You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #11: "now we break for an opposing view from a responsible spokesperson" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. "now we break for an opposing view from a responsible spokesperson"
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 10:39 AM by depakid
That's in essense what was heard- fairly rarely, and as has been pointed out, as often as not- it was used by people on the right -which was why the likes of Jesse Helms and a young congressman from Georgia named Newt Gingrich lined up in support of it in Congress during the 1980's.

Not to complicate the issue- but the Fairness Doctrine was actually a series of adminstrative rules and ajudications at the FCC (some of which got to US District or even Circuit Courts, some of which didn't) that furthered a fundamental set of principles- namely, that no one could blatantly monopolize the public airwaves (as we see today) to the exclusion of other points of view.

Broadcasters couldn't lie (make false statements of fact) repeatedly and with impunity. If one of their hosts lied- then there was a mechanism in place for someone to come on air (usually for a 30 second spot) and set the record straight. If a person was attacked- that person or a representative was entitled to some time for rebuttal.

Moreover, broadcasters had to keep logs- so that, interested parties (or FCC staff) could ensure that they were living up to their obligations.

In todays day and age- they might be reviewed by the folks at Media Matters- or perhaps by Poynter, or any number of outfits who work to hold the American corporate media accountable.

If stations didn't live up to their public interest obligations, they risked (among other things) license non-renewal- and then as now, the licenses were lucrative, so corporations and individuals generally played by the rules.

Sinclair, Clear Channel, Fox, and others wouldn't have acted as irresponsibly as they do these days- and wouldn't have become veritable propaganda organs of one party's ideology or anothers (not just because of the Fairness Doctrine)s) for a number of other reasons, including ownership restrictions).

On a whole, these regulations helped to form a media culture where the sorts of deals that are commonplace in America- lies, vile personal attacks, and "up is down," "black is white" misinforamtion were discouraged in much the same way as financial institutions and individuals like Bernie Madoff were discouraged from committing their frauds.

Contrary to "popular" opinion- the Fairness Doctrine(s) and other reggualtions didn't keep the likes of Rush Limaugh, Sean Hannity- (pick 'em) off of the air- but what it did do was help keep them honest.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC