Fairness Doctrine

[Postman]

I briefly had the radio on this morning in my car tuned to WABC out of NYC when I heard Curtis Sleewa mention the Fairness Doctrine.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to listen, but I would gather that as much as the right-wing constantly harps about the mythological "Liberal Media" they would embrace such an idea as a "Fairness Doctrine" to balance the field against all those liberals in the talk-radio genre.

Why would they argue for anything less? The news media is biased, slanted to the left, they cry. Why would you push for a more powerful consolidation of that "liberal" ideology?

These hypocrites are exposed.

[laconicsax]

1. "all those liberals in the talk-radio genre"

what?

[Postman]

3. That's my point....

Talk-radio is almost an exclusive right-wing club. I'm pointing out their hypocrisy when they argue against the Fairness Doctrine. If they are so concerned about the so-called "liberal media" they would argue in favor of a Fairness Doctrine to level the playing field.

They know full well that the media and talk-radio in particular is a propaganda machine for the right-wing.

[Lefty48197]

2. It's time to turn off our TV's and radios

The right wingers have taken over everything. We lost.

[BattyDem]

4. What's going on with the Fairness Doctrine?

Is there a campaign to reinstate it? No one's mentioned it for 20 years and all of a sudden it's a hot topic for wingnuts. First Limbaugh was ranting about it, then Hannity and now Sliwa. What's got them all riled up?

[old dog]

7. I believe...

That there has been a new bill introduced in congress to bring it back. Strange thing this time around is that some of the rightys are supporting it. From what I understand, any media which 'transmits'? a certain viewpoint on certain issues would be required to allow equal time for the opposing viewpoint.

[BattyDem]

9. I didn't know there was a new bill

Thanks for the info. I've wanted it to be reinstated for a long time ... but the "any media that transmits" line worries me a bit. Is the internet considered to be a transmitting media and could this somehow be used against Dems-Progressives-Liberals who have been using it to expose the Bushies? :tinfoilhat:

Damn! Even something that sounds like good news makes me worry.
Remember the good old days when we weren't so paranoid all the time? :crazy:

[old dog]

15. How can any restriction of free speech sound good?

Would it be OK to you if the fairness doctrine only restricted the views of the right?.....Be very careful in what you support as it can quickly turn and bite you.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. Reagen did away /repealed it....NOW it's time to bring it back

[BattyDem]

6. I completely agree

I just don't understand why the wingnuts have jumped on the topic. :shrug:

[jackcgt]

8. I don't understand why this should apply to private...

radio and TV stations. Perhaps NPR should ascribe to this doctrine, but isn't the Fairness Doctrine a restriction of free speech?

[BattyDem]

11. I don't think any radio or television station is "private"

The airwaves are public property; we own them, not the broadcasters.

Broadcasters are allowed to use them on the condition they serve the public interest. The FCC is supposed to make sure our interests are served, yet they seem more concerned with serving the interests of the media companies.

Frankly, I believe if any broadcaster wishes to label their programming as "news" then they should be required by law to provide accurate, unbiased and uncensored information. JMHO

[jackcgt]

12. Are the airwaves REALLY public?

Think about it. What is a pirate radio station? All someone has to do is rig up a transmitter and choose their frequency to start broadcasting radio. Now, this is not desirable because too many stations on frequencies close together helps no one. The point is, though, that the government is by no means necessary to have radio in place.

So then, what about DU? Is DU a wholly private enterprise? No. I am currently on campus at Georgia Tech. The only way I can read this is by receiving data transmitted over government-owned trunk lines. In fact, most data tranmitted through the Southeast runs right through Georgia Tech on its way to wherever. Does that mean that DU must ascribe the Fairness Doctrine?

[OldSoldier]

18. Yeah, you try doing that

The Federal Communications Commission makes the BATF look like a bunch of pantywaist pinko liberals. And they're harsh for a reason: it's too easy to shut down someone else's radio station.

Without the FCC in place to regulate the airwaves (specifically, to ensure that only one station in an area is using a particular frequency), a freeper could purchase a radio transmitter, set it to the local public radio station's channel, and start blasting Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh 24 hours a day. Or, conversely, one of us could buy a transmitter, set it to the local reich-wing station's frequency, and drown out the freeper crap by reading Molly Ivins columns and Hunter Thompson books with Rolling Stones songs played between the readings.

The government is absolutely necessary to have radio in place--this is not a self-regulating mechanism. No matter what Michael Powell says.

And what about DU? Radio needs a Fairness Doctrine because it is essentially a finite medium: the International Telecommunications Union allots 20 MHz for commercial FM broadcasting. In the United States each station receives 200kHz of bandwidth, meaning there can never be more than 100 FM radio stations in any one area. On the AM dial, there is 1060 kHz between the ends of your dial, and each station receives 10kHz of it--meaning there can be no more than 106 radio stations on the AM band in your area. (Most areas don't have 206 radio stations, but New York and Los Angeles are probably very close.) There can only be so many radio stations and so many television stations, and if all of them in your area start telling their listeners that Liberals Need To Be Shot, eventually some liberals are going to get shot. It ain't fair and balanced, anyway. The Internet doesn't need a Fairness Doctrine because it's so much more capacious. So long as we don't run out of IP numbers and servers are cheap enough to own, we can have as many viewpoints as there are people willing to host them. For every Free Republic there's a Democratic Underground, for every Bartcop there's a Lucianne. If Bart and Lucianne were wrestling over the same little chunk of spectrum, that would be different. But they're not.

[jackcgt]

22. Sorry, but that doesn't quite add up...

I see your point about the radio bandwidth filling up, but, as you assert, there is nowhere that it HAS filled up. With TV, do you really think we're on the verge of running out of bandwidth? With digital cable, my house can get up to 800 channels. There's no need for a fairness doctrine there.

While it's true that we're not running out of IPs, I still think it's bad news to require the Fairness Doctrine for everything but Internet. Realizing that we are more tech-savvy than the average Freeper, it is unnecessary, but what if they had gotten a better foothold. Would it suddenly become necessary for the internet too? Be honest.

[Arkady]

23. Yes, they are

Think about it. What is a pirate radio station? All someone has to do is rig up a transmitter and choose their frequency to start broadcasting radio.

And then they'll go to jail or end up paying massive criminal fines. Those things are pretty easy to catch.

The airwaves are like any other public resource- the government can give private companies a license to use them.

[Arkady]

24. Who decides

Frankly, I believe if any broadcaster wishes to label their programming as "news" then they should be required by law to provide accurate, unbiased and uncensored information. JMHO

Leaving that detemrination to a government agency is asking for trouble- or do you really want the Bush administration-appointed director of the FCC deciding what's "accurate, unbiased and uncensored?"

[Yupster]

17. Back in the 70's, there were just a handful of channels

I could see a push for something like this, though I probably still wouldn't support it.

Today you can find any viewpoint you want on tv. There are more choices than anyone could possibly watch.

[jos]

19. Bullshit

Radio and Cable TV are almost exclusively right-wing. That's not "fair and balanced." Only the 'net offers all viewpoints. But most people get their info from radio and TV. That's why we need the fairness doctrine back.

[loudsue]

25. Yupster....you just outed yourself, IMHO...

ANY progressive or liberal person in this country who listens to ANY available public media is CONSTANTLY offended by the lack of ANY nationally communicated progressive/liberal message.

Where in North Carolina (for instance) will ANYBODY ever hear a "liberal" slant in the media? If you were even a tiny bit politically liberal at heart, you'd know there ain't no such animal!!

:kick:

[jackcgt]

10. I don't think anyone should embrace the fairness doctrine.

I would not take kindly to being told that I have to give equal time to someone else in an argument. TV and radio, at its core, are presenting one or the other side of an argument (when editorializing like on OReally and H&C). What has the world come to if the government mandates equal time? There ARE extrajudicial ways to right the discrepancies, such as starting a radio or TV show.

[BattyDem]

13. It was the law for almost 40 years

I believe it only applied to "controversial" issues.

Sure, anyone who has a different view can go on the air, but it's takes a lot of money to start a radio or television station. What happens is the people with the money get to decide what information the rest of us have access to and how that information is presented.

Like I said before, I think news programming and news channels should be required to report the news without spinning the information. Editorializing is different, though if it's done on a news channel or as part of a news broadcast, it should be identified as an opinion. People shouldn't be left with the impression that they are getting the facts when they are really getting a biased opinion.

That's just my two cents worth ... :hippie:

[jackcgt]

14. I see your point, but I just cringe at the thought of...

legislated "fairness." This is a very sharp double-edged sword.

[old dog]

16. The big questions are...

Who decides what is controversial....who decides what deserves equal time...who decides what is a biased opinion? Like I said above..be careful what you wish for, you might get your wish

[jos]

20. Why not?

It was not only the law for forty years, but the airways are a public trust. Stations should have an obligation to present differing points of view. The corporate network and station owners don't want that. They only want the right-wing view.

[rman]

21. yup, RW-ers have all kinds of arguments as to why

the Fairness Doctrine is a bad thing.

Of course without it they had a much easier time eliminating the so called liberal media. It's just that they don't seem to realize how succesfull they have been, or they wouldn't still be complaining about liberal media.

[Liberal Classic]

26. NPR, PBS?

CNN and Fox don't receive subsidy.

[Cat Atomic]

27. We need the Fairness Doctrine back, period.

We're currently just *selling* public opinion to the highest bidder. The extremely wealthy should not be allowed to use public resources for personal gain at the expense of the general public.

When I'm visiting relatives back east, literally the *only* non-music programming I can get on the radio is right wing propaganda. Those are our public airwaves, and they're not being used to serve the public interest at all.

[zoidberg]

28. Are there barriers to keep progressive voices from being heard?

I listen to Pacifica from time to time, and NPR and CSPAN have liberals on their programs as often as they have conservatives. There are plenty of wealthy liberal people. Is there anything stopping them from starting a station for progressive views?

[CO Liberal]

29. Yes - It's Called ClearChannel Communications

They own over 1200 radio and TV stations, most of which carry Limbaugh and/or Hannity and the other morons.

[jackcgt]

30. Unless they're actively blocking liberal-minded entrepreneurs

from starting their own radio stations, I must say, that it isn't Clear Channel's fault. They're broadcasting things that they know will make money. Should companies like Clear Channel seriously be in business to present fair and balanced opinions rather than turn a profit? Come on...