The Fairness Doctorine- Socializing the Airwaves

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

AgentDrazenPetrovic

Anyone But the Lakers
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
7,779
Likes
34
Points
48
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1020200...s/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."


This would be fucking retarded to pass this type of legislation. In feel good amurrica, it just might.
 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/1020200...s/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm




This would be fucking retarded to pass this type of legislation. In feel good amurrica, it just might.

It was already passed before you were born, and it worked fine, giving Americans a far clearer picture of the issues and politics in general.

Since Reagan denuded the FCC and opened the way for huge media monopolies, Americans have been deprived of what was once a pretty balanced source of facts and ideas.

Broadcast media as a news source in America is a joke.
 
Its not a news source, its entertainment. And its good to have opinions. Look, if people want to listen to a radio station, so be it. I believe in a system where the most popular programs stay on and ones that suck, don't. It just so happens that on radio, conservative shows are more popular.
 
Last edited:
The problem is conservatives own the airwaves, which is un-American, and unsafe if you believe in Freedom.
 
The problem is conservatives own the airwaves, which is un-American, and unsafe if you believe in Freedom.

Its a free market. They are owned by big corporations such as clearchannel and CBS radio.

They have audiences, which is why they stay on the air. no one wants to listen to an hour of liberals whining about stupid crap. conservatives are much more nonsensical.
 
So, let me get this straight. The best way to achieve "fairness" in opinion is to have government regulate it? I guess that seems to be the default answer for everything these days. People can't be trusted to make their own decisions, so that's better outsourced to a faceless bureaucracy.

I suppose this "fairness doctrine" will be applied to television as well? Let's see, on one side we have ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, BBC America and MSNBC and on the other side we have Fox. I guess that means we can expect six more Fox Networks or do we simply have the government regulate the content of the seven on the left?

I'm pro-free speech, even if I disagree with what's being said. So, who decides what's "fair"?
 
So, let me get this straight. The best way to achieve "fairness" in opinion is to have government regulate it? I guess that seems to be the default answer for everything these days. People can't be trusted to make their own decisions, so that's better outsourced to a faceless bureaucracy.

I suppose this "fairness doctrine" will be applied to television as well? Let's see, on one side we have ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, BBC America and MSNBC and on the other side we have Fox. I guess that means we can expect six more Fox Networks or do we simply have the government regulate the content of the seven on the left?

I'm pro-free speech, even if I disagree with what's being said. So, who decides what's "fair"?

The FCC and the Justice Department. Both of which would be headed by Obama appointees approved by Democrats.

Let's just say that Katie Couric isn't going to be the first to be made an example of after this is reintroduced.
 
So, let me get this straight. The best way to achieve "fairness" in opinion is to have government regulate it? I guess that seems to be the default answer for everything these days. People can't be trusted to make their own decisions, so that's better outsourced to a faceless bureaucracy.

I suppose this "fairness doctrine" will be applied to television as well? Let's see, on one side we have ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, BBC America and MSNBC and on the other side we have Fox. I guess that means we can expect six more Fox Networks or do we simply have the government regulate the content of the seven on the left?

I'm pro-free speech, even if I disagree with what's being said. So, who decides what's "fair"?

Go ahead and play stupid, if it doesn't embarrass you.

I'm sure you know why the Fairness Doctrine originally came about, and how well it worked to ensure the survival of Free Speech. It provided the equal opportunity for all viewpoints to be stated to the public so they were less likely to have their votes "bought" or be overly influenced by those with more money. I remember when I could turn channels without worrying whose "slant" would be influencing the facts.

The Dems support it, the Repugs oppose it, so right there is a hint at who controls the media and who would like an equal voice.

It would return credibility to the media on both sides, which neither enjoys now.
 
It would return credibility to the media on both sides, which neither enjoys now.

That's funny. "Credibility" as decided by what is "balanced", and all on the whim of a solid Democratic majority in Congress and a person who threatens to sue TV stations for running ads against him in the White House.

But it's all a joke. Who cares?
 
Toss out the 1st amendment.
 
It was already passed before you were born, and it worked fine, giving Americans a far clearer picture of the issues and politics in general.

Since Reagan denuded the FCC and opened the way for huge media monopolies, Americans have been deprived of what was once a pretty balanced source of facts and ideas.

Broadcast media as a news source in America is a joke.

The Democrats are not pushing this to return broadcast media to "what was once a pretty balanced source of facts and ideas." They're doing this because Air America failed, and Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly are successful.

If you can't beat them, abuse your power to beat them.
 
The Democrats are not pushing this to return broadcast media to "what was once a pretty balanced source of facts and ideas." They're doing this because Air America failed, and Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly are successful.

If you can't beat them, abuse your power to beat them.

If by successful you mean subsidized by rich conservative money, then you're correct that they are successful.

Air America was simply frozen off the airwaves when they could not get picked up by conservative controlled stations, which includes pretty much the entire industry.

Paying to suppress Free Speech in this manner is what the Fairness Doctrine prevented in the past, and will prevent in the future.
 
So, let me get this straight. The best way to achieve "fairness" in opinion is to have government regulate it? I guess that seems to be the default answer for everything these days. People can't be trusted to make their own decisions, so that's better outsourced to a faceless bureaucracy.

I suppose this "fairness doctrine" will be applied to television as well? Let's see, on one side we have ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, BBC America and MSNBC and on the other side we have Fox. I guess that means we can expect six more Fox Networks or do we simply have the government regulate the content of the seven on the left?

I'm pro-free speech, even if I disagree with what's being said. So, who decides what's "fair"?


Commrade Barack vill decide what's fair! Da, commrade! Ve vill huddle around a radio after vorking in the fields all day and listen to our god. The great god Barack! Da!
 
If by successful you mean subsidized by rich conservative money, then you're correct that they are successful.

Air America was simply frozen off the airwaves when they could not get picked up by conservative controlled stations, which includes pretty much the entire industry.

Paying to suppress Free Speech in this manner is what the Fairness Doctrine prevented in the past, and will prevent in the future.

LOL

Classic denial.

Or, what you described above is known as the free market, where ideas with a market thrive and those without a market die.

I suggest you listen to NPR, which I help pay for, and where not a single voice from the right is on-air.
 
If by successful you mean subsidized by rich conservative money, then you're correct that they are successful.

Air America was simply frozen off the airwaves when they could not get picked up by conservative controlled stations, which includes pretty much the entire industry.

Paying to suppress Free Speech in this manner is what the Fairness Doctrine prevented in the past, and will prevent in the future.

DA!, Commrade! Ze great conservatist beast has choked us all! Da millionaires (ie, those making $250,000 per year or more) have stolen our minds! Ve MUST return to the great liberal gods! Hiel, Barack!
 
Go ahead and play stupid, if it doesn't embarrass you.

I'm sure you know why the Fairness Doctrine originally came about, and how well it worked to ensure the survival of Free Speech. It provided the equal opportunity for all viewpoints to be stated to the public so they were less likely to have their votes "bought" or be overly influenced by those with more money. I remember when I could turn channels without worrying whose "slant" would be influencing the facts.

The Dems support it, the Repugs oppose it, so right there is a hint at who controls the media and who would like an equal voice.

It would return credibility to the media on both sides, which neither enjoys now.

So you're saying the best way to protect free speech is to have a government authority monitor what's being said closely and then try to ensure that there's an opposing view? So, when someone says bringing back slavery is a bad idea, we should make sure they have someone else saying that slavery kicks ass? How about standing against child molestation? In response, do we have the NAMBLA Hour?

I agree with you about slant however--television is dominated by the left.
 
If by successful you mean subsidized by rich conservative money, then you're correct that they are successful.

Air America was simply frozen off the airwaves when they could not get picked up by conservative controlled stations, which includes pretty much the entire industry.

"Frozen off"?

http://airamerica.com/stations

It seems pretty easy to get AA to me. And if you have an internet connection, you're dancing! If you're really interested in listening to AA, check out the Lionel Show. I used to listen to him when he was on "conservative controlled stations" but went to AA to reach aider audience.

Paying to suppress Free Speech in this manner is what the Fairness Doctrine prevented in the past, and will prevent in the future.

The result will be that station managers simply wion't have political talk shows--which is the result the Left is hoping for. It can't win in the marketplace, so it tries to legislate out the competition. Typical.
 
So, let me get this straight...there are too many right leaning shows on the airwaves, so the government is going to mandate...err....regulate that more left leaning shows are on the radio....but on TV, the far bigger medium IMO...where the exact opposite is true...well, the Democrats are going to leave that alone because that medium is "working as intended" from thier perspective.....

What a joke....
 
So, let me get this straight...there are too many right leaning shows on the airwaves, so the government is going to mandate...err....regulate that more left leaning shows are on the radio....but on TV, the far bigger medium IMO...where the exact opposite is true...well, the Democrats are going to leave that alone because that medium is "working as intended" from thier perspective.....

What a joke....

I don't think you have that right, at least I don't see any indication that it has been proposed to apply to radio only.

barfo
 
Mostly, the doctrine was used to allow victims of slander equal time to respond to charges.

So if Hannity or Limbaugh made up some outlandish charge (I know, I know, they would never spread lies about someone), or if a left-wing radio host (they used to exist before the doctrine was scuttled) did the same, that person would be provided the opportunity to come on the same station and defend themselves.

We certainly had less lying BS polluting the airwaves back then.

For the record though, Wkik has a pretty nice history of the pros and cons of it and here's what they say is Obama's take:

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has expressed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine; an aide to Senator Obama described the debate surrounding it as "a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," and cited Obama's support for other proposals such as media-ownership caps and network neutrality.

As usual, he cuts through the distractions and gets to the heart of the matter, which is to prevent an Ownership Monopoly of the airwaves by either side.

Smart guy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top