The End of Fairness ( History of talk radio and the Fairness Doctrine)

[kentuck]

Very good read. Best analysis yet of persons connected with the overturn of the Fairness Doctrine.
===================================================================
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2002/06/30/1f.ed.col.monks.0630.html

<snip>
The rule, formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, required all broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial matters of public interest. It further required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine arose from the idea imbedded in the First Amendment that the wide dissemination of information from diverse and even antagonistic sources is essential to the public welfare and to a healthy democracy.

The FCC is mandated by federal law to grant broadcasting licenses in such a way that the airwaves are used in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, expressing the view that the airwaves were a "public trust" and that "fairness" required that the public trust accurately reflect opposing views.

<snip>
Talk radio shows how profoundly the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has affected political discourse. In recent years almost all nationally syndicated political talk radio hosts on commercial stations have openly identified themselves as conservative, Republican, or both: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Reagen, Bob Grant, Ken Hamblin, Pat Buchanan, Oliver North, Robert Dornan, Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing - there is virtually nothing else.

<snip>
Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society, where government commissars or party propaganda ministers enforce the acceptable view with threats of violence. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it. Yet the almost complete right wing Republican domination of political talk radio in this country has been accomplished without guns or gulags. Let's see how it happened.

....more (very good article)

edited for link*

[hedda_foil]

1. This is a great article that surely deserves a big kick!

[Mel]

2. great article

worth another kick!
I figure, if the people who say the media is liberal want to change things they'd be for the Fairness Doctrine being brought back, right?
If you ask me the average everyday person that calls theirself a conservative doesn't look to good they've let theirselves be manipulated by corporatists.

This article gives good information about the how we got here and some about the results now what someone needs to do is show how this in the end will hurt conservatives.
Do they (republicans) really want a totalitarian society even if it agrees with them all the time? For if they do, they may find that they to can have this happen too them, the sword cuts both ways!

[cally]

3. This is a must read

:kick:

[Flying_Pig]

4. Again, I call for the new Dem president-elect, to sign an....

executive order, reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, as one of their first acts after taking office. Nothing the president-elect could do, would be more important in sustaining and returning our nation's democracy.

I am in the process of writing all of the candidates to request their commitment on this issue. We can never again allow right-wing fascists to have unfettered access and control of our democracy. To do so, would spell the doom of our nation (and we're damned close to it now).

[Liberal Classic]

5. Compelled speech

I consider being compelled to finance a contrary view to be essentially compelled speech, and as such a violation of the 1st amendment. You should not be forced by the government to carry views you feel are objectional. It's a compnent of free speech and the right of assembly to not have to support causes you oppose. Compelled speech isn't free.

Besides, in threads about the so-called "fairness doctrine" I never hear any mention of NPR and PBS. These are taxpayer-funded media outlets, which are not Fox News by any stretch of the imagination. I would rather that alternative media be like Pacifica Radio, listener supported than tax supported. Can you imagine Pacifica being required to air views from right wingers? Seriously, think about this. Just because a Republican may have opposed it does not make it necessarily a good thing!