Reply #62

In the discussion thread: Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture? [View all]

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 05:07 PM

shcrane71 (1,706 posts)

62. The fairness doctrine need only cover public / non-subscription stations.

Social media is definitely helping people find a diversity of viewpoints and political doctrines. I've heard several NPR and community talk show hosts say that they're scared of getting any sort of fine from the FCC because it will cause such a hardship for their listener-sponsored stations. Billionaire Rush Limbaugh has no such concern while he's been monopolizing the AM dial in numerous states.

If the Fairness Doctrine only curtails the amount of hateful rhetoric going over American airways, then it would do it's job. I believe in regulation because without it, Econ 101 has taught me that there are inefficiencies in markets.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

87 replies	Author	Time	Post
Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture? [View all]	shcrane71	Mar 2012	OP
yes	diane in sf	Mar 2012	#1
yes, I tried to register an online complaint last night	Tumbulu	Mar 2012	#2
I think it is time the FCC needs restructuring.	Great Caesars Ghost	Mar 2012	#3
I'm going to write my representative and Senators and suggest just that!	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#7
I believe all broadcasting either through airwaves, digital, or satalite should be tiered regulated.	Great Caesars Ghost	Mar 2012	#63
You make perfect sense to me GCG.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#66
Regulation can take many forms	onenote	Mar 2012	#67
Thanks, didn't know about this. K & R.	freshwest	Mar 2012	#4
Let's get him off of AFN first and THEN worry about the FCC.	HopeHoops	Mar 2012	#5
Why not work on both? It would be difficult for AFN to justify keeping Rush's show if the FCC	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#8
Good point.	HopeHoops	Mar 2012	#16
FCC is mandated to handle "obscene and indecent"	EFerrari	Mar 2012	#18
Yeah, the AFN thing is a stronger case from the perspective of disrespect for the CIC.	HopeHoops	Mar 2012	#19
There should be no place	libtodeath	Mar 2012	#6
Nice way to sneak in the Ron Paul advocacy. Welcome to DU!!!	msanthrope	Mar 2012	#9
My post says nothing about support for disbanding the FCC. I just want the FCC to work,	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#10
Of course you want the FCC to work. Which is why you've used the latest meme.....	msanthrope	Mar 2012	#12
lol...wtf??? I have no idea where you're coming from, but have a good day (after you reread the OP)	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#13
I am coming from the place where I question why-a low count poster might bring up the latest	msanthrope	Mar 2012	#14
Thanks for the vetting rather than responding to the post. Why not place me on your ignore list?	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#15
The Janet Jackson FCC fine was thrown out in federal court	DefenseLawyer	Mar 2012	#38
yes, of course!	librechik	Mar 2012	#11
Yes, of course it does. n/t	EFerrari	Mar 2012	#17
Certainly seems to describe the current situation.	calimary	Mar 2012	#20
No.	onenote	Mar 2012	#21
Yes.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#22
Still no.	onenote	Mar 2012	#23
Still Yes. You're stretching, and you're missing the point.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#26
How am I "stretching" by citing the applicable law?	onenote	Mar 2012	#28
So you're saying that it's NOT regulatory capture that the FCC is failing to enforce the	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#30
The FCC isn't failing to "enforce" the FD. The FD doesn't exist anymore	onenote	Mar 2012	#34
If the Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist anymore, why did lawmakers try to get rid of it in 2011?	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#36
The FCC declared the FD was no longer in force in 1987 .	onenote	Mar 2012	#42
The FCC Doesn't Regulate Content...	KharmaTrain	Mar 2012	#24
Rhandi Rhodes is a false equivalency. She wouldn't be if you could name a non-subscription station	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#25
Interesting...	KharmaTrain	Mar 2012	#27
You're not entitled to your own facts.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#29
LPFM Wasn't Legal Til 2000...	KharmaTrain	Mar 2012	#31
K, I'll go back and tell the community stations that said they started out as LPFM	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#32
Not The FCC's Mandate...	KharmaTrain	Mar 2012	#33
Under FCC legal definitions and regulations, Rush did no wrong.	MadHound	Mar 2012	#35
What is considered obscene is not static. Women vote. Women can be appointed to the FCC.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#37
Actually, what is considered obscene by the FCC is pretty static	MadHound	Mar 2012	#39
You're correct. It has been static, but these are unprecedented times, and precedents have been	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#44
As I've shown, before you can enforce the FD you need to get it reinstated	onenote	Mar 2012	#46
You've not shown it until you provide a link to the news article.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#55
Here you go.	onenote	Mar 2012	#57
Thanks onesie. You have my apology. Did you see this:	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#58
I have mixed feelings about bringing back the FD	onenote	Mar 2012	#59
The fairness doctrine need only cover public / non-subscription stations.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#62
These are unprecedented times, but not in the way you are thinking	onenote	Mar 2012	#52
It may not be static, but it is governed by what is in the Constitution.	onenote	Mar 2012	#43
If that is the definition, then yes imo.	Rex	Mar 2012	#40
This is one of those	melm00se	Mar 2012	#41
There are not many times that I long for the "good-ol' days" of the 50s or 60s, but	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#45
can't enforce what is no longer on the books.	melm00se	Mar 2012	#47
It's still on the books.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#49
WRONG.	onenote	Mar 2012	#51
Link please.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#53
Here you go.	onenote	Mar 2012	#56
Not since August 2011	melm00se	Mar 2012	#60
High time to bring it back, don't you agree? n/t	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#61
its not a popular opinion here	melm00se	Mar 2012	#64
The Left has ceded a monopolization of public airwaves to the Right for decades, and we see	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#65
in some aspects yes.	melm00se	Mar 2012	#68
Thanks for the long, meandering justification for the Left handing the public airwaves to the Right.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#69
you know	melm00se	Mar 2012	#70
huh??? AM radio carries jazz?? Where you from?!?! And, you're missing the point.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#71
I am near	unionworks	Mar 2012	#72
Oh, you lucky dawg... 1. It's beautiful up there. 2. Canadians are really nice aren't they???	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#73
If the thugs win	unionworks	Mar 2012	#74
Take me with you!!! I want to live amongst the Canadians and their good AM radio	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#76
I will send you	unionworks	Mar 2012	#78
That would be great! Thank You!	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#79
Well put,melm00se.	onenote	Mar 2012	#77
If ever Americans resolve the issue of regulatory capture (the FCC rolling over while giving the AM	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#80
I think its prudent to be scared of undefined "regulation" of speech	onenote	Mar 2012	#81
I know you want to compare of very different media outlets, but those comparisons don't	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#82
I'm not ducking the question: What will this "regulation" you are advocating entail?	onenote	Mar 2012	#83
LMAO You've ducked the OP question since this thread started.	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#84
I've been practicing communications law for 35 years. You have a very flawed understanding	onenote	Mar 2012	#85
Duck, duck, duck... duck, duck, duck...	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#86
You keep digging yourself in deeper don't you?	onenote	Mar 2012	#87
Reimposing the FD isn't going to be a panacea	onenote	Mar 2012	#48
Welcometo D.U.	unionworks	Mar 2012	#50
I really appreciate that. Thanks Unionworks!	shcrane71	Mar 2012	#54
Thank you!!!	Puzzledtraveller	Mar 2012	#75

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.