast be set aside for opposing views?

Mandate that some programming be set aside for news and current affairs?

[depakid]

142. Same way it was before media lobbiest Mark Fowler took over at the FCC

There's a panoply of regulations this profoundly corrupt man changed- to the chagrin of Republicans and Democrats alike.

You can read about some of that here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/11249/

As to what might change on the ground- from time to time you could hear on the radio:

"And now, an opposing viewpoint from a responsible spokesperson"

While many tuned it out- make no mistake, it made a difference.

[TayTay]

150. But some here seem to think that the Fairness Doctrine

mandated that if one hour was spent on the Conservative side of the discussion, then an hour would be spent on the Liberal side.

This is not how the Fairness Doctrine worked. It mandated only that an opposing opinion be aired, not that it be of equal length.

The Conservative talk show hosts are going to argue that the Fairness Doctrine dictates what can and cannot get on the airwaves. This is completely untrue and a false argument, as you have demonstrated. Yet, their adherents are going to deluge Congress that free speech is in peril from Democratic overreach.

Is the Fairness Doctrine necessary given that it has limited ability to restore dialogue. I have heard Sen. Kerry speak for the return of this doctrine, but not in specifics or with clearly defined parameters. How does it get done and what would it's aims be in the era of 24/7 news saturation?

(This is an interesting question. How would it be implemented?)

[depakid]

151. The fairness doctrine was a check- a disincentive to blatant lying

for the simple reason that if broadcasters allowed their "talkers" to do so, they had a public interest obligation to afford respnosible spokespersons some time to correct the record.

Same was true for vile personal attacks on people that have since become the norm.

It's no coincidence that the destruction of the fairness doctrine(s) coincided with the rise of hate radio- and a generation of misinformed- and increasingly paranoid and malicious listeners in communities all across the country.

Reasonable people sometimes wonder how the nation that after WW II, was instrumental in winning the peace- somehow became a country whose people not only debated- but embraced- and many still revel in acts of torture.

One need only look to media deregulation to see how and why that came about.

[TayTay]

153. Media consolidation is a huge problem

and one that is getting worse. Pretty soon we are going to have big city papers that field no DC staff, no foreign affairs bureaus at all (even at the HQ of the chains in question) and that have much smaller staff to investigate at home.

This is awful and a real threat to democracy.

[petronius]

139. No. I do support the notion of reserving 1 or more channels/frequencies for

non-partisan (diverse), publicly funded discussion on current issues. I also support limiting media ownership to prevent monopolization, and ensuring that broadcast licenses are awarded in a non-partisan, equitable way.

Beyond that, I think there are sufficient avenues for disseminating news that all viewpoints are sufficiently available...

[Dukkha]

140. it is absolutely necessary.

[Vroomfondel]

143. Absolutely. And the day after the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated...

We can push for the Office of Censorship to be reinstated and granted a substantial budget. After all, if we're going to immerse ourselves in rooting out "unfairness", it only follows that we would also root out immorality on the airwaves. Of course not! It is a terrible idea. Freedom of speech applies to the neo-nuts and fundies as well as progressives. Rush Limbaugh started his loony-tune show in 1986 within a very small media market, and grew it with content that the disaffected neo-McCarthy-ites, uneducated jingoists and fundies were craving. And voila....an empire was born, with all of the anticipated copy-cats in tow. Censoring the nutter content of EIB or Fox is not going to help the progressive cause, but rather portray us as a movement of malcontent whiners who can't create our own talking-head sensations. And that is simply a defeatist attitude. In one fell swoop, we would be creating an even more activist neo-con movement in this country. We don't need that. We would also be confirming for the Republitards their notion that we want to use government to invade every segment of American life. Rather, take a look at the media sensation that is Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow. On television, at least, we are getting there. As far as radio is concerned, Air-America is a failed "if you build it, they will come" enterprise. We need to succeed on radio based on content. That will only happen when the right radio personality comes along. And they will. But for god's sake, don't try to legislate fairness again. In addition to being a huge distraction from sorely needed legislative action in this country, it would be a class-A cluster F**k. My two cents.

[Festivito]

144. YES! And E X P A N D E D to include ads.

YES! And E X P A N D E D to include ads.
Any media that is full or denies application should be under a fairness rule. AM, FM, and TV.

Internet also if suppliers limit access to certain sites.

If someone wants to bring up a point to educate the public, let it be brought up with the opposing viewpoint attached. Buy 30 second, you get 15, the opponent gets the other 15.

Life's tough. I'm tired of one-sided arguments from people who refuse to engage debate.

[DireStrike]

145. Doesn't matter

I am hopelessly depressed now about this "Centrism" thing. We will lose even with the fairness doctrine as our viewpoints are marginalized completely over a long period of time. It is already arguable that Right and Left have more or less merged, and I see no change to this trend any time soon.

[aikoaiko]

148. no.

Although SCOTUS rulings say differntly, it seems like a violation of 1 Amendment right regardless of "public" airwaves.