This could make more difference than anything else you do.

[juliagoolia]

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/

Renew the Fairness DoctrineWe Need Balanced Media Coverage
For many years, television and radio stations were required to give equal time to opposing sides of public or political issues to ensure the American public heard all sides of a debate. It was a requirement made by the Federal Communications Commission that came to be known as The Fairness Doctrine.
snip..

[DireStrike]

1. And how is this supposed to happen with fascists in office?

Do we have any power left anywhere?

[juliagoolia]

3. People on BOTH sides want this

Not just the Dems. It wont happen for sure if you sit on your hands and give up. We try! We work, and we see if we can affect a change.

[DireStrike]

12. Yeah... that's true I suppose!

I already signed this and passed it around, just so you know. =)

[rniel]

17. Well the right wing keeps complaining about

the liberal media so they'd better put their money where their mouth is if they really believe that.

[cyn2]

2. Signed and forwarded

Thanks for this. It has been sorely missed.

[forgethell]

4. The problem with

the Fairness Doctrine was that instead of giving equal time to all parties, they didn't give time to any so as to spare the expense. Thus the American people were fed intellectual pablum, and the fascists were enabled to gain control.

I think the current system is better. Yes, we have to listen to Rush, and Sean, and Micahel Reagan, and Mike Svage, and so on. But we also have a chance to fight back.

If we can't, then it's our own fault. We are the smart party, and should be able to out-inform AND out-entertain these guys. It will take work, but it will pay off in the long run much bigger time than a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

[PATRICK]

16. Newer version needed

that applies to all the niche media and the dissipated audience. The overall fairness is hurt because of the dominant RW parrot machine and the lurch of punditry to the peanut gallery. The old fairness Doctrine will barely earn a blip of difference among all the super advantages the RW possesses PLUS the real loss of a unified media forum that everyone as a nation plugs into. As it is the filtering process is also unfair and dominated by spin. How can you regulate that?

Having the media simply go silent rather than deal fairly also works in favor of those who need people to be ignorant.

Our current incumbents, either the nervous Dems or glutted GOPers will never come up with anything remotely reaching a solution. It has to be done with a competitive private sector, bare bones and wide spread countering.

What we can do better: tell the truth, reach for people's unserved interests, entertain(yes, for evil leaves a bad taste, has little real competency). We can win more audience share and advertising with all the riches left untended on the ground for the plucking.

We are way beyond meekly trying to restore the Fairness Doctrine. If the Dems do for this like they did for election "reform" in HAVA(Help America Vaporize Act) there won't be a speck of freedom or truth left in the already disastrous media situation.

[forgethell]

18. I'm not sure that I understood exactly

what you said.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, either. As a progressive, I am totally opposed to the government regulating the media. I make an execption, reluctantly, in the case of broadcast television. Radio is iffier because no radio station covers that significant a portion of the population. Also, I don't believe that the owners would bias towards conservatives so much as to hurt their bottom line. Lenin had it right about the capitalists, they will sell you the rope for their own hanging.

Internet, print? No way should the government be involved. As far as the loss of a unified media, I see this as to the good. I am a firm believer in diversity, and I want information from many sources.

I believe that the marketplace of ideas should be allowed to work. If our ideas don't sell, we need to discard them and come up with new ones that will, or go our of business. Same as for the Repukes.

[musette_sf]

5. thanks for the link

People "of a certain age" remember when news media coverage was REALLY fair and balanced, and the Fairness Doctrine was the reason for this.

Sign the petition, not just for you but for your children. They deserve to grow up in a country where the loudest person with the most money is NOT the purveyor of popular opinion.

[Royal Observer]

6. I'm definitely "of a certain age"

and I don't remember when the news media coverage was ever REALLY fair and balanced.
The only way you can make it fair and balanced is by being selective in what see and listen to.

[musette_sf]

7. well...

let's put it this way... the John Birchers had a pile of dough back in the early 60s, but you didn't have to listen to Welch, or his appointed bloviator, ranting on radio and TV and being accepted by the MSM.

This was due to the Fairness Doctrine.

[Royal Observer]

9. Not for me

I read and listen to only those I want to. When I listen to those I disagree with; it's because I want to.

[juliagoolia]

8. kick

[sadman]

10. as I pointed out in another thread, I'm not the brightest tool in the shed

So how does forcing tv or radio stations to put someone on the air that they don't want to put on the air make us freer?

[DireStrike]

11. It prevents groupthink

Which is a polarizing force, bad for compromise, understanding, and bad for democracy.

Political conflicts should not be decided by their marketability, how much airtime they can compel people into watching. People need not be forced into opposing camps of channels they watch or news sources they subscribe to.

Our society, indeed most successful societies today, are founded on the enlightenment principle of critical thinking. If there is no criticism, there is lack of perspective, which leads to weakness.

It makes us freer by opening our eyes to more of the world. It leads every member of society to make better choices, which benefits everyone.

[mac56]

13. Because TV and radio stations don't own the airwaves.

We do. The people of this country. Station owners use them by license, and must adhere to certain conditions for the privilege. A reasonable condition would be to allow equal access to all opinions and points of view, if access is to be allowed to any of them.

Add on edit: A newspaper owner may own his or her printing press, but that's not the same situation.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

14. I agree

though I don't see it happening with bushco in office.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. One of the WORST things that has ever happened to discourse and a free watchdog press in this country is the death of the Fairness Doctrine.

[crispini]

15. Done and done..

:kick: