Should the Fairness Doctrine be brought back?

[cynatnite]

Poll question: Should the Fairness Doctrine be brought back?

The Fairness Doctrine provided adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.

[Donnachaidh]

1. I'd love to know WHY someone would vote no.

Come on out of the shadows....'splain yourself.

[DJ13]

2. I voted yes, but the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable anyway

Some might be voting no since it wouldnt solve the Fox News problem.

[onenote]

38. actually, the FCC did include the FD in its rules for cable

In fact, I'm looking at a current copy of 47 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sec 76.209,which is entitled:
"Fairness Doctrine; personal attacks; political editorials"
The text of the rule reads as follows: "A cable television system operator engaging in origination cablecasting shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

The extension of the FD to cable goes back to the 1970s, I believe; however, it has virtually never been invoked. One reason is that it applies to "orgination cablecasting" -- cable channels over which the cable operator exercises editorial control. It wouldn't apply to a channel on which CNN or FOX News or HBO etc is carried. Second, even before the FD was repealed in 1987, the FCC started a proceeding to revisit whether the FD should apply to cable and there is zero chance that the FCC will attempt to enforce the FD against a cable "origination" channel at this point.

[wolfgangmo]

50. Ah ... but the fairness doctrine could cover it. It's a matter of political will.

The cables that bring cable to residences still run through public right of ways. The fact that the cable companies run the cables is not germain despite what the cable companies say. If we change the law to include cable, etc then they will be covered by the law.

My vote is to bring it back and to make sure that the cable companies also comply with the fairness doctrine. Frankly the cable companies don't care if they have to offer some extra channels to be fair. As long as they get their subscription rates they will be happy. The fact that content providers will have to actually be balanced rather than pay lip service to journalism is just too bad. Boo freakin hoo.

The question I have or you DJ13 is whether or not you think the fairness doctrine is a good idea, and not whether you think it is feasable given the current situation, stipulating that things will never change.

[daylan b]

3. It's sort of ironic that you are taking such an aggressive tone

toward those who disagree with you considering what you are supposedly supporting.

[Donnachaidh]

6. aggressive? For asking WHY?

oh please :rofl:

[daylan b]

8. You're right.

You aren't taking the slightest bit of an agressive tone from there in the shaddows.

oh geez :rofl:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[daylan b]

12. zipplewrath summed it up well.

I was commenting on the irony of your post.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

5. Shadows?

Okay, I'll "splain" myself, but ya gotta give as good as you get.

It is antiquated. It needs a severe modernization that recognizes the diversity of media today, that goes beyond just radio and TV. We need a modification of our laws concerning the dissemination of information. But just reviving old laws isn't going to achieve what we are all after. We need a new "fairness" doctrine, not returning to the old, outdated, version.

[Donnachaidh]

9. okay -- that's a good point. That was my whole purpose of asking why.

I would think a poll like this would allow people who had differing opinions to post them. Didn't expect to get jumped on for asking why.

[daylan b]

14. I'd love to know WHY someone would think that.

Come out of the shadows and 'splain yourself.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[zipplewrath]

20. And yours?

You got jumped on for the "shadows" comment. Many of us took it to mean you didn't think there were any good reasons.

And I asked for as good as ya got. What is your interest in the return and what do you think it would accomplish? Careful, the authority for the original really wouldn't cover Faux News.

[Donnachaidh]

27. Ed Schultz went into it the other night - 90% of the radio waves has conservative talk radio

You don't think there's a weensy bit of a problem with that? The fairness doctrine, even the old one, would address some of that, don't you think?

[onenote]

41. I'd venture a bet that 90 percent is a huge exaggeration

Just considering the number of radio stations that offer music or are foreign language, etc.

[Donnachaidh]

46. he was talking about talk radio

And I don't think it's a mistake. Air America was started to address those problems. :shrug:

[onenote]

52. saying 90 percent of talk radio is conservative is a much different thing than

saying 90 percent of the airwaves "have" conservative talk radio.

But if he was saying the former, I wouldn't disagree.

[Donnachaidh]

65. that's what he was saying. n/t

[zipplewrath]

83. Not it the larger context

90% of talk radio (and I wonder where he gets that number) is AM talk radio with dubious listener numbers. Advertising rates are very low on these programs. The medium appeals to a certain segment of society. It's no different than the fact that a huge portion of "magazine" sales are basically "celebrity gossip" rags. People, Us, and innumerable other "checkout lane" magazines serving up nothing but mindless trash. Am radio is much the same way. If PT Barnum was still around, he'd be in AM radio.

Even the GOP stalwarts admit that Rush, Beck, and the rest of them have little if any real electoral clout. They all hated McCain, and tried to get him beat in South Carolina. Guess who won?

It is a symptom, not a cause. Someone once said that "no one ever went broke UNDER esimating the taste of the American consumer". There is a huge population (in commercial/retail terms, it doesn't have to be a majority) that is relatively ignorant and looking to be enteratained, all day and night by the way. Soap operas, "reality" shows, the National Enquirer, and wide variety of other fairly stupid, waste of time, kind of entertainment and actually in much the same category as most talk radio.

If I am concerned about something, it is the "profit motive" that has taken over our news infrastructure. Yes, there has always been that element. It has never quite been tied so closely to content (in the modern age I mean, we can go back to the "yellow journalism" days and find something similar). Strangely, newspapers rarely adjusted the content of the first "national" section on the basis of profit. Quite the opposite, they were always fairly sensetive to even the appearance of such things. Advertising on the front page was considered a "taint" upon the news. Likewise on the Op-Ed page as well. Even in the "golden age" of newspapers, when towns might have two, or even three, they were far more interested in the "scoup" than in feeding some political point of view. They could be sensational, but their political leanings affected the tone, or point of view, NOT what stories actually got in.

Today, we have whole news channels, and Murdoch is moving toward magazines and newspapers, that will SKIP whole stories and issues, purely based upon politics. Conversely, they will manufacture news, not so much based upon popularity, but upon a political view point. The "tea party" movement is far more based upon the need for these conservatively driven organizations to have a particular kind of story to report, than any real popularity of the movement itself. I work around some fairly conservative folks (makes for a LONG day), but I have yet to meet the first "tea bagger". And trust me, these folks love them some Rush and Beck. This movement is considered "fringe" by them, and by the vast majority of the GOP political machine. So much so that some of the political leadership of the GOP is starting to openly be concerned that their party is being DRIVEN by Fox, as oppose to supported by them.

The fairness doctrine isn't going to affect this. The fairness doctrine isn't going to adjust what stories get covered, never did. It isn't going to affect what topics get discussed. It will just require them to allow a few more hours of an alternative viewpoint, that they will then spend the rest of the day counter programming.

[yawnmaster]

26. Its not asking why that is the problem, it is how it was asked,

and the implications with the way it was asked.
WHY (caps) "I'd love to know..."

Taken together that puts the no voters on the defensive.
A straightforward why would have been adequate if you don't want a strong response or responses, like this one, that discuss you actually asking the question and not the question, itself.

"Those that vote no, please explain your reasoning."
or
"Please explain your reason for voting one way or the other."

[NoNothing]

11. I don't see how that would be remotely constitutional

I know I wouldn't be too happy about laws governing my "dissemination of information."

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Was it unconstitutional the first time?

[daylan b]

18. It was only federally regulated public airwaves last time.

If you want to do it this time and have it include anything resembling power to change things it would need to extended into cable and internet which would not be constitutional.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. I don't think the internet needs to be involved

On the net, you go get the news.

On the major TV and radio channels the news gets forced down your throat.

[daylan b]

25. Fox is on cable.

Which would cross the line from constitutional to unconstitutional.

The public airwaves thing is the kicker.

[FiveGoodMen]

31. You may be right about the legality, but the net effect is a disaster

The difference in transmission methods between cable and broadcast has little or no effect on the perceived legitimacy of the "information" being imparted.

People see it on TV and think, "Well, they wouldn't be able to say that if it wasn't true."

[daylan b]

33. Perhaps...

but every one of the political channels obsesses over calling each other out so much that it would be hard for anybody who watches any one of them to still believe such a thing.

[FiveGoodMen]

34. You're right. Nobody believes Fox.

[daylan b]

35. Which in the circle of life

...wouldn't be impacted by the old or an updated version of the fairness doctrine.

[FiveGoodMen]

36. Not according to your understanding of what's constitutional

[daylan b]

40. Huh? My understanding?

That part of it is pretty clear cut, just look up the Red Lion case.

The part of the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine that is up for debate is whether technology has come far enough that there are enough other venues to deem it unnecessary.

[FiveGoodMen]

42. While I hate to borrow a right-wing talking point

The Constitution should not be a suicide pact.

Liars always have the advantage over truth-tellers. In any given situation, there's only one set of info that conforms to reality. But you can make up all the lies you want. And you can tailor those lies for your audience. Then they have to be debunked, by which time the liar has thought up three new ones.

We need our national news sources to present facts and shut the fuck up with their opinions or America is dead. It almost is now.

[daylan b]

45. If it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional

With all due respect, that catch phrase is just something said by people who find the constitution inconvenient regarding an issue.

[FiveGoodMen]

47. You may enjoy our final slide into Orwellian disinformation and dystopia

I won't.

[daylan b]

48. What would make you say such a thing?

One can realize the facts about a situation and not be happy about them. Denying those facts doesn't make one principled, it just makes them wilfully ignorant.

[FiveGoodMen]

56. If you believe that the Constitution enforces the destruction of America

Then shouldn't you be calling for an amendment?

[daylan b]

62. Really? How petty do you want to get?

Shouldn't you be attacking the OP for asking if the Fairness Doctrine should be brought back when they should be asking if the constitution should be ammended?

You seem to be more interested in going after me than the actual issue.

[FiveGoodMen]

63. I haven't been going after you at all.

I've been responding to you.

I'm not even angry at you personally.

But you're defending an intellectual justification for laying down and letting the most destructive forces in America have complete control.

I'm against that.

[daylan b]

64. Defending and discussing are two completely different things.

[onenote]

49. I have no problem borrowing from a progressive talking point

I view William O Douglas as a progressive thinker. Others may disagree. In any event, here is what Justice Douglas had to say:

"My conclusion is that TV and radio stand in the same protected position under the First Amendment as do newspapers and magazines. The philosophy of the First Amendment requires that result, for the fear that Madison and Jefferson had of government intrusion is perhaps even more relevant to TV and radio than it is to newspapers and other like publications. That fear was founded not only on the spectre of a lawless government but of government under the control of a faction that desired to foist its views of the common good on the people. In popular terms that view has been expressed as follows:

'The ground rules of our democracy, as it has grown, require a free press, not necessarily a responsible or a temperate one. There aren't any halfway stages. As Aristophanes saw, democracy means that power is generally conferred on second-raters by third-raters, whereupon everyone else, from first-raters to fourth-raters, moves with great glee to try to dislodge them. It's messy but most politicians understand that it can't very well be otherwise and still be a democracy.' Stewart, reviewing Epstein, News From Nowhere: Television and the News (1972), Book World, Washington Post, March 25, 1973, pp. 4-5.

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING v. DEMOCRATIC COMM., 412 U.S. 94 (1973)(Douglas concurring).

[wolfgangmo]

54. How would it "not be constitutional"

I'd love to hear your reasons for stating this.

The fact is that all transmission of information, be it TV airwaves, CB, police band, cable or internet, is all transmitted through the commons. In the case of both cable and internet, even the cable lines / DSL / etc. all travel through common spaces reserved for the use of utilities. But those utilities DO NOT OWN said spaces.

With a small modification of the law, the fairness doctrine could be brought back and be effective. It couldn't possibly be worse than the corporate travesty it is now. It is our space and our commons - we need to grow a pair and start acting like it.

The repeal of the fairness doctrine is yet one more thing that Raygun did to try to ruin this country.

[onenote]

60. by your reasoning, newspapers and the internet could be regulated as well

My newspaper gets to me via a truck driving on the public streets. Much of the news that gets into the paper is received by the paper via satellite feeds and phone lines. ANd the internet uses the same wires as cable.

So what the heck, let's regulate all media. Who needs a first amendment!

[daylan b]

61. Have you read a summary of the Red Lion case?

Hell, just take the lazy man's road and read the Wiki page on it.

Today, the larger question would be whether the increased venues for expression (Internet, satelite radio/tv, cable, etc.) has made the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary. The necesity of providing access to the limited broadcasting band was essential to the 1969 ruling. I'm sure you can see how preposterous it is to compare the limited channels avialable at that time to a day and in which anybody with a microphone and an internet connection can start their own podcast.

[NoNothing]

19. No

Because there is a constitutional exception for regulation of open broadcasts over FCC-licensed bands. But as soon as you expand it beyond open broadcast television and radio, it would be unconstitutional.

[fascisthunter]

23. Corporate media already disseminates info based on their business interests

and economic/political ideologies. See FOX news...

[zipplewrath]

24. With this court, neither do I

One can endeveavor to regulate the COMMERCE of news. Considering that news has become profitable, that alone could be the avenue to return to some sanity.

[paulsby]

37. oh jayzus

we have been railing over the scotus' ridiculous expansion of the commerce clause to increase federal power, and now you want to increase it even more to supersede the 1st amendment?

brilliant... lol

[zipplewrath]

84. Actually, I haven't

I understand that their is alot of discontent over the expansion of the commerce clause, probably starting with the Wheat decision. And although I think there are some specific areas where they have gone a tad bit far, I don't think it is as nearly as "abusive" as most. I'm not particularly an "anti-federalist". The commerce clause was the basis of an awful lot of civil rights legislation at the federal level. It is also the basis of much of the alphabet soup that is the federal government, such as the CDC, ATF, FCC, FAA, OSHA, etc. And it is the "model" being approached by the EU. The EU has MUCH stricter libel and slander laws. I'm not necessarily advocating going that far in that direction, but there is something to the regulation of the industry of news that can be useful.

[paulsby]

85. among other things

we aint the EU and thank god for that. our federal govt. power is strictly limited. that;s by design.that is NOT the case in many other countries (most of which are MUCH smaller btw). for example, most countries have federal police. we don't. not in the sense of standard police stuff (patrol, basic criminal law enforcement, etc.).

even if i agreed for a second that shredding the 1st amendment "can be useful" and god knows, i don't, it still aint w/in the control of the federal govt. to do so.

we've seen the commerce clause used to do some horrible things, and things NEVER intended by the founders. the most recent egregious example was the justification of the prosecution of people growing their own mj pursuant to state script for same under medical mj laws.

how is that POSSIBLY a "interstate commerce" thang? something you grow in your own house and consume in your own house. answer: it isn't

[zipplewrath]

86. One of the excesses to which I refered

There is no doubt that the Wheat decision is one of the excesses. It would seem that at the very least, the government should have to demonstrate, when challenged, that a particular action/transaction is somehow influencing interstate commerce.

Oh, and the EU has an even WEAKER central authority than the US federal government. But they still manage to have stricter libel and slander laws.

[paulsby]

87. i wasn't referring to the EU as a central authority

i was referring to the fact that most EU countries have much stronger federal govt.'s than our nation

you are right about the EU, in that it mostly "rules" by agreement. that's why, among other reasons, some european countries have resisted the EU. the UK, in many respects, has. they have maintained their own currency, their own system of measurement, etc.

otoh, the UK does have much stricter libel and slander laws than the US. they also have far fewer protections for criminal defendants (right to remain silent does not exist. silence CAN be used against you, and no automatic exclusionary rule for unlawful searches).

i REALLY enjoy our limited federal govt. power, even though activists of both the left and right, keep expanding it

[zipplewrath]

88. It ain't all that limited

"i REALLY enjoy our limited federal govt. power, even though activists of both the left and right, keep expanding it"

It ain't all that limited. There was a time that the feds chose to be relatively limited, but it's never been as limited as many would think. It was intended to be "limited" within the concept of infringement of individual rights. But quite honestly, individual rights have been far more infringed where the feds either refused to act, or were deferential to the states. Truth is, until really about the 1950s, the SC barely addressed individual rights outside of property rights.

[paulsby]

89. that's where we disagree

i don't think the feds CHOSE to be relatively limited. i think they were restrained BY THE LAW. and the "law" keeps expanding their rights, through the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on domestic violence, etc.

[zipplewrath]

91. A combination of things

Until around WWII, they didn't really have the money to institute alot of the policies. With the advent of income tax, and really the advance payment of income tax, as well as the payroll tax, it gave them the ability to do much of what they do now. FDR was the first one to really run up against a federal court that severely tried to limit his activities. That's when we got the Wheat decision and it was off to the races. But do remember that very early on we had the Aliens and Sedition Acts.

[paulsby]

92. well yes. you are correct

it's kind of like a feedback loop thang

the feds pushed more starting around that time, and when the courts, etc. pushed back, limits (that had never been tested before) were established

[zipplewrath]

93. Well, until Wheat

That's the decision you don't like much I presume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[paulsby]

94. it is definitely a classic example of two things i despise

one: ridiculous expansion of federal power
two: ridiculous judicial activism

fwiw, i DO believe judicial activism is bad.i do NOT believe that it is limited to liberals or the leftwing (as many righties believe)

scalia's been guilty of it, for example

[FiveGoodMen]

13. What we really need is for our airwaves not to be polluted with 24/7 propaganda

People need time to digest the facts -- facts: what the news should be delivering -- and to discuss these with our fellow citizens.

Instead we have people constantly telling us what to think, what to like, what to be against, etc.

The Fairness Doctrine would force each side to distill their points down to a few minutes each and deal with the fact that the other side would do the same.

That's much better than simply letting whoever has the most money dominate the national discourse.

[KharmaTrain]

22. I Never Hide In The Shadows On This Issue...It's Not "Fairness"...It's Acess

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine...it only covered mandated Public Affairs shows (that were "de-regulated" away in the 90s) and to assure stations offer all candidates access for their campaign advertising and doing it at the lowest station rate. Today broadcasters make windfalls on elections...especially now as 527s and PACs are sure to flood the airwaves this fall.

The problem is access. 91% of "conventional radio" features hate talk...with almost every one of those stations owned by a handful of corporates. Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, Salem and CBS dominate the most powerful signals and they decide what you hear. Clear Channel owns Premier, Rushbo's network and a very major reason his show pops up on every market across the country.

Talk radio has never been covered by any sort of "fairness". It's considered "Entertainment" (why Rushbo calls himself one). When you start to determine fairness, then you have to ask who decides what's fair. A slippery slope.

The FCC needs to revisit, drastically revise or repeal Telcom '96 that turned the public airwaves into a private plantation and to encourage local ownership and content...or wait until these "too big to fail" eventually go bankrupt.

[onenote]

66. what is a "conventional radio" station?

Apparently it doesn't include stations that broadcast music, which make up the majority of radio stations -- which means that the most conventional radio format isn't "conventional radio".

Yes, conservative talk is far and away the dominant voice on stations with "talk radio" formats. But I wish people would just say that rather than misleadingly make statements like "91% of 'conventional radio' features hate talk" or that "90 percent of the airwaves" have conservative talk (statement taken from another thread).

The FCC can't revisit or revise or repeal most of the 96 Telcom Act's provisions on ownership. That's up to Congress.

[KharmaTrain]

74. Definition:

"Conventional Radio" is analog, AM & FM radio. New Radio is satellite and internet. Pretty simple.

The FCC proposes the rules, Congress passes. That's how Dereg '96 happened and how any changes, including someone's coveted "Fairness Doctrine" would have to go. Since Democrats control the Commission by 3 to 2 and have a majority on both the Commerce committee and the House & Senate, revisions should be able to pass...I even see some rushpublicans who would climb on as well.

The fact by the Center For American Progress was that 91% of all talk on radio...meaning AM & FM...conventional old radios feature "conservative" or what I define as hate talk. What's so misleading about that? If you look closer, those stations are predominately the most powerful in each market thus making it all but impossible for smaller, more diverse stations to fight for ratings and advertising.

But enough said...

[paulsby]

95. while much, if not most conservative radio

could be classified as hate talk, so could much liberal radio

mike malloy for instance

i dig mike malloy (in small doses) but he is EERILY similar to michael savage if you excise what specifically he is talking about and just concentrate on the tone and vitriol. he just attacks from the other side

that's what i LIKE aobut malloy. it's entertaining. in small doses

[KharmaTrain]

100. The Equivelency Game...

Yep...there are folks like Randi Rhodes who are just as inflamatory and, like you, I can only handle the yelling and name calling in limited doseages. Given the choice, I'll throw on music or community or public radio. But as one who worked in the industry and still have an active love and interest in the medium, I do keep an ear to the tracks and try to keep tabs on what's going on.

The problem is that for every 1 Progressive Talk station there are 9 that skew in the other direction...and in many parts of the country there is no Progressive Talk...the format has been frozen out and has to rely on smaller and poorer signals and thus never can attain the same ratings as the "big kids". Thus some proportionality has to be taken into account here.

I'm not for abolishing hate radio...I'd prefer for the marketplace and re-regulation to balance things out. The problem isn't the "fairness" as it is the access and how a small handful of powerful operators have turned the public airwaves into their private plantation to profit from and push their political agendas.

Cheers...

[paulsby]

101. i agree with what you say

and i agree the problem is NOT fairness, so to speak. it's ownership

with a limited # of broadcast stations (because there is only so wide a spectrum for radio) etc. we need more diversity in ownership

[onenote]

96. so we agree that 90 percent of "conventional" radio is not rw talk

it may be that 90 percent of talk radio is RW, but that's a much smaller universe than the universe of "conventional radio"

As for how the 96 Act came about, I suggest that you have it backwards. If Congress gives the FCC the authority (or imposes a mandate) the FCC adopts rules. While it is true that on occasion, Congress directs the FCC to report to Congress with recommendations for changes in the statute (or the FCC does so on its own), that was not the case for much of the 1996 Act. The process that led to the enactment of the 1996 Act began years earlier -- I was involved in it working with then Chairman Brooks of the Judiciary Committee when the principal issue was dealing with phone deregulation. As often is the case, other issues, particularly broadcast ownership relief, became part of the final package because it pulled together a broader coalition. The FCC didn't propose the changes to the ownership rule -- the National Association of Broadcasters did. in fact, NAB took the FCC to court claiming that the FCC's implementation of the 1996 Act did not go far enough.

[KharmaTrain]

99. Billy Tauzin Ran The Show...

You are correct that by the time Dereg '96, it began with small bites in the late 80s and the NAB kept pushing for more and more. Tauzin was their guy...even changed parties during this all to keep his seniority and get things pushed through. The broadcast ownership had begun in '91 when the FCC (not Congress) eliminated the duopoly laws from the 40s that opened the floodgates for more and more.

You are correct that Telcom '96 was done primarily by Congress (The Commerce committee) as it was part of a far larger bill (telephone and cable dereg as well), but my point was that the original dereg began at the FCC and, as you properly state, under a lot of pressure from the NAB. We would joke that the FCC was a wholy owned subsidiary of the NAB. Eddie Fritz, who ran the NAB got a nice paycheck from the large corporates...he's the man I blame for destroying radio along with Tauzin.

In the grand scheme of things, hate radio is not the most popular format...it fills the void for the lack of local programming. Most hate radio stations rate poorly compared to other formats but it's cheap to hook up a satellite and let rushbo or some other asshat rant...no musical royalties or payroll.

My point has been that it's not Fairness that's the issue...it's the access and as long as the public airwaves remain a domain of a handful of large corporates who determine what people hear and support and are trying to profit from the venom that is spewed daily on the AM dial.

Thank you for your insight...very impressive.

Cheers...

[bunkerbuster1]

75. Few people understand how these policies were implemented, thanks.

Having said that, I still voted "yes" because the idea behind the polling question is valid.

[bluethruandthru]

90. You're absolutely right!

The Fairness Doctrine won't do anything to stop the hate talkers. We got to have strict ownership limits again on stations. A handful of companies shouldn't control the vast majority of the public's information outlets.

[Ter]

78. Because it's not the government's job to enforce

in a free society. Fair enough? Seems 42% agree, a sizable minority.

[harun]

4. Both "sides" of the same Corporate Story doesn't cut it either.

Don't see how the Fairness Doctrine would help anything. Both "sides" are vying for the love of the big money. Just going about it in different ways.

If the sides were "the weak" and "the powerful" you'd have my attention. That discussion is not happening.

[Bitwit1234]

7. After REAGAN the saint of the GOP deleted it

we had the surge of right wing hate and violence and the proliferation of Fox started. I have nothing against right wing views, except they aren't what I call sensible and if that's what people want to say OK. But I think the lies, fabrication and urging to hate, racism and violence all started with these parts of the MSM. They should be stopped.

Notice also the take over of the media started then and it works so damn well for the GOP. The only relief the left had was the internet, that's why the radical S.O.B.'s want to take that over now. So they can lie and spew all they want.

[fascisthunter]

28. the pro-corporate types would rather see corporations disseminating whatever info they want

and it's why we don't see as many liberals as we do right wingers on tv...

[NoNothing]

29. There's an actual matter of principle you know

If *I* want to be able to claim the right to disseminate whatever info *I* want, that sort of requires me to extend the same privilege to others.

[iris27]

30. No - not every issue has two rational sides.

Some 2nd-wave feminists argue that the Fairness Doctrine was instrumental in the death of the ERA...that it was facing little opposition until a handful of kooks (Schafly and others) got plastered all over the media and were vocal enough that sexist state reps could feel free to say "LOOK! Here's are WOMEN against the ERA!"

Do you really want Fred Phelps to get equal time? Or this unbelievably racist write-in candidate from my state?

[EFerrari]

43. Yes, I do want them to have equal time and to out themselves.

As it is, the media can pretend that everything has two equal sides and usually to our disadvantage.

Dumping the FD has only hurt the left.

[onenote]

51. the FD didn't require "equal" time

it merely required that a station afford a "reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

Colmes lightweight blather on Hannity and Colmes would've satsified the FD. O'Reilly inviting folks from the left onto his show would satisfy the doctrine even when O'Reilly belittles and argues with them.

In the end, reinstating the old FD would make little difference in the way the broadcast media operates. And a more intrusive version almost certainly would be struck down as unconstitutional.

[EFerrari]

55. A thousand cuts is how we got exactly *here*

where Brian Lamb can pose as a public servant and weigh even booktv with rightwing fakery weekend after weekend.

[gleaner]

32. I voted yes ....

It would help stop a lot of the conservative slant and outright bias we see in the news and commentaries. They would have to give up air time they could sell to allow individuals and groups to answer and give opposing views. It used to work pretty well. It would be very valuable right now to be able to make the media give both sides of the issues.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. The fairness doctrine really isn't the problem.

The media being controlled by a small handful of RIGHT WING corporations is. And that handful seems to be getting smaller all the time.

I have said this before, and I'm dead serious. It's time to reverse EVERY federal law passed since 1981. Reagan. Poppy. Clinton. The Chimp. All of it.

[Johonny]

53. I agree

[FiveGoodMen]

69. God, that would be wonderful!

:fistbump:

[Dr Morbius]

76. YES.

The solution is not the fairness doctrine. The solution is requiring all media markets contain a certain percentage of independently owned stations. You can't be free unless you're independent. When a handful of players buy up all the press, the press isn't free anymore.

Limit ownership. Leave broadcasters to show or say what they want. And local radio stations can choose to carry Rush Limbaugh, or they can choose to carry Stephanie Miller. Let the market decide. And limit what cable "news" channels can do to expand their coverage.

[Odin2005]

44. I'm afraid it would just purpetuate the Postmodernist relativist "that's just your opinion" thinking

What ever happened to reporting what the FACTS and the TRUTH is instead of reporting everything as "various sides with many opinions".

[Radical Activist]

59. Yes. Conservatives have used the idea of "balance"

over facts to their benefit.

[Spike89]

57. I voted no because it isn't a solution

The things we hate the most would be untouched by the fairness doctrine, even if it were to be stretched to cover cable. It never did, and never could have any effect on the "debate" style shows, talk radio, or the "slanted" news of Fox. A partial solution would be reregulating the airwaves to break up mega-corporate ownership--that had much much more to do with the rise of right wing media than the repeal of the pretty inneffectual fairness doctrine.
Facts can be slippery--context and presentation are required. Attempting to legislate a "balanced" news program would never work, and would have horrible consequences for freedom of expression.
Finally, as frustrating as it is to many of us, there is nothing we can do to prevent people from seeking a point of view that they are comfortable with. The reality is that no one is being forced to get their information exclusively from Fox News. There are ample sources of information on the left--we just don't listen to much talk radio.

[Radical Activist]

58. No. We don't need government regulation of speech.

We need to break up the media conglomerates to encourage more diversity in viewpoints.

[Oregone]

70. You think more wealthy owners will produce news that wont be aimed at making them wealthier?

Currently the private market censors free-speech to enahnce profits, ultimately. Putting more wealthy pricks in charge of the news will do what exactly? Im pretty sure they will consistently just be wealth pricks.

The fairness doctrine simply forbids this type of censorship

[Radical Activist]

71. Its only censorship now because a few companies control all information outlets,

Even news outlets are competitive. More news sources means that stories will be broken by a competitor if one company chooses to censor information. Private sector censorship won't exist if thousands of companies all have the same opportunity to report information.

The fairness doctrine does not stop censorship. It will only ensures that multiple viewpoints are expressed, but there's no guarantee that those viewpoints will go against the interests of corporate ownership. Plenty of news outlets today present two sides without either of those sides going against the interests of the owners.

[Oregone]

73. Information is being presented to boost the diverse portfolios of owners

Owners of news own stock in the military industrial complex, in big-ag, in big-pharma, etc. These are the type of people who own 60-70% of wealth in the US. Their job is not to compete to present information, but to influence politics to boost their own portfolios. More rich pricks involed will do more of the same. There is a conflict of interest in private media with all sides being presented, so most of the time, they are not or they are tailored.

[Radical Activist]

81. Right. And...

You wrote:
"There is a conflict of interest in private media with all sides being presented, so most of the time, they are not or they are tailored."

True, and as I pointed out, the fairness doctrine won't change that. Sure, they might have to include both Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh to present two opposing viewpoints. But that still doesn't get Noam Chomsky on the air.

What if we restore more diversity of ownership and locally owned media? That will result in:
1) More companies who only do news and are dedicated to a news ethic rather than being owned by the MIC.
2) If news outlet A censors a story because it threatens the financial interests of their parent company, the story will still be covered by news outlet B that's owned by a competing parent company with different interests.
3) When one news outlet covers a story it becomes nearly impossible for other news outlets to ignore it, thus breaking the stranglehold of censorship that results from a handful of companies owning all media.

So, you're throwing out a lot of talking points about the media that are true, but you're not showing how the fairness doctrine will resolve those problems. It won't.

[Hubert Flottz]

67. HELL...

YES!

[guitar man]

68. yes

and cover the cable and sat networks with it too. If somebody wants to take a shot at a person or group in an "editoral" segment, the least they should have to provide is some time for a response.

[nemo137]

72. I voted no because media consolidation is a much greater problem.

[onestepforward]

77. .

oops!

[BreweryYardRat]

79. HELL YES.

And apply it to cable, too.

[NecklyTyler]

80. The Fairness Doctrine is not about shutting up the right wingers

The Fairness Doctrine is about breaking up the non-stop indoctrination by hate radio and periodically allowing an alternative viewpoint to be expressed. The complete domination of a communications channel, particularly the public air waves, is not productive to the political dialog. When the Conservatives spew the same message for 16 hours a day without any rebuttal, it has a has a negative, polarizing effect on politics.

[Radical Activist]

82. Hannity and Colmes coming up next, followed by

Glenn Beck and representing the left, the most condescending, insulting, offensive, Jesus-hating, fire-breathing communist we could find in New York City to tell all you rednecks how much you suck.

Yeah...won't work. Breaking up clearchannel could help though.

[BlooInBloo]

97. Until you find a large audience that cares about what's true and what's not....

None of these red herring issues will make a difference.

[moondust]

98. It *might* inhibit some of the nonstop lying.

Over at you-know-who.

:shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

102. Stern moved from broadcast to satellite. And, he was cheered for it.

Not to mention the fact that he was handsomely rewarded. His numbers haven't suffered so much when all factors are taken into account.

Those who want to listen to limpballs, beckkk, and insanity will follow them to satellite or cable.

[DailyGrind51]

103. Five years ago, I might have said "No", but not anymore.