Dems target right-wing talk radio

[sledgehammer]

Source: CNN

***
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine," a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.

"I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.

Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa added their voices recently to those calling for a return of the regulation.

...

Republican Congressman Greg Walden, a former owner of five radio stations in Oregon including a "classic rock" station joked that the Fairness Doctrine is "the musical equivalent" of "every time we'd play a classic rock song we'd have to play a polka!"

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/13/dems-target-right-wing-talk-radio/

---

I'm not for this at all. I'm more in tune with the famous saying: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I think the Fairness Doctrine should RIP.

Amid so much right-wing hate and hysteria, the people still voted resoundingly for Obama and for Democrats. The people are smarter than the right-wing blowhards, and it showed. It will show again in 2010, and beyond.

[Mass]

1. The fairness doctrine is about giving everybody the right to talk, not only the RW talk shows.

I am all for it.

This said, I doubt that it will ever happen. Even the mainstream TV media these days leave only a small spectrum of people speak, from the far right to the center. Anybody left of the center is carefully avoided.

[Winterblues]

21. Only on Broadcast Networks that use Public airwaves.

It would effect Rush but not Hannity or any Cable or Satellite outlet.

[Lorien]

165. No, ALL airwaves are public nt

[newtothegame]

62. I would agree, but it's also wrong to force radio stations to carry unprofitable/unpopular radio...

just to make things "fair." I would disagree that it's about the RIGHT to talk, because anybody can and does, but not everybody gets listened to. We had Air-America here, and it was a joke; I love it, and still listen to it online, but it got dropped for that very reason I mentioned above; if you're a business, trying to be fair isn't a good enough reason to carry something the public doesn't want and take a loss on it. If you have the right to talk but noone wants to listen, should radio stations be forced to keep you on the air and lose money? Instead of the fairness doctrine, could we maybe examine why our message isn't selling? Get to the root of the problem?

In addition, who's to decide what issues are of "public importance" and need both sides? Wouldn't this just be an opportunity to Repukes to spout lies to ANYTHING, because all radio and tv would be forced to give equal time to their opinion, even if it's based on outright lies?

[BlueIdaho]

86. the problem...

isn't unprofitability - its fairness. The fat cat multi station owners don't see a flagging neo-con program and say "Hey, lets try a progressive talker in that slot!" they say "Find me another ditto head to keep the Reich Wing propaganda flowing to that target market sector."

This is not a "free market place, supply and demand, buyer driven utopia" its a highly organized propaganda machine made possible by our gullibility and the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

Wake Up!

[ieoeja]

92. They are *not* unpopular.

Liberal talk radio has almost always gotten higher ratings than Conservative. But at least four other issues do come into play.

1. Clear Channel and Sinclair, the two largest networks, are willing to forsake maximizing their profits/ratings for the opportunity to broadcast pure Rightist propaganda.

2. As a class the wealthy would rather support Rightist propaganda with low ratings than Liberal talk with higher ratings with their advertising dollars.

3. Dittoheads violently harrass companies that do advertise on Liberal talk.

4. Sometimes Liberal talk does do worse in the ratings. This is the result of putting one Liberal show on a station full of Conservative shows. That is like inserting one hour of Rap on a Country station. Once a station goes 100% Conservative 100% of the time, it loses its thinking audience, and you now just have dittoheads who go ballistic when they hear a Liberal speak.

Go back to the 50-50 split we had before, and people who don't want to hear anything contrary to their beliefs will go back to music radio. While people who want to know what is going on in the world will tune back in to talk.

[maseman]

193. Actually you are incorrect

I work for the radio ratings company and can tell you 100% teh lib talkers have not done very well overall. Now that doesn't mean they do poorly in creating revenue per se.

They have been on lower powered AM stations with little to no marketing. That is primarily why their ratings stink. But in most cases the liberal talk shows have been lower than the conservative talk shows.

[merwin]

115. The demise of real news on TV was due to your argument.

Corporations decided that the news wasn't profitable (which it honestly wasn't), so they went to a for-profit system and became shills. Until that point it was a given that if you ran a news department, it was going to be an net expense, but a necessity.

[sledgehammer]

120. Your sig rocks

I remember that interview. It was classic!

[merwin]

161. Thanks! It's my favorite Letterman moment

:)

[GinaMaria]

151. unprofitable? those are our airwaves. they've got it good

they are selling ads on our property.

[toopers]

163. I believe they also bought the right to transmit across those . . .

airwaves. Further, I believe that if radio and television existed in the 1700's then they would have been protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

[clixtox]

191. "Right"! I believe "opportunity" is the correct way to characterize...

private enterprise's use of one of our many valuable assets, that particular segment, or frequency, of the electro-magnetic spectrum that they are allowed to utilize, or basically lease.

With the media ownership oligopoly zealously protecting their privileged, and very lucrative positions by giving a voice only to those who won't "rock the boat" or criticize the "status quo", citizens are only exposed to one side of many issues, the narrow perspective of the uber-rich, greedy gentry.

Understanding that dynamic is crucial to seeing the "fairness doctrine" issue clearly.

If the Tories of the 18th century controlled the media there wouldn't have been an "American" revolution, and we would continue to share a queen with England, sorta like Canada and Australia!

The Neo-Conservatives/Republicans of today are the political descendants of the despised Tories who opposed George Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., and the idea of an independent 13 states/commonwealths, preferring that they continue forever as British colonies.

[LibertarianDave]

121. Define "Fair"

Do you know anything about the 'FREE' market. Radio is a business, the shows are a product. If you own a business, would you want someone telling you what you can and cant sell? Conservative Radio is more popular in this country, most liberals read the internet, books, magazines, papers or watch one of the major networks which all lean to the left.

If you don't like what's on right wing radio, don't listen, it's a choice. There are liberal talk shows, if you want to listen to the radio, listen to those. If you can't find one in your area, go out and start yourself a radio station. If you can't do that then shut up because some people are producers in the economy, and the people who own those radio stations are the producers. They took the risk of starting a business, not you, so don't tell them how to manage their business, you have no right.

Finally, if none of that swayed you and you still think its some huge conspiracy because you've all been brainwashed by government education. Do this little exercise for me... Define "Fair"

When you realize that fair can't really be defined, that no man or woman on this planet is qualified to define such terms, then you'll realize that the left is getting out of hand, just as the right did when it was in power.

Remember.. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we just handed one side complete control.. again.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[LibertarianDave]

129. Complete ignorance

My friend, Reason will never be gone. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel.

Your statement only perpetuates your ignorance. All this talk of "OUR".. have you forgotten the principles this country was founded upon. It isn't your airwaves.. did you have any part in creating that air-wave. Did you put your capital up for the creation of the air-wave. Do you even have a clue how these air-waves that are supposedly yours even works, they aren't just out there. People have to start a business, probably something you know little about, and create these airwaves. If you went out and started a radio station, put years of time and money into this project then you get it up and you start saying whatever is on your mind, would you suddenly want someone down the street to walk up and say 'Hey, I see you have a radio station, technically it is mine too because you are using 'OUR' air-waves. Even though you have invested so much and I have done nothing, I now DESERVE time on your station so step aside and let me speak.

Do you not see the ignorance in this?

Let's use a different example, let's say instead of a radio station you purchased a parcel of land. Now it took you years to get enough savings to buy this land. Now that you've bought it though, your neighbor has his eyes on putting a shop for his tools on your property. He says, now I don't have the room or capability to build this shop so I'm going to need some of your land to build it. What is your answer?

Business's don't operate under your rules, because you don't have rules my friend. The rules were established by a document you obviously know little of, the Constitution. If you want to change these rules then you need a constitutional amendment. However, currently no such amendment exists that proclaims that air-waves, the republic, or business's belong to you. They belong to the people who actually went out and accomplished something besides persuading a bunch of government educated peons to sway one way with promises of welfare and freebies.

Remember, I am going nowhere, because my ideals are instilled deep in the reason of man. When that extinguishes, so does 'Your' republic.

[CANDO]

154. Your "reason of man" is unfettered capitalism.

In case you haven't been paying attention, unfettered capitalism devours everything in it's path, including constitutionally limited, democratic republics. And it is you who doesn't understand the airwaves are indeed the property of "we the people", and since they are ours collectively, we set the rules of their use. I only wish I did have a choice as to whether to listen to leftward opinion talk radio. But sadly that went away with the monopolization of our airwaves by hard right corporate ideologues who don't believe in allowing a left leaning message. So you see, it's not about choice. It's about them getting to use our airwaves for free as long as they respect the rules of fair usage by allowing for multiple points of view in their programming. No one seeks to shut down other opinion, but only to allow for a more well rounded menu of opinion to choose from. Be gone with you, Ayn Rand!

[LibertarianDave]

205. No left radio?

I may not listen to talk radio regularly but I have heard these talk shows. In fact one of those monopoly stations you speak of broadcasts from the city I live. For the first eight hours of the day they broadcast dj's that lean to the left but are not on politically charged shows. For three hours at night they broadcast Alan Colmes, a noted liberal talk show host. For another three hours in the middle of the day they broadcast Clark Howard who is a consumer advocate. For three hours at dusk they broadcast a non-political show that has a host who leans left. The rest is admittedly on the right. So let's total up these hours. We have eleven hours in the day devoted to shows that lean left, and three hours devoted to a man who is far left. Three hours of a consumer advocate who does believe in conservative economics but does not have a political show. Then just seven hours of far right talk shows, which truly isn't a correct description because this Boortz fellow isn't a Republican.

So on the local conservative monopoly station we actually have more programming in which the dj's leans to the left. Now I do realize that the conservative dj's get the better air-time, but let's think about why that may be. Radio Stations are private organizations, they make a profit by advertising. If you run a business and your income comes from advertising you have to put something on the air that people want to hear, so they will then hear the advertisements. Now you are suggesting that left leaning shows get just as many listeners as conservatives, and therefore should get equal air-time because they are being denied this on some grounds other than ratings. This is tragic misstep on your part. You see a business owner is going to put out whatever they listen to, disregarding his political status. If left leaning shows got better ratings, then they'd have the better air-times. The truth is that these shows fail; a left leaning show entitled Obama that was put on soon after he was elected in the D.C. area has already failed, despite Obama's huge popularity.

Again I will point out that liberals don't listen to radio as much as conservatives, they get their news from papers, magazines and one of the four major television networks that lean to the left.. or CNN, MSNBC, CNBC.. which all lean left. In fact the only television network that leans right is FOX. So by your standards, television should be regulated to allow more conservative points of view.

Please, let the marketplace decide who wins and fails, not the government. The only the thing the government has been competent in is failing.

[CANDO]

215. You are a market fundamentalist.

And I refuse to subjugate my freedom to your market. How I exercise my freedom is to regulate your market. Tough shit if you don't like it. Go back to the CATO Institute, you'll be be welcome there. Or maybe..... you are there and on the clock?

[KakistocracyHater]

160. give me links to prove your tv news liberal slant

I can't seem to find any evidence, instead I keep finding Bush saying he never said "stay the course" & the media didn't point out his obvious lie; THEN I also found yet another example where Bush said the opposite of the truth....something about Saddam Hussein didn't let the weapons inspectors INTO Iraq, YET THEY WERE ((((IN))))Iraq, why oh why did the liberal media allow that lie to be repeated FOR YEARS?

[LibertarianDave]

208. Good question.

I don't know if you are aware that I too am outraged by Bush's eight years, It seems that people don't understand that Libertarians despise the far right more than the far left. You have raised a good question, however you are asking the wrong man. You should ask your liberal media why they failed us all.

[KakistocracyHater]

218. I don't own the media, so they're not "mine"

& they should be removed, barring that they should be ignored-that would probably register as a drop in their ratings & problems with advertisers. Mrs. Greenspan is most likely 1 symptom of a much larger problem-control the message---defeat your opponents.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[LibertarianDave]

207. still waiting..

At what point can I discuss any of these points with a person who understands logical arguments; name calling and vulgarity are petty attempts at enlightenment.

[mitchum]

210. No, spewing libertarian horseshit is a petty attempt at enlightenment, asshole

[Name removed]

124. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Doctor_J]

127. Dave, Dave, Dave

turn off Limpballs and Boortz. It might not be too late for you to avoid becoming a thundering moran.

[LibertarianDave]

131. Lol

Again, I'll point out that I do not listen to the radio. I don't need someone to tell me how to think, which all of you obviously do.

[sendero]

142. Libertarians..

.. like communists, are the most brainwashed people on the face of the earth. There's no "thinking" in it.

[LibertarianDave]

143. Classic

Instead of attacking my argument, you attack a group of people. Try again.

[w4rma]

155. "which all of you obviously do." You try again. The attack was initially yours turned back on you.nt

[LibertarianDave]

202. in conjunction

It's very auspicious of you to pick a small part of what i said and leave it out of the larger context of the thread. You see when I said "all of you" I was referring to all of you who support a fairness doctrine. I was not referring to the left as a whole. If you say we need a fairness doctrine then you are saying you need voices from the left on the radio so you can listen to it. If you don't need these voices telling you how to think, why would you support a fairness doctrine? If you are like me, and do not listen to talk radio, how are you offended that conservatives have a stronger voice on the radio?

Now next time don't take my words out of a larger context; if your next argument happens to be that I am taking your words out of context I suggest you review your own statement. It was a simple and blatant attack on a named group of people, and was in now way in the context of the main theme of the thread.

So, try again... and this time, humor me just a bit; Define Fair...

[sendero]

162. I've talked to many of them.

... they all drank the kool aid and they all deny the most blatantly obvious reality, that their stupid-ass ideas about economics DON'T WORK.

[LibertarianDave]

204. Please elaborate...

Why does everyone feel a need to resort to personal attacks against a large group of people to argue with just one man; it is truly sad what the education level has reduced us all too. Do you find it hard to maintain a legitimate argument, or do you think your wisdom is above such a "kool-aid" drinking freedom lover such as myself.

To touch on your statement "their stupid-ass ideas about economics DON'T WORK"

First, what stupid-ass economics? Can you elaborate more on the concepts you are bashing? Perhaps you can form these digressions in a logical and compelling argument, without the vulgarity and attempts to change the subject.

Second, I will assume you are referring to conservative economics. Which is a principle that states that you should spend less than you take in. That you should let people decide what they want to do with the money that they worked for. If you are attacking these ideas then I would really like for you to point out how these ideas are ignoring obvious reality.

Furthermore, I would point out that if you are referring to conservative economics; they have not been tried. Top democrats and Obama have duly noted that Bush has not practiced anything close to conservative economics. He has spent trillions of dollars we did not have on Wars and failed policies that people like me (libertarians) are absolutely disgusted by. By these leaders own admission, the country has not tried conservative economics. Which means the only things we have tried is spending, spending, and more spending. These are the economics which have failed us.

If you truly want to discuss what missteps caused the housing bubble to begin with, you should do a little bit of homework on how the FED works, how money is printed and distributed, and how the Clinton Administration pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give loans to people who had no means of paying them back. You see another thing us libertarians believe is that success is not guaranteed, nor deserved; it is earned.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

[harpboy_ak]

176. Here's another definition:

Libertarians: People who want to sink the lifeboat we all live in because they think their political philosophy will enable them to walk on water. --- Alaska State Rep. Mike Doogan, D-Anchorage, and former Anchorage Daily News columnist

[LibertarianDave]

206. Again...

Please attack my argument, define Fair.

Despite your attempts to drag me down in to an argument based on name calling, I will stand my ground.

[bperci108]

173. Firstly Dave, there is no such thing as the "free market".

Never has been, never will be.

Let's start there if you're still around to actually respond.


:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

189. Deleted sub-thread

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

[NewEnglandKnowledge]

197. Absolute control

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Really, so you are a
person who believes in static government where nothing gets
done.  Oh that's right, you Libs want no government, no taxes
and so on.  Do you understand that if that was the case the
poor and lower middle class would arm themselves to the teeth
and come take everything from you and the rest of the ignorant
who believe in this insane idea.  The only reason you are
successful is that the US government provides the safest most
opportune place in the world and that costs money known as
taxes.  I almost hope you get your wish so I can come to your
house with 10 friends with shotguns and take whatever I want
because there will be no police, no military and no one to
call for help.  Wake up and understand that society is a gift
that government provides and government is what allows Rush
Limbaugh to spew hate and propaganda without consequence. 
Laws protect his free speech and his personal safety, because
if Libertarians had there way, Rush wouldn't last a day. 
Government is what protects the rich from the poor, and
religion.  Government is why 50% of the income in the US goes
to the top 2% and the other 98% of us split the rest.  So get
in the game, or don't play at all, but your whole philosophy
is to get rid of government.  Has a libertarian ever won an
office, no.  So you are a coward who can't win in the current
political scheme, so you call yourself a Libertarian, vote
Republican, and complain about everything.  You are a joke. 
All the Libertarians should move to the 3rd world where your
ideas are reality and we will see how long you last. 
Libertarians are as bad as Nadirites, sitting on the sidelines
cutting off their nose to spite their face.  I hope when you
are 80 years old you realize you wasted 50 years clinging to a
cause that is fantasy, and you never did anything meaningful
to advance your ideas.      

[DireStrike]

200. You're wrong on a lot of counts.

If you haven't been tombstoned or properly responded to when I get back, I'll expand on how left leaning radio shows are forced out of the market.

And "all the major networks are left"? Really? If you believe that, I think you are the brainwashed one. MSNBC has two shows that can be called left. CNN has none, but MSNBC's paltry appearance of being left allows them to claim the "center" anyway, even though they're very much status quo (read: right-leaning.) Fox isn't a major news network?

It's very difficult to tell when people are simply misinformed, or when they're here to disrupt. Too many people delight in "Catching" righties who sign up, instead of arguing with information. I don't think I could get through to you, but I'd like to try, in the spirit of reasoned discourse.

"Crazy" lefties on bulletin boards do not equal crazy righties with radio shows, and who run for vice president. If you are a hardline right-winger, you get to be a senator. If you are hardline left, you get to be dennis kucinich at best, mocked by both parties, holding no power at all. The left has no voice in this country.

[mitchum]

216. Atlas Whined...and he's still a trolling motherfucker who should be tombstoned

[rurallib]

2. To me this is a very important issue and I am not sure how I feel

On the one hand, we need diversity of opinion in the media. But I am not necessarily in favor of congress mandating it.
I do know one thing I would like to see: vastly different ownership rules. No one company, family or any other entity should be able to own more that two different outlets in any segment of the media. Said another way, each group could only own 2 newspapers, or 2 TV stations etc. And a total media holding of not more than 5 outlets.
Right now, I believe 8 players own something like 95% of the media. That is not much diversity in a country like this.

Edit to add: My scenario is extremely unlikely. Therefore the fairness doctrine becomes about the only viable alternative.

[sledgehammer]

6. I'm with you on changing the ownership rules. n/t

[DCKit]

10. Agreed. Ownership is more important and media empires need to be dissolved.

But as the MSM continues to provide a pulpit to (R)s at way better than 2x the rate of the (D) majority, there's something wrong and it needs to be addressed sooner than later.

[FatDave]

130. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a media conspiracy.

I think it may just be that conservatives are better at exploiting the media as it exists today. I also think we're getting better.

[rurallib]

139. You are right. The conservatives were ready day 1 to exploit

that law that Clinton signed in 1996 to allow almost unabated media monopoly.

[Lorien]

168. Changing the ownership rules changes little

the wealthy will ALWAYS own the corporations, and the wealthy will always promote the interests of the wealthy and their corporations. There are a lot of banks, but none of them are run by humanitarians with a conscious.

If you don't remember what the media was like before Reagan, then you were unfortunate enough to have never known real democracy. Without the Fairness Doctrine the Vietnam war would have gone on far longer than it did. With the Fairness Doctrine, we would not be in Iraq today.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

3. All I want is more ownership diversity

The programming then can take care of itself. That quip, by the way, about the classic rock and the polka are based on a flawed assumption, though. Progressive and moderate talk have the (proven) ability to be profitable -- under the right ownership mindset. And then there is all of that radio spectrum that's given to "non profit" right-wing religious programming...a whole 'nother can of worms.

[sutz12]

80. I'm with you...

No more wealthy RWers buying up the airwaves in an area to prevent lefties from even buying licenses.

[IDFbunny]

89. I distrust state controlled radio

I agree that breaking up monopolies will go a long way bring diversity back to the media.

[JJ]

96. State controlled radio????? WTF

This is not about state control.
It's about reasonable regulation.
The airwaves belong to the public, that's you and me, It is not the least bit unreasonable to require that entities who want to use the public airwaves be required to present both sides, so the public can make informed decisions. If they don't want to, then they can go on cable or start a newspaper, their choice. The reason we have the monopolies is due in large part to the loss of the fairness doctrine. If all Americans heard both sides in honest debate, then the Republicans would truly be the small minority party of the small minority of Americans that they actually represent, the wealthiest 5%, and the bigoted ignorant 15%.

[IDFbunny]

105. reasonable regulation = state control

FCC officials monitoring all programs for content is state control. You just don't like the sound of it. They will become the content filters. Of course it will be come state controlled radio.

So we have to have Randi and Rush yelling at each other? Or they can have their soapbox for a couple of hours. I'd rather they both had their show and their say. If the monopolies deny Randi her say then the problems lie with the monopolies.

[FiveGoodMen]

125. Funny, it worked until Reagan killed it in '87

Those were some totalitarian times back in the '70s, weren't they? :sarcasm:

[EnviroBat]

4. Hopefull this will put a muzzle on fucks like Hannity, Limbaugh.

The shit they've been spewing lately sounds like an veiled attempt at causing another civil war in this country. Those two assholes need to shut the fuck up.

[Felix Mala]

19. I'm afraid we would make them martyrs, just as the public is

beginning to figure out that they are full of it. I say give them more air time. Give 'em enough rope...

[sledgehammer]

22. Yep, they will go hysterical...

...with blaming libs/dems for restricting free speech. And will pitch themselves as the heroes and defenders of the 1st Amendment.

And the Fairness Doctrine isn't going to change much in reality, so it's not worth giving them this opportunity.

[depakid]

34. They're ALREADY hysterical -how much worse could they get?

Nope- the FCC has all the facts and every reason to reinstate this rule- and by following the APA, there'd be not one damn thing that they could do about it.

Congress wouldn't have to touch a thing- and without a veto proof majority, they'd be stuffed. Just as proponents of accountabilty were in the 1980's and early 90's.

And it would make zero political difference- as no one listening to hate radio in its current form are voting for Democrats anyway.

That however, could change over time if there were mechanisms in place to ensure a bit og honesty- and the ability to respond to personal attacks.

[sledgehammer]

36. Well...

And it would make zero political difference- as no one listening to hate radio in its current form are voting for Democrats anyway.

I know a few casual rw-radio listeners who voted for Obama and Dems this year. They are not libs by any means, but were willing to see something different. However, the impression that dems are pushing for restriction on free speech (I know it's not this, but that's the spin that will be put on it) is counter-productive.

Then there are people who weren't pushed enough to vote in this election. I know a few evangelical types who just stayed away, but would be energized if they learned (incorrectly as it may be) that dems were promoting govt involvement in speech.

Plus, the effect of pushing a brief opposing view is not, IMO, going to have much of an effect. I don't think it's worth the damage.

Making it easier for grassroots stations to set up, and clamping down on monopolies will have a better impact, IMHO.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Felix Mala]

108. Giving them an issue with which to "rally the troops" is like giving

red meat to a starving lion. The more Obama succeeds the smaller their sphere of influence. Let them weaze into the dustbin of history...

[FiveGoodMen]

137. "The more Obama succeeds the smaller their sphere of influence"

They'll do their best to see that he doesn't succeed.

And they'll convince their audience that it wasn't his success if he gets us out of this mess.

Then their listeners will flood to the polls and put Nazis back in office.

[IDFbunny]

91. That's why they're calling it the Hush Rush Bill

[JJ]

97. They call it that because they're liars.

They also say Reagan was a great President, and that Iraq had WMD's, and Monica was worse than Iran-Contra.
If there was a Fainess Doctrine in place, they'd need to let someone tell the truth, that's why they're afraid.

[christx30]

192. I have one question for proponents of the fairness doctrine

Would you want to put a lib on the air at a conservative station? Probably, because that is what we are talking about. Consider this though: What would happen in the case of a conservative that sued to get on the air at Air America? "Coming up next we'll have Rachel Maddow, followed by Michael Savage at 10. Thank you for listening to Air America, where the left is right, and the right is wrong."

Getting weapons as powerful as the Fairness Doctrine sounds great, but I fear that it could be turned against us. Would there be some mechanism to make sure that did not happen? Or would this be kind of a "take the good with the bad" sort of thing?

This kind of thing is very powerful and I think we need to be careful before putting this kind of weapon on the table.

Just my 2 cents.

[bperci108]

174. No one but the OxyMoron and his dutiful DittoBots call it that.

That's HIS own propaganda.

[totodeinhere]

158. They have free speech rights just like anyone else whether we happen to agree with them or not. n/t

[TayTay]

5. Cong Walden is wrong on what the Fairness Doctrine asked

This is a good summary from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine">Wikipedia summary of what the Fairness Doctrine really required:

According to Steve Rendall of the progressive media criticism group, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting),

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm">FAIR summary

As usual, the Repubs lie to protect themselves. The Fairness Doctrine would require the presentation of opposing views that could be done with an editorial. This is hardly a one for one tradeoff. An editorial could be 30 seconds or one minute long, leaving all the rest of the time to the tv or radio station to program as they see fit.

This is not a one for one presentation of ideas. The Repubs fear opposing views so much that they lie to keep even 30 seconds of opposition from their viewers or listeners.

[sledgehammer]

11. Thanks for the info!

The right-wingers will use the possibility of any such legislation as fodder for blaming libs/dems for attacking individual rights, free speech, etc.

And in the end, I don't think you'll see much of a difference. Sure, there may be a one-minute opposing view, but it could be at 3 AM, when the Rushbots are having wet dreams of a Hannity-Rush-Coulter threesome (sorry everyone, I know this may make you throw up your breakfast - luckily I didn't have any today!).

[mac56]

7. I work in small market radio in rural Minnesota

and I'm all for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Greg Walden is full of crap.

[Lost in CT]

8. Those that forget history are damned to repeat it.

The Fairness doctrine prevented (in many cases) the discussion of any possibly controversial subject on the airwaves.

Government mandated Censorship and dumbing down should never be a progressive cause.

The media censors and dumbs down enough as it is. No need to give them a government sponsored shield to hide behind.

[POAS]

13. Fair enough charge which I'm sure

your prepared to back up with examples of "prevented (in many cases) the discussion of any possibly controversial subject on the airwaves."

[Lost in CT]

32. Your Honor I would like to submit into evidence the decade known as the Seventies.

The problems with the doctrine are three fold.

One is that few issues have two sides. Some such is the earth round clearly have only one. Some such as the Abortion debate have many nuanced views. Others such as the current view of the age of the earth or do vaccines cause autism have one scientific view and one view held by those that are disdainful of logical thought and reality. You don't want any report on 9/11 to be forced to include someone who thought the Towers were not destroyed by planes do you?

The second problem is that right wingers simply can set up a strawman left argument that could make their points even more effective. The Rush Limbaugh Cynthia Mckinney radio program would not advance progressive causes and allow the right to hide behind that fact the are fair and balanced. (The Hannity and Colmes conundrum)

The problem alluded to with the seventies is that it is simply easier for broadcasters to ignore controversial subjects rather than having to invite the same Klansman to the studio every time a civil rights issue comes up.

It is censorship with a good heart but it is still censorship.

I agree with our president on this one.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

[depakid]

39. More inane apologias for a profoundly dysfunctional system

The first point is dishonest and ANYONE who lived though the 70's knows that's not how it work in practice- and wouldn't work that way today. Occasionally, you'd get a crank- but much more often you'd get a reasonable rebuttal. Moreover- the fact that the Faorness Doctrine existed brought a sense of ethics into the entire industry. People didn't LIE with impunity.

Because they knew that eventually- they'd be exposed on the air. Multiple times.

The strawman deal? They do worse than that every day

The klansman invited on the air- OK show me where that went down where and how often. LOL. I'll show you equally vile hate speech and name calling ROUTINELY broadcast throughout America- with no rebuttal or contrasting point of view.

Please- spare us the broadcast industry propaganda.

Study after study shows that there was MORE discussion on issues of public concern when the fairness doctrine and other regualtions were in place than there is today. In addition there is NO evidence of any chilling effect.

As to Obama- at the time that statement was made- he was in the middle of a campaign (when the issue was indeed a distration).

Now to any reasonable listener- it's no longer a distraction- but (among other things) irresponsible far right hate radio is a danger to the health of the US Economy- and to the safety of innocent citizens.

e.g. The Limbaugh Hannity listener / Coulter reader

"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the House and Senate ... (and) everyone in the mainstream media. But these people were inaccessible to me.

"I couldn't get to the generals and high-ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chicken (expletive) liberals that vote in these traitorous people."

The Tennessee Valley United Unitarian Church, he wrote, was "a den of un-American vipers."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOAQKzY-aOBqDspFkEAV_ZO65vZAD968BSBO0

My guess is that Obama is a pretty smart guy- and when it comes to sensible policy like this- is ready to give the matter a full and fair hearing through administrative rulemaking.

[sledgehammer]

40. Thanks for the Obama blurb. I like his views on this issue. n/t

[POAS]

93. You still haven't given a specific example

to support your original charge.

Your response is not only overly broad (Jesus you call up an entire decade?) it is also not accurate with respect to how the old doctrine worked or as to how a new one might be structured.

Surely you can do better, one more chance!

[depakid]

27. That's an outright false statement of fact

Which has been debunkled and disproven MANY times.

Though of course- that doesn't keep people from dishonestly repeating it over and over until people start believing it.

Hence- the need for the Fairness Doctrine.

As well as logs that station should present to show that they're acting in the public interest at license renewal time.

[Union Yes]

29. Fear of hearing both sides of a debate= conservative.

If Limpbomb were correct in all he barfs out, 'Murka would be the polar opposite. We gave Rush exactly what he whined about under Bushco and it nearly wasted our nation.

Imagine a progressive sitting across the table from Rush. Limpbomb's head would explode in a fat greasy mess.

Conservatives fear debate, fear truth, and fear any form of education or the greatest fear of all-an educated populace.

There is a reason why the right fears the so called "fairness doctrine".

FD does not stifle debate. It encourages debate.

Peace

[newtothegame]

71. "Fear of hearing both sides of a debate= conservative."

Uh, that's fairly ironic to post that on Democratic Underground. :) :hi:

[LanternWaste]

41. You can of course cite valid references...

"prevented (in many cases) the discussion of any possibly controversial subject..."
You can of course cite valid references to relevant news stories being censored for no other reason than the Fairness Doctrine being in effect as you allege, yes...?


"Government mandated Censorship..."
And again, let us reiterate-- the Fairness Doctrine will not prevent any one station or broadcaster from saying anything they are not currently saying.

[Lost in CT]

48. "they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into

I say let them crash."

http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=128&qid=1582

Sometimes parody makes a point better than reality.

The problem is simply that every time you report Darwin's birthday, or 9/11 or Homeopathic cures you will have to let the lunatic fringe on the air.

Many subjects simply don't fit into a clear 2 sided approach.

I fear the law of intended consequences is strong in this idea

[LanternWaste]

51. The Fairness Doctrine only applies to

"The problem is simply that every time you report Darwin's birthday, or 9/11 or Homeopathic cures ..."

The Fairness Doctrine only applies to relevant politic views and opinions, not sensational, human interest, or puff pieces.

That a person may believe otherwise indicates (to me) that they are fairly unaware of what the Fairness Doctrine actually is, and have most likely believe only what they're told by radio demagogues-- itself a good illustration of why the Fairness Doctrine could easily help tjhis country.

But, back to our initial question-- we may then safely presume that you cannot indeed cite any valid references to legitimate news stories being censored for no other reason than the Fairness Doctrine...?

[Lost in CT]

54. Outside of 1010 WINS I never actually listen to talk radio.

I do remember the controversy in the eighties at the time however and recall many Democrats as well as Republicans looking to overturn the rule.

Outside of the Phil Donahue show I have a hard time recalling any discussion at all of controversial subjects on television.

I don't think this is necessarily a left/right issue.

I'm not in favor of any government telling broadcasters what is politically equitable speech.

[LanternWaste]

55. it would seem as though I inferred this statement...

My mistake then-- it would seem as though I inferred your statement, "the Fairness doctrine prevented... the discussion of any possibly controversial subject on the airwaves" to mean the Fairness doctrine prevented the discussion of any possibly controversial subject on the airwaves...

:shrug:

[bettyellen]

179. it's now clear why you are in favor of protecting the right to talk out of your ass publicly..rewrit

rewriting history and presenting vague (childhood i'm guessing?) memories as cultural phenomenon...
you're a fucking poster boy for the doctine!

[Lost in CT]

188. Actually I am in favor of protecting the right to talk out of your ass publicly.

I believe the Constitution trumps petty arguments.

The fairness doctrine at least made some sense when there were three channels and the vast majority of Americans got their news from those sources.

It makes no sense now with 500 cable channels 200 radio stations and millions of web sites.

As for Rush you do realize IT DOESN'T APPLY TO HIM HE IS "ENTERTAINMENT" NOT NEWS.

The fairness doctrine would no more apply to rush then it would John Stewart.

Honestly trashing the Constitution to tilt at windmills talk about your fucking poster boys.

[bettyellen]

194. u didn't know that the FD was in place for years and had NONE of the results that CONCERN u?

you are also unaware that it worked =right? and you're equally ignorant of the huge role news radio (200 stations- ha ha ha!!) has in forming pulic opinion on issues?
that's a whole lot of ignorance on parade right there.
we're just talking about news here being treated like news. jesus, you have to be a youngster to have all these paranoid fanatasies about what te fairness doctrine actually in pracice is.

[newtothegame]

74. If the Repukes take over again sometime in the future, do you want them to decide..

what issues are of public importance? That's pretty authoritarian right there, having the government decide which issues are worthy of contrasting views? Wouldn't this just be an opportunity to Repukes to spout lies to ANYTHING, because all radio and tv would be forced to give equal time to their opinion, even if it's based on outright lies?

[LanternWaste]

104. Otherwise, all you have is conjecture...

"That's pretty authoritarian right there"

Then to maintain intellectual consistency, you must also believe that from 1949 to 1980, the public broadcast spectrum was also Authoritarian. You can cite valid examples of this, yes?

You can cite examples of the Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford administrations deciding for the purposes of broadcast license holders what news broadcasts they could or could not air on the public airwaves, yes? You can cite numerous examples of "opportunity to Repukes to spout lies to ANYTHING", yes?

Otherwise, all you have is conjecture...

On the other hand, I can cite numerous examples of news stories breaking during the aforementioned administrations that hurt those administrations-- airing stories that they were livid about being broadcast. And during those same broadcast, opposing viewpoints which defended the administraions to better balance out the editorial content.

[newtothegame]

106. Good point, Repukes are utterly honest in everything. n/t

[LanternWaste]

111. If you feel...

"Repukes are utterly honest in everything"

If you feel better validated by stating that bit of irrelevance non-sequitor-- then by all means, have at it, and good for you!

However, it seems as though any opinions you may have received from your talk radio stations have long since been dispelled as nothing more than kings with no clothes, leaving you with little more than bumnper-sticker statements...

[newtothegame]

112. Thanks! Love ya, hugs and kisses.

[LanternWaste]

113. You're a cute little fella....

You're a cute little fella.... lacking in both substantive and deliberate discourse, and the self-discipline to maintain a consistent point, but I have no doubt that, doggone it-- people like you.

However, if it helps, you may post something you feel is clever or witty-- regardless that it has little to nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, and maintain an absolute assurance that you will indeed have the last word.... as the best you've shown so far is rather lacking, and you really should try to make up for it somehow-- if not for you, do it for the kids...


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[newtothegame]

72. Strongly Agreed

[Doctor_J]

128. Stop lying

If we want to hear lies we'll tune into hate radio

[wroberts189]

222. umm....What controversial subjects?

[villager]

9. airwaves are owned by the public; the public gets to make the rules about 'em

Including, one hopes, an insistence on balance from the corporate propaganda machine....

[Lost in CT]

50. But honestly how many people under the age of near death are

listening to public airwaves.

Over the air radio is basically dead. It's the broadcast equivalent of newspapers.

This law made more sense when there was three channels everyone watched.

It is fixing a problem that is dying out on its own.

I realize Fox news is to news gathering as the WWE is to professional sports.

But I'm pretty sure cable channels would not be effected by the fairness doctrine nor would satellite radio or the internet.

So this idea of a sea change is a bit silly.

[AyanEva]

53. I don't even own a radio and barely know what stations are in Philly.

[LanternWaste]

56. As of 2005, it was app. 83% of the U.S. population

"But honestly how many people under the age of near death are listening to public airwaves....?"


As of 2005, it was app. 83% of the U.S. population (as per 'Arbitron's Radio Today Reports')

[Lost in CT]

59. But look at talk radio only.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/printable_radio_audience.asp

Talk radios percentage of radio listeners is only 16%

That includes such formats as the popular sports radio.

And The percentage over half of listeners are over 55.

It's a dinosaur.

[LanternWaste]

68. It seems...

It seems you consistently move goalposts in the middle of the discussion by re qualifying your statements post hoc.

33 million listeners (talk radio alone) does not a dinosaur make... unless of course you can provide us with a relevant number that indicates market success, and cite valid information off of which you base that number.






But to be honest, from your recent history of pulling statements seemingly out of thin air, I doubt we'll see that.

[villager]

57. interesting points -- but I think people listen to "near death" radio in their cars, still

And anyway, even a return to Fairness over the public airwaves will have an effect on cable spillover -- in terms of bringing new voices into the media mix, new "pundits," etc...

[Lost in CT]

58. People are switching to Ipods and Satellite radio in their cars.

Over the air broadcast numbers are dropping precariously.

[villager]

65. well -- some people, yes, although I suspect the tanking economy will slow the Satellite radio base

n/t

[Lost in CT]

85. True dat. nt

[RebelOne]

76. You might say I am at the "near death" age.

I only listen to radio in my car on the way to and from work. Unfortunately, the station I turn to for the traffic report has Hannity on. Well, in a way it is good. I can focus my road rage on him and not the idiots on the highway.

[depakid]

12. So instead- we should just leave the situation like this- with zero accountability:

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all.

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the commercial talk stations in his town, he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

18. Sorry pal- I lived in Oregon for a long time, too

Still go back from time to time.

Outside of Portland- (and until recently largely in Portland, too) the entire state is a far right hate radio wasteland. As is just about every smaller community throughout the west.

Enjoy your stay.

[Tikki]

26. Ever get stuck driving up/down OR 97 without satellite radio...

..all right-wing hate radio....all the time.
I thought cassette/CD/mp3 players were invented just
for that trip we took yearly.

The Tikkis

[depakid]

31. Oh yeah

I-5 too. Almost the entire length of it-

101? Forget about it.

Sadly, that's all that many those folks have.

And one of the reasons why- hearing little else, they repeatedly vote against their economic interests.

Joe Bageant discusses this point with respect to people working in environments where they listen to hate radio- basically thier only talk show choices while at work.

All the while being conditioned to vote against their own- and their families economic interests.

[LanternWaste]

30. You can of course list

You can of course list the conservative v. the progressive radio stations licensed by the FCC in that particular market to illustrate for us the disparity between the two you allege, yes?


"I despise folk who lie or make up stats to push their argument"
I'm sure you do...

[newtothegame]

77. Wow, you are obnoxious dude...

[LanternWaste]

118. Then I may safely assume that

Then I may safely assume that indeed, you cannot (or simply will not) list the progressive v. conservative radio programs in that market to support your initial statement, and that it was for all intents and purposes (and regardless of whether I'm obnoxious) merely just made-up to better dramatize your opinion...?

Or maybe you'd simply like to fall back on that tired defense, "I'm not doing your homework for you!" and simply leave your claims unsubstantiated, or even better-- just attribute them to nothing more than anecdotal evidence...




And yeah-- I do get a bit obnoxious, borne of frustration, when someone make an emphatic and absolute claim, and then does nothing but tap-dance to avoid providing relevant citations or evidence. I'm just funny that way, I guess... :shrug:

[LibertarianDave]

123. Use some reasoning...

Again I ask, what is "fair"?... when will it be even? Are we going to have to employ people 24/7/365 to listen to radio stations to make sure the exact amount of air time is given to each side? Who is qualified to say whether a statement is on either side? Have you ever listened to any radio?... People from all sides call in and comment. If it is a right wing station such as Rush's, are you going to just say his entire three hours is on the right, and not account for the counter positions of people who call in?

Again, who is qualified to say what is "fair"? Nobody on this planet is qualified to answer this question. It's like asking what is truth? What is Justice? Even Socrates, perhaps the greatest reasoner of all time admitted that it is impossible to answer such questions. So who are you or anyone to stand up and say.... "This is fair, and this isn't"

And if someone finally does come back with an answer.. make sure it's not some example of fairness you've witnessed, that's not what i asked. Again.. DEFINE "FAIR"

[randr]

14. Rather than reinstate the "fairness doctrine" there should be

regulation as to how many stations any organization owns in any one market place.
Provide frequencies for a variety of owners, including the public/community spectrum, and let the market rule.
It is when organizations such as clear channel dominate a market that the market place of ideas is stifled.

[depakid]

16. Why not both?

and then some

Media deregulation- like financial deregulation eliminated a LOT or rules that worked well for many, many years.

What it got the country is every bit as dysfunctional a system as Wall Street in the late 00's and Enron earlier in the century.

No good reason why the FCC (which has the power) can't and shouldn't reinstate quite a few of them.

Anyone for getting "paid programming" off the air on Saturday and Sunday afternoons and early evenings?

How about all those PhARMA ads?

[newtothegame]

79. It just scares me that when we're in power, we're gonna change the rules to try to get...

a political upperhand in areas where we're struggling..isn't this what Bu*h did with the courts?

[LibertarianDave]

133. Agreed

I completely agree, I've spent eight years fighting tooth and nail to enlighten people on how Bush has ruined our country by using the government to give one side an upper hand. I actually had hope the democrats would ring in a new era but it seems all the talk of Change was just another slogan. It's all about absolute power now for both sides, and if this continues our beloved country is doomed.

[harpboy_ak]

177. Thanks for your concern, troll

Your concern trolling is getting really tiresome. I see nothing wrong with turning back the clock with both ownership limitation rules and the Fairness Doctrine. For one thing, it provides community groups and those who can't get airtime reasons for requesting that a station's application for renewal of its license be denied, putting control over stations back in to the community.

I worked in both commercial and public radio in the 60s and 70s when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. It wasn't a problem. The principle is simple --- in return for making money from the publicly owned radio spectrum, station owners have to follow the rules and allow presentation of opposing points of view on matters of public importance. WE THE PEOPLE own the spectrum and we can tell users how they may use it.

[Pavulon]

186. Who owns the internet? Who owns the co-axial cable running to your house?

not the government. The concept of "forced fairness" is dead. It died with the big 3 monopoly of information. If stupid people listen to rush or the daily show as a single news source, well they are just stupid.

Back before the internet and cable there was no access for others, you had to use them. Now you can use channel 765.

There has never in history been more media and reporting in simple access by individuals right now.

We are the USERS and administrators here, and on blogs, and this medium.

[RedEarth]

23. I think we should do both

In fact, I think it's imperative we do both.

[No Elephants]

17. The Fairness Doctrine does not stop anyone from saying anything. It simply requires that

equal time be given to qualified candidates of all parties. (This did not apply to paid advertising, only to free time.)

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

I doubt that it will be re-instated, but let's discuss it for what it was. It silenced no one, nor did it keep anything from being said.

[sledgehammer]

20. Good point! Thanks. n/t

[depakid]

24. It was also for responsible spokepersons, who were provided airtime to rebut

the sorts of outright lies (false statements of fact) -or distortions on the issues -or personal attacks that are so pervasive on the American public airwaves since deregulation.

And that are so destructive of full and fair debate that's essential to democracy.

I would also add that they were also effective in helping to level the playing field in initiative campaigns.

[Lorien]

169. Not just candidates, but other points of view

when we had the Fairness Doctrine a news story would read " Democrats back the Fairness Doctrine because they say it gives all Americans a voice within the mainstream media, while Republicans reject it, stating that they believe that reinstating it would curtail their right to free speech by limiting their hours on the air in a given market". Post Fairness Doctrine the news item would read "Some say that reinstating the Fairness doctrine would rob Americans of their first amendment rights by curtailing free speech".

[Politicub]

25. I am in favor of the fairness doctrine

And if you truly support what you say you support ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.") then you would be in support of the fairness doctrine, too.

The airwaves are a public resource. It's not fair if corporations shut out conflicting opinions. That is not supportive of free speech.

[sledgehammer]

33. Yes...

...you make a great point. But then let's change the ownership rules - I think that would be a much more effective way. And it would not make dems/libs seem as infringing upon 1st Amendment, which surely will be the spin of the hate-wing morans.

[Demit]

37. The Fairness Doctrine does not impinge on the First Amendment, despite what

people who try to spin it say. That's exactly the kind of misinformation that is getting out there because of the rightwing echo chamber that talk radio is. You apparently have succumbed to it.

The poster you responded to is right. The airwaves belong to the people. The ability to use them is a privilege granted by the government, not a right enshrined in the Constitution.

[sledgehammer]

47. The recent election was an interesting one.

Obama and the dems got a lot of support from independents, and even some historical repugs. Granted, not all of them listen to rw radio. But you'll see a lot of voices from all parts of spectrum - rw hate, politicians, MSM, even some progressives, that will oppose this and create even greater hysteria.

The support of these independents/rwingers is crucial for dems/libs to increase their gains in 2010.

I think the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't cut it for me. But that's just my opinion.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[No Elephants]

43. Nothing is wrong with de-centralizing ownership AND having the fairness

doctrine. That's how this nation operated until Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine and took the lid off anti-trust laws and regulations. And we did just fine, too.

Who cares how the right wing morans spin something? That is no standard for determining how the country runs. They will always find ways to spin gold into crap. Worryiing about how they may/will spin something is handing the victory to them without even requiring them to fight. It's a BIG mistake.

[Politicub]

66. I could care less about how the right spins anything

And I refuse to live in fear of how they may lie, cheat and steal to win. Ownership of the airwaves is too important to handwring over what the GOP talking heads will say about it. No matter what we say or do, the GOP will lie about it -- it's really the only thing that they do well.

[The Stranger]

28. What is taking so FUCKING LONG?

[Xenotime]

35. Exactly. Let's do it now and shut the RW poison up.

This way the country can move on and begin to heal.

[newtothegame]

81. Exactly! Death to opposing viewpoints!!!

:applause:

[The Stranger]

99. What the fuck?

It is actually ensuring that non-corporate, progressive viewpoints aren't fucked off the air.

[newtothegame]

107. I was being sarcastic; the post I was responding to wasn't. I don't think.

[Wizard777]

38. I'm kinda against the fairness doctrine because it's really not fair.

If we had taken the time and money to build a liberal radio talk show network. We would be screaming bloody murder if the republican tried to take over our shows and network in this manner. Instead of Coopting the Conservative radio talk show network. Would rather see liberal build their own liberal radio talk show network.

I don't like nonsmoking Nazi's taking over bars that were built and perpetuated with smokers money and running off the regulars. Like they were an out law motorcycle gang. I also don't like the idea of liberals trying take conservative talk radio like an outlaw motorcycle gang. I also don't like the government tinkering with intellectual property. By telling any artist even political artists. You must include this, that, or the other in your work.

[sledgehammer]

44. I very much agree with you...

Only one thing...

I also don't like the government tinkering with intellectual property. By telling any artist even political artists. You must include this, that, or the other in your work.

It's not necessarily the artist, but the network who has to make the accommodation. I'm not sure about this though, so any corrections are welcome.

[Wizard777]

84. There individual elements and an over all content. I don't want the government messing with either.

Think of the talk show as a painting. I don't want the government telling me that if I paint an elephant. I must also put a donkey in the painting. The artist should have control of individual elements of their work because it affects to over all content of the work. If I'm trying to create or invoke an over all emotion of sadness. I don't want the Government telling I have to throw some jokes in there too. Also if you are dictating the content of the work. That makes you a patron and that mean you pay for everything. So if Uncle Sam wants to dictate content. Then Uncle Sam is the patron and Uncle Sam pays for the show. Not the RNC, DNC, or anyone else. A patron without money is nothing more than a critic. Let the critics be damned. Those that can do and those that can't criticize.

[bettyellen]

181. it's not about art.. it's about news... giving people more information i/o edited slated bullshit

and believe it or not kids it worked out well in the past, despite everyone's guessing it coun;t have. artists had other venues. sheesh.

[No Elephants]

46. You can grandfather existing stations, or find other ways around

that objection. All of which begs the question whether people who take the time and money to build a network for lies should be catered to all that much anyway. However, as stated, you can deal with the people who have already gone down that unfortunate road without institutionalizing unfair "reporting" in perpetuity.

[Wizard777]

87. That's already been addressed. Several different times in several different ways.

What's needed is enforcement. Look at the Orson Welles broadcast of the H. G. Wells Classic War of the Worlds. It was a brilliant, for lack of a better term, PsyOps. The FCC was going to put him jail over that. When they say he had New Yorkers shooting at the skies thinking we were actually being invaded by Martians. That's not BS. That actually happened. He scared the crap out them.

Also NORML v Partnership for a Drug Free America. SCOTUS determined that truth in advertising law also apply to Public service announcements. Those like Political ads usually get broad leeway. But you cannot make patently false statements. They give them very broad leeway on their vision of the future. But you can't misrepresent what has happened or is happening. That's when you start to run afoul of truth in advertising laws.

If they are promoting themselves as a news show the they are bound by the journalists code of ethics.

There are already plenty of way to deal with the dishonesty and fraud already in place. They just have to enforced. It does no good enact new measures if they will not be enforced.

[Overseas]

64. Cash dominance isn't that fair either.

We're not talking about freedom of speech here. We're talking about cash power.

Right wingers who have the cash to purchase stations can decide who we are going to hear. Even if they're pushing unpopular opinions. Even if they lose money. It is THEIR choice. Not yours.

If you can afford it, you can buy a satellite radio to hear other stuff.

If not, you can buy a computer to hunt up differing opinions on line. Until those with cash find a way to privatize more of the internet too.

[sledgehammer]

70. Yep

So that's why ownership laws should be addressed. But it's better to stay out of the messy act of legislating content.

[Overseas]

82. How The Fairness Doctrine Worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Full article: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[Wizard777]

73. I also don't like the idea that dems or liberals are a poor party .

Some of us actually got buck's. I'm talking huge freakin's piles of it. If not mountains of it. The fact that no one is willing to put their money behind your idea is one the first sign you're dealing with a highly unpopular idea. It could also indicate that you don't have a well thought out business plan. If liberals want talk radio as bad we wanted Obama. Money is not an issue. We will find it....... everywhere. In huge freakin piles. Just like we did with Obama. But the liberals have to want it bad enough to risk their money on it. Just like we did with Obama. So who will the liberal media moguls be?

[Belial]

42. This is very disturbing to me.. IMHO

Markets (listners) drive the radio airwaves and the decissions they make on programming.. So someone please help me with this if I misunderstood somewhere. Say you have a radio station in NY that has Rush on the air.. for every hour of Rush.. there would be someone with an opposite view. The stations sell the ads during the shows to pay the salaries. No one buys ads for the opposing shows.. or not enough ad revenue comes in, the station closes. I guess the other thing is NPR.. we could end up with RW talk shows on there.. could we not?

[BlueIdaho]

52. This is totally incorrect

Listeners do not drive the content of radio stations - the radio station owners do. You are falling for a "demand driven free market" propaganda point repeated endlessly by Neo-con fat cats. The whole notion that radio is some kind of supply and demand utopia is complete and utter nonsense. The end of the fairness doctrine has brought us Rush, Bill, Sean and a thousand little dittohead copies all pushing the hate filled agenda of the republican party.

These propagandists understand the old idiom -> if you repeat a lie often enough it starts to sound like the truth...

Wake up.

[WriteDown]

67. Yep....

Kind of like buyers do not drive demand of cars. I think we should propose a law to eliminate all Toyota and Honda commercials off of all US media immediately. The boon to GM and Ford will be tremendous and union made vehicle sales will go through the roof.

[Psephos]

90. If you believe that, you've never worked in commercial media

I have. National radio and television programming decisions are utterly, completely, without fail driven by ratings. They will broadcast whatever grabs eyeballs and eardrums, and cut the rope without thinking twice on anything that doesn't. THEY DON'T CARE about advancing some stupid political agenda. They care about ratings. RATINGS. RATINGS. RATINGS. RATINGS. Because without ratings, there is NO EFFIN' MONEY. MONEY and RATINGS are their politics.

Why do you think we have so much reality programming? Why does the lowest common intellectual denominator prevail in program choices? Why do they run Limpballs instead of Air America? Because Limpballs gets eardrums, and AA doesn't. It's a market decision.

[Belial]

110. Nicely put.. but I don't think the facts of being in business

matter to anyone..

[LanternWaste]

102. Additionally, as the public airwaves are just that-- Public...

Additionally, as the public airwaves are just that-- Public, I believe that any broadcast license holder should first and foremost be subordinate to the will of the American people rather than subordinate to the red herring of the Free Market.


"if you repeat a lie often enough it starts to sound like the truth..."
Judging by many, many responses on this thread, it would appear that you are indeed correct-- it seems many people believe the fallacy told to them by radio demagogues that Fairness Doctrine censors news, and that opposing views are somehow anathema to the marketplace of ideas.

[UpInArms]

45. before you condemn The Fairness Doctrine, you need some information

In 1987, the FCC stopped enforcing most applications of the fairness doctrine. It relied upon a controversial opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, written by Judge Bork and then-Judge Scalia, that characterized the doctrine as discretionary, rather than mandatory. The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959. In late 1991 the FCC extended its policy and ceased enforcing the doctrine as to ballot issues as well.

- Media Access Project

[fascisthunter]

135. .

[Mr Generic Other]

49. media ownership rules need to be addressed and our anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws need

to be enforced but we also need a return to the fairness doctrine.
that being said, the fairness doctrine needs revamping to be strengthened. the requirement in the past was just that more than one perspective needed to be aired when presenting information of civic concern. there was no requirement that opposing viewpoints or all viewpoints should be given airtime.
the airwaves are public property and therefore all american perspectives should have equal access (in equal time slots)to air their views. this is actually much less government intrusion on businesses than determining who can own what. this approach is neither unfair or unreasonable since the airwaves belong to us.
and while we are at it we need to be sure that resources being exploited on public lands are in fact returning some benefits to the public. 1/5th, the royal quinto, of all wealth derived from public lands should be allocated to the government to pay bills and relieve our tax burdens.
we also need to nationalize the monetary system and the energy resources in america. people should be able to use our money without going into debt and energy and water resources need to be accessible to all at prices just above the cost of delivery. it is time the United States catch up to the rest of the world and develop both a social and legal concept of human rights, not just civil rights, that value humans more highly than property. i know that we have a history of relegating humans to property status but that does not preclude the possibility that we could re-prioritize our value structure to place humans above profit.

[Overseas]

60. You need to add the phrase "If you have enough money to purchase the stations"

Sounds quite noble to say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." BUT
will you add the caveat-- "if you have the money to buy up all the stations, you are free to dominate the airwaves." ?

Even if they don't make money, if you decide your billions will go to purchase mass media and keep out progressive voices, well then, that's just freedom of speech? If you decide your station will be anti-progressive all the time, and have the money to pour into making that happen, you are free to do so. Public interest be damned. If your other properties make some money, your propaganda outlets can lose money; that's up to you. People with other opinions can just chat amongst themselves, blog and send email. Cash buys freedom of speech.

Money now trumps our freedom to hear a variety of opinions. Even if those progressive shows have great ratings and the public likes them. If you have enough money, that trumps our right to hear a diversity of views. You can decide the public should hear canned music instead of liberal Bill Press and others in a progressive talk format. Your cash gives you the freedom to decide that for radio listeners in Washington D.C. If you and your cash think we need more religious instruction, you can buy that for us. Hey, we don't have to listen to that channel. If we can afford it, we can buy a satellite radio.

Our current system defends the dominance of cash. Thinking cash is a democratic instrument. Privatizing our publicly owned airwaves. Pretending that cash dominance will allow freedom of speech, when we know that is not the case. Cash allows owners of media conglomerates to decide who gets the biggest audience to practice their "freedom of speech." Cash dominates quite a bit of our "free market" system.

Check out the charts on another thread showing how many Republicans vs. Democrats were featured on news chat shows on the conservative-dominated corporate media of today. If the public's sentiments were taken into account, a far better balance of opinion would have been aired regarding the new President's stimulus package. I kept seeing Republicans featured on the news-- those who had bankrupted us with tax cuts during war time and promoted the Bush gang's wasteful and damaging war of choice, were given many more opportunities to air their opinions than those representing the Democrats in favor of the President's plan, or progressives pushing for more infrastructure spending. The Republican losers dominated the airwaves after a Democratic landslide.

Check out older charts about how many voices against invading Iraq vs. commentators in favor of the Bush gang's war of choice were allowed onto our free media in the run up to that disaster and you might change your mind. Cash didn't help balance out the news and views we got to see. Cash skewed the conversation again and again.

"The Fairness Doctrine" just tries to inject some balance into the equation.

Certainly, other opinions fight their way through the conservative fog, using smaller outlets like a bit of progressive radio here and there, internet outreach and various publications. But imagine how different our country might have been today if anti-war sentiments had a fuller airing on broadcast media before the war. Stories critical of the Bush practices were published throughout the war, but broadcast news was skewed far to the right. Conservative voices have dominated the airwaves for years. Moderate Democrats were sprinkled into the mix to pretend the shows were "balanced," using more of that "voluntary compliance" that has done so well for our country so far.

Even an issue as critical to our survival as global climate change was subjected to cash dominance. With tens of millions of dollars, an oil company was able to promote the idea that more study was required and "there's lots of disagreement" about whether global warming is real. They did an excellent job. Stations even used Fake Fairness styling to put global-warming deniers one-to-one with proponents of reducing global warming, even though the "expert" deniers represent far less than 1% of climate scientists. Instead of giving two speakers with different ideas about solutions to the crisis a chance to talk them out, each global warming scientist was given an anti-warming opponent to trot out the standard feeble arguments, one on one. That's not really a balance of current opinion. They bring on the deniers to spice up the shows, please some corporate sponsors, and pretend they're balancing the views on their show, as if science was just like a political opinion. That hurt the public interest. When the public could have been hearing different opinions on the best ways to address the crisis, they were pulled back to the elementary stage of "is there really a problem?"

Fake fairness styling has also provided "cover" to networks to justify airing venomous right wingers who spew hateful comments the likes of which would never be tolerated from a progressive. I've never seen an equally venomous lefty on their shows. News chat personalities bristled at John Lewis speaking sternly to Senator McCain during the campaign. And edited clips of Reverent Wright's comments were roundly condemned. Yet those same stations have trotted out the likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Rush Limbaugh to spew all kinds of rash, hateful comments without much rebuke at all.

So in the "Fairness Doctrine" as in many other areas like peanut factories and high finance, voluntary compliance and cash dominance have clearly failed.

[sledgehammer]

69. Regulating ownership....

...is a better way to achieve the desired results, IMO. Money is definitely an issue.

Your examples are great, thanks. One question though. How does this affect minority-owned stations. So let's say you have an African-American station talking about the plight of inner-city schools. Do they have to start talking (by law) about an argument to balance it?

Does it apply to comedy? So would any radio station making fun of Palin be required to praise her?

If we're talking about the horrors of 9/11, do we have to bring on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

If we're discussing Darwin's 200th birthday, do we have to talk about creationism?

Legislating the content is complicated and I don't think it will achieve much. Legislating the ownership by allowing grassroots stations to develop, and simultaneously reducing the monopoly, is a better route.

Thanks for your examples and thoughts.

[Overseas]

75. Here is further info on the Fairness Doctrine's history and practice

The doctrine is not about balancing ideas within each and every show that is aired. Check out this article by people who know more of its history than I do. The article begins by recapping what happened when Sinclair broadcasting forced its Anti-Kerry propaganda onto its chain of stations, but I've clipped a more general couple of paragraphs from the article.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
"The Fairness Doctrine, How We Lost It and Why We Need It Back" ... here's a clip:

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, the doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation.

Early on, legislators wrestled over competing visions of the future of radio: Should it be commercial or non-commercial? There was even a proposal by the U.S. Navy to control the new technology. The debate included early arguments about how to address the public interest, as well as fears about the awesome power conferred on a handful of licensees.

[Canuckistanian]

61. How come we never saw "GOP targets left-wing radio" stories?

Which was a MUCH more effective and successful campaign.

[fascisthunter]

136. no kidding... because they now own most of the media

:shrug:

[no limit]

63. So does that mean equal time must be given to people that still think the earth is flat?

Or the people that don't believe in global warming, or evolution, etc.

Maybe I'm missing something here. But the problem seems to be who owns the media, not what's on it. Remove the corporate grip hold on the media and we will naturally start hearing opposing view points.

[Overseas]

83. No it doesn't. Here is how it worked

From: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

...

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

[serrano2008]

78. The problem is the content - the lies. There is no accountability for lying.

The problem with the right wing radio, is not the number of shows or the number of stations, etc.

The problem is that they can lie as much as they want for hours and hours on end without any punishment.

When one of them lies, try calling in and getting on the air. Ain't gonna work. If they let you on at all, they won't address your argument of facts. They either cut you off so they can dominate the conversation or they'll just claim you're "one of those left wing wackos".

That's why so many people are actually convinced Obama is a muslim or wasn't born in America or any of these other stupid lies, is because Limbaugh uses bits and pieces of information to push through his opinion. He needs to be accountable for this. Having a 4 hour Liberal show on after Limbaugh to counteract him won't do anything because his idiot listeners have already turned off the radio.

[Abq_Sarah]

88. The problem with the "lie" claim

Is that political speech is constitutionally protected. It is extremely dangerous to allow ANY political party to be the arbiter of truth, handing out punishment for what they claim are lies.

I enjoy listening to our local radio programs. I don't tune in to hear right wing bullshit.

[serrano2008]

94. The problem with the "problem" with the "lie" claim.

Is that Limbaugh can say that it is a fact that Obama is not an American citizen. He can even provide second hand accounts of people who saw him born in Africa. Him and Phil Berg have documents to prove that he cannot hold the office of President.

Obviously, that is a lie but because he has "sources", even if they are insane, he's constitutionally protected.

[Pavulon]

101. Rush = Chris Rock..Entertainment

they are not news. If you regulate one, you regulate the other. Lets force democracy now (npr) to host right wing points. Sound good?

This is the MOST myopic stupid thing I have seen in recent memory.

[depakid]

140. If this were "entertainment," this wouldn't be such a serious problem all across the states

and far from being "myopic" -while it was enforced, it led to a culture of media responsibility and ethics as opposed to the culture of lies that's now pervasive in the states.

Like the Helath care "system," the American media is dysfunctional beyond recognition. It's degraded to the point where people from other countries simply don't believe it until they see and hear it for themselves. Once they do- they begin to understan why the nation has become such a sorry shadow of itself.

[Pavulon]

145. Government should not regulate entertainment..

It did not regulate entertainment. Rush is not news. I use the internet to find multiple sources for information. NPR and others are already providing balanced information.

The government does not need to screw that up.

Hope your government does not make this site go away behind your china-esque firewall down under. Better find some good proxy servers.

[Belial]

103. Lying is a subjective term in politics..

It was said during the campaign that 3 or 4 million jobs would be CREATED.. now they say 3 or 4 million jobs will be SAVED. Was that a lie?

[JNelson6563]

95. I strongly disagree w/you.

I believe radio and tv need to be forced into being balanced. We have learned how the power to control the message rests primarily w/these entities. To just cede it to the wingers now, cause we happen to be in power now (which is the only time we could enact such change) is a very bad idea.

What's wrong with fairness anyway?

Julie

[Pavulon]

100. Who sets "fair"?

you, me, a collective? This is an abjectly horrible idea. Most of the content they are targeting is entertainment. Rush is not "news". So if you regulate that, what are you regulating next.

[JNelson6563]

116. Yeah, you're right. Big stuff to figure out.

Fuck it, leave it as is. Oy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5041803&mesg_id=5041803

[Pavulon]

119. No kidding. With the markets collapsing and unemployment

rising some look good feel good crap like this is pointless. It may fool some people but most will see it as just a silly dance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. So you would make every TV station hire tons of conservatives?

The last poll of the media had it at about 80% liberal or liberal leaning. So you would make them hire conservatives to offset those numbers?

David

[JNelson6563]

114. Who was polled?

Those who read the news or those who write it?

Julie

[totodeinhere]

159. Who gets to decide what "balanced" means? n/t

[Pavulon]

98. Lets support segregation, book burnings, and poll taxes.

jesus christ, this has to be the dumbest shit ever. You can not force people to consume something they do not want. People can choose to educate themselves. Putting content on tv does not make it "fair". Most political commentary is "entertainment" not news. So we should regulate asshole entertainers?

Messing with free speech leads here.

[LibertarianDave]

134. Poetic

A picture is truly worth a thousand words.

[mitchum]

217. Atlas Pukes Up Cliches

[depakid]

141. Your Libertarian arguments here are just as shortsighted and dishonest as they are in other areas

Aside from the fact that the First Amendment isn't served by private censortship and monoplozation of the public airwaves by far right propaganda- to the exlcusion of everything else, the Nazi rerefernce is ironic- since that's EXACTLY the sort of media America has.

And the sorts of deals that you'd expect to result from such a media- endless fear og the other- torture- abrogation of international treaties- suspension of civil rights- rigged elections- the list goes on and on, is EXACTLY what you've gotten.

It's almost as if in the end- that's really what you want.

[Pavulon]

144. You're in OZ? Has your government banned this site yet?

Did they ever release the URLs they were going to ban? Just trust them, they will watch over you.
This is why the government should not be in the censorship business.
You flailing about in interesting but does not address point.

The government should NOT manipulate entertainment content.

[depakid]

147. Irrelevant- and also absurd

There's a reason why Libertarian = juvenile (or shallow or stupid). Fear of government that leads to private (corporare) abuses MUCH worse than anything government would ever be permittied to undertake. That essentially leads to facism (the melding og corporate and state power.

Your "claims" belie both a misunderstanding of the nature of the media- and the nature and effect of the regulations (and their hisgtory).

As opposition to regulatory matters, they're simply a knee jerk reactions that result in dysfunctional policy that's not even consistent with the Constitutional provisions you seek to uphold.

As the Supreme Court has noted in a unanimous opinion:

...as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens.

There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right of free speech by means of radio communication."

Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium.

But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 361 -362 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 546 (1947).

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/395/367.html

In other words- no right to the private censorship that you so shortsightedly- and ironically advocate.

[Pavulon]

149. You are trying to manipulate speech. Maybe we can ban bi-racial couples

some people do not like that. Ban it. You cant ban your way out of a problem. (edit: forget to add this sentence on post)

There are legal mechanisms that cover slander and libel. However there are laws that cover satire and entertainment. Rush is an entertainer, like a rap musician. He polishes an image and sells it. He is far from news.

FCC does not regulate cable in the same manner as broadcast. ANd the internet is hands off, at least in first world countries.

Excessive entanglement is a great rule. Generally applied to government and religion. It works here too.

There is no NEED for this regulation. Democracy now, news and notes are broadcast where i live, A blue city in a red state. The internet allows access to even more diverse opinions.

We are smart enough to realize the internet is the future of news and information. You can NOT regulate it. Only a tyrant would try, and they generally fail.

The days of a news anchor presenting both sides are over. We know the sides of abortion law, stem cells, tax based religious programs.


What outcome do you seek? What do you want to see change?

[depakid]

164. You have to be willfully ignorant (or irony impaired) to make that charge

First off- drop the propaganda point about Rush being "an entertainer" and join the rality based community where we make public policy based on the evidence.

Libel and slander laws are extraordinary weak (and expensive to pursue) in the states- which is one reason why the personal attack provisions were put into place. Much less the case in other countries where, coincidentally, broadcast media is more repsonsible.

The Cable Act of 1984- supplemented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does indeed exempt much of cable from FCC jurisdiction. No particular reason why that should be so- as the purposes behiond the legislation have clearly not been met- but in fact, the outcomes have been quite the opposite of those intended. Congress would do well to revisit that as well- though that would entail a directly political- as opposed to a lobbying fight at the FCC.



thought there might be some experts on the air? As there are in other Western nations?



Nope- mostly bogus punditocracy- brought to you by the corporate/state (same folks who willfully refused to cover the matters leading up to the financial collapse- and refused airtime to those who tried to warn us). Not in keeping with their idology- and their advertisers' short term interests.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28/cable-news-stimulus/

No one's going to regulate internet content (they won't in Oz, either) so let's put that Red Herring to rest, shall we?

With radio and TV, responsible folks simply want a reurn to accountability and ethics- with mechanisms to ensure compliance with various public interest duties that broadcaster OWE in return for their lucrative monopoly licenses.

Not difficult to do- all that's required is a rejection of failed Reagan/Bush/DLC deregulatory ideology that resulted in textbook examples of markey failure.

The solution lies in the wisdom of the previous generation- look to the regulations and adjudications that set the rules for responsible broadcasting until they were systemically cast aside by Reagan's FCC chairman (and former lobbyist and lawyer for the corporate media).

Much like food safety and financial regulation- the FCC became (actually was intentially made) a captured agency -and the results have been disastrous.

[Lorien]

172. Ah, I see that "ignored" is still stirring the pot

they are purposely obtuse, so I wouldn't waste too much of your time. ;-)

[Pavulon]

182. Yep "ignored" has a point, there is no ignore list in real life

as much as we differ depa, i have respect for the fact you will actually discuss it. It takes a real moron to come to a web forum and ignore everyone who they cant agree with.

Please explain the regulation structure you have planned to control who is on meet the press. Rush is NOT NEWS, any more than jay-z, or the daily show.. He could not get a press pass to save his fat ass. However vile he is he has a RIGHT to be on the air. I dont listen to him, EVER. That is how I deal with that issue.

Lets re-regulate the airlines. I am sure that will work. Some things need regulation, like FDA, economics, labor law. This SMACKS of fascist control. It is dangerous and will not have the desired impact in the day of youtube and mixed media.

This gives the "enemy" the knife to slit our throats with. I dare say even dumber than gun control as flashpoint. It is look good feel good though.

[ShortnFiery]

117. Yes, this is a good first step.

:-)

[FiveGoodMen]

126. "It will show again in 2010, and beyond"

Don't share your confidence.

[sledgehammer]

132. Yes, I am being optimistic

But if the right wingers use the same ol' tired talking points, they won't work. They tried their best this time with their socialist-jihadi-surrender hysteria, and it didn't work. Unless Obama/Dem policies are generally seen as failing by mid-2010, dems are set for 60+ in November.

A lot depends on stimulus. I'm optimistic about the package.

Beyond 2010...well, perhaps that's too far to make a reasonable assumption about. I guess I got a bit carried away! :)

[cadmium]

138. The right wingers have been raising this canard

in typical right wing fashion double-speak fashion. They shreak about fear of silencing conservative talk radio when what they are really trying to do is to silence liberal/progressive radio. They know liberal radio is a success when given a chance and that scares them s--tless

[and-justice-for-all]

146. I do not think it is a "I disapprove of what you say" sort of thing...

I see it as more of a "if you are going talk shit, well, you better also have an oppositional view on hand too."

I know, I know...all you have to do is turn off the trite and wipe the shit off your telly. But the stench permeates for years, without really balance, the people watching fucked news or listen to limpballs will continue to be dumb-down and unable to make a wise decision. If your only getting one side of the story, what are you left with??

Limpballs and the ilk would of course be pissed off at the idea of bringing back the fairness doctrine, they would be made out to look like fuckin' fascist idiots daily, and in front of millions.

[daleo]

148. Fairness doctrine prevents big business from promulgating only right wing views

As long as big business owns the media, it will spread propaganda that is conducive to big business. The fairness doctrine provides a useful counterweight to that.

The fairness doctrine is good for big business media. Left to their own devises, they turn the news media into a farcical arena for right wing views, and eventually regular people start to tune them out. So, forcing them to present more than one point of view actually helps them to maintain an audience.

[Pavulon]

150. Please explain HOW

this will work in reality. How do you envision changing the current system and the content presented.

DO you intend to manipulate internet content for fairness too?

[w4rma]

157. The way it's always worked. This Doctrine was in place for many many years. It worked. (nt)

[daleo]

170. If the internet was taken over by big business

And they censored posters, only permitting right wing views, then you would have to look at a fairness doctrine for the internet. But that hasn't happened, and the nature of the medium makes it difficult to accomplish that feat. I am sure business interests would love to do so, though.

As for the mechanics of the system, the specifics would have to be worked out in detail, but the basic principle would be equal time for opposing viewpoints, with some accommodation for how widespread those viewpoints are. A civilization that can build a trillion dollar per year military, land people on the moon, blow up cities, etc. can handle these sorts of technical details, if it takes a mind to.

[Pavulon]

183. Lookit, I live in a red state

but in a progressive city. In Chapel Hill i can find "News and Notes", "Democracy Now" (funny how they had a Mumia Abu-Jamal interview saying that Barack would get elected but the man would make him fail with a bad economy.) and other progressive shows on the RADIO at 5 - 7 pm. Like most people I have an INTERNET connection and have unrestricted access to news anywhere.

Do you want DU to have to accept Right wing POV? If I want RW news there are many sites to get it. If I want progressive news I know where to go. Regulating pundits is not right. The WSJ and NYT have different editorial content, good. I can read both.

If you want to create a bland news network where all news is presented with minimal (you will never get rid of all spin) go for it. Without tax dollars it will tank. Just dont wreck what is there now.

Education on SOURCES is more valuable than trying to regulate what one show says.

[David__77]

152. I oppose this.

It will only galvanize the right. There are other ways to deflate them without this measure. Ways that will be more pernicious.

[FiveGoodMen]

153. "There are other ways to deflate them without this measure"

Then it's high fucking time that somebody thought of one of those ways and started using it!

Right now, we're losing hearts and minds by the second.

[w4rma]

156. I support this.

It will not galvanize the right, because the right won't have the ability to spout lies on public airwaves without getting rebutted. Pass it quickly and the opposition won't have time to form. This Congress can do that.

[Pavulon]

185. Suicidal

this is even dumber than toothless look good feel good gun control passed back in the day. All that did was cost the control of the house and senate. But I guess there are no more murders in chicago, it was worth the loss?

This legislation is POINTLESS, not enforceable on the internet or cable, and will piss all types of people. Including normal people like me.

So in your happy little media world does democracy now (npr) have to present the rebuttal to each piece it presents too?

This is the SINGLE DUMBEST IDEA i have heard in recent memory.

[Lorien]

166. Never knew media pre-Reagan, did you?

if you did, you would understand that the Fairness Doctrine was all about ensuring that EVERYONE had ACCESS to free speech. If one side is given a megaphone and the other side is silenced, is speech really free? Don't drink the Right Wing kool-aid. Reagan killed the fairness doctrine in order to pave the way for corporate fascism and create a permanent Right Wing majority. The whole purpose was to take away the voice of the Left. Don't be their enabler.

[depakid]

167. Back then, a SIZABLE number of conservative republicans were furious at Reagan (and Mark Fowler)

Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms among them- because they actually believed in their own propaganda about the "liberal" media and thought they'd be shut out of the airwaves if the fairness doctrine(s) were eviscerated!

No shit!

[Lorien]

171. Oh, I know. But since then many have admitted that they used the "liberal

media" meme to pile on as many conservative hosts on the airwaves as possible, excusing the excesses by saying that they were only "adding balance to the liberal media". They still maintain that ALL non-GOP programming is liberal (reality does have a liberal bias, after all), so those that tune in actually don't believe ANYTHING that they hear coming out of anyone who is not a part of the extreme Right Wing.

[bettyellen]

180. it's scaring me how many people cling to + spew ignorant ideas i/o actually looking up the truth

people are actually rewriting or ignoring history entirely in order to fit their pre conceived little meme. Oy.

[NoodleyAppendage]

175. We would be IDIOTS for not demanding reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

One of the major reasons that Repukes have dominated the airwaves is because of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Repukes hate the idea of reinstating the policy...I wonder why that would be?

Come on! Stop being "high and mighty" minded and realize that we have been losing the PR war for decades because our message does not filter through to the masses.

J

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[mitchum]

209. Is DU "regulated" by the FCC, twit?

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

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

[mitchum]

224. Fuck off, right wing trash

[Pavulon]

184. Which airwaves? cable. Or broadcast

why would we want to change what some idiot says on cable commentary. Are you talking about making katie couric explain both sides of any potential contention? In the sully interview where he plugs experienced union pilots ( a great idea) should they be forced to present on the rising cost of salaries and how it is cheaper to get a guy who has no military background? This is a loose loose situation.

Or forcing people you dont like off the airwaves? More popular than jesus?, jewish conductors. Burn it.

[toopers]

228. Will we all be as excited when the government comes after . . .

the internet also?

[ronnie624]

190. I know I find coverage of news and political issues on corporate owned airwaves

worthy of little more than a sneer, and I'm not really sure what the remedy might be. Perhaps reforming our system of education is the key, with a focus on teaching students how to weigh evidence and think critically about all issues.

I like searching the readers comments after a news item for that rare individual who understands a particular issue:

Jack Nemers February 13th, 2009 1:11 pm ET

The reason there so much right wing radio is that it is financed by big business as a means to push through their agenda. Liberal media does not have the financial backing of big business. If no one listened to right wing radio they would still be financed by big business as a marketing tool. In addition to big business, right wing radio uses the haters, racists and bigots as an emotional cover for their real agenda of special interests. Many of their supporters are too ignorant to realize they are being exploited against their own best interests. They can understand over simplified issues like abortion, gay marriage, and fighting "terrorists" which have almost nothing to do with their daily life. They ignore the real part of right wing radio's agenda which is protecting big business and special interest groups from operating with any oversight or regulation. That is why the market crashed, there is poison in our food, lead in our toys, too expensive health care, environmental issues, unemployment rising, corporate fraud like Enron and scandals like Madoff. The list goes on and on but right wings supporters just want to talk about "the liberal media". Guess what, the liberal media represents real people not big business! Wake up people.

[NewEnglandKnowledge]

195. Just Fight Back

Wake up people!
Bill O'Rielly, Glen Beck, Rush, Howie Carr, etc have one think
in common, enormous ratings.  If the Dems want to stop this
flow of misinformation, they should personally donate to a
charismatic, well spoken, entertaining personality to
broadcast over the AM airways.  Olberman is to abrasive and
verbose, Bill Maher doesn't dumb down his message enough, and
Rosie is uneducated.  What we need is something like D.L.
Hugley, but with more credibility.  So besides myself, I offer
Al Franken, John Stewart, Jack Cafferty and some well spoken
athletes and columnists like Stephen A. Smith, Duane Wade,
Michael Wilbon, Tony Reali, Donavan Mcnabb, Tiki Barber and
others.  The problem is Republicans generally play politics
better than democrats and on the radio, they speak louder.  We
need to bring the fight to them, not change the rules of the
fight.   

[w4rma]

196. We've got them. Clear Channel and other right-wing corps keep turning them off. (nt)

[No Elephants]

201. They're the ones who changed the rules when Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

[specialed]

198. Lets just call an end to the fairness doctrine talk....

I mean why not just tell the story of the past eight years of full conservative rule over and over and over again....etc.

[DireStrike]

199. I would love the fairness doctrine, but it wouldn't work

Modern rightwingers don't support the spirit of fair argument. They try to win at all costs. If the fairness doctrine were reinstated, demand for alan colmes-alikes would soar, and plenty of weak lefties, or just plain righties, would find positions arguing "against" their right-wing counterparts in the most ineffective way possible.

The political discourse is already controlled in this country. We don't need to muddy definitions even further by allowing right-wing broadcasters to decide who shall represent the left, any more than they already do.

[fascisthunter]

203. I Too Think the Fairness Doctrine Should Be Reinstated

people in this country with multiple political points of view are being shut out of public discussion due to monopolistic capitalism. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine or something similar because right now, there is no free speech, not on tv or radio.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear intelligent people discuss differences rather than tv personalities and paid think tank hacks spread propaganda from one point of view day in and day out. I thought so...


*Capitalism must be regulated or we will be run by the wealthy elite... oooops, already happened.

[lynne]

211. IMO the Fairness Doctrine = We can't compete in the market place -

- for our share of listeners on the airwaves. I'd much rather that we develop progressive radio that draws listeners equal to the right wing talk radio programs.

I'm not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. I AM in favor of beating them at their own game! :bounce:

[ohio2007]

212. If people didn't flock to air america before. what make congressmen think

forcing radio stations to air "fainess doctrine" is going to gain market share and pay the lowly geek technicians and janitors paychecks ?

Its market control imo

[DuaneBidoux]

213. I'm very much against bringing back fairness doctrine...

I'll take my chances with the Internet and you can give the wingnuts am radio.

[w4rma]

214. The ultra-wealthy, big business and their corporate stooges are happy to comply with your wishes.

They would rather be able to continue to brainwash without rebuttal and spout lies about anyone that might divert their profits towards the hired help.

[KakistocracyHater]

219. we the people get to pay off the wealthy's bills

I would rather create Truth Act or some other new doctrine, fairness has already been deformed into "talk about each view" & I will not give time to mythology in scientific debates.

[wroberts189]

221. Thats why your against??? Its not even a reason ...???

[Overseas]

225. The Fairness Doctrine would not eliminate wingnut radio

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

From: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[DuaneBidoux]

227. Here's what I mean:

Why push a technologically illiterate group into the Internet. Most of their domain is indeed am radio and am radio is a format of the past and it has a fraction of the political power as liberals on the Internet.

Let's just let them have their little corner of irrelevancy to themselves while we organize on the Internet and create the next progressive political juggaurnaut. I am not afraid of Rush or any of the other freaks.

[llmart]

229. Hmmmm.....

Very good point. Made me think. Perhaps you are correct. The ones I know who listen to FAUX and Limpballs are usually computer illiterate for the most part. They are also people who are pretty irrelevant in today's world because of it. Let them all sit around and live in their little world of negativity and hatefulness while the rest of us get on with living.

[wroberts189]

220. Were you around? You need to be from that era ....

The "Fairness Doctrine" educated the people of both viewpoints. Things were so much fairer then...

[agincourt]

226. I think we need to look at our campaign finance laws

Rich assholes with cubic kilometers of money hire RW assholes like Rush and Hannity to take over our airwaves to warp public discourse in favor of one political party and one ideology. We have an entire channel that is nothing but a 24/7 rimjob for the GOP. Isn't this more a perenial campaign ad rather than "news" or "entertainment".