I'm against the fairness doctorine on strategic grounds

[AllentownJake]

Right now the RW's main tool for getting their talking points out is limited to the radio and Foxnews. There is the corporate media but to be fair they cover any scandal because it sells air time. They were in bed with Bush for a while but so were some of the democrats in congress :shrug:

My point being that if the fairness doctorine is enacted it may force the GOP to improve their internet prescence. Right now if you look at demographics people who are listening to talk radio are aging. They aren't really attracting new listeners. The media has probably peaked and now will go through a naturual slow decline. Conservatives by nature do not like change and therefore the only way you could force them onto the new media was to take away the old media from them. The people that listen to Hannity or Rush are mostly republicans and a small democratic audience that listens to them to find out what they are up to and because they like pain.

If you doubt what I'm saying compare HuffPo to Drudge, DailyKos to Worldnet daily, and FreeRepublic to this site. Technologically we are light years ahead of them. I'd rather delay their move.

[alwysdrunk]

1. Thank you. Like we need AM Radio.....

I couldn't believe it when I found out that this wasn't just a netroots movement and there were actual Democrats in office actually considering this.

What the hell makes people think they can force people to listen to something they don't want to listen too? Like they won't just change the station until they find another RW show saying what they want to hear!

They dominate the medium of the past. We dominate the media of the future. We should try to to keep it that was as long as possible.

[AllentownJake]

2. Mostly older dems are advocating

trying to refight a battle they lost in 1987.

[RC]

24. Maybe it is because us older folks have live under the "Fairness Doctrine"

and know it worked and that we need to reinstate it.

There is a reason the Republicans wanted to get rid if it. We are seeing it now on AM radio and the so called news.

[AllentownJake]

28. The current state of things is about to vanish

When people can access any song they want, any program they want, any book they want, any movie they want from a handheld device that plugs into their car stero, TV, etc and also is their cell phone.

Now if you can come up with a fairness doctorine that speaks to a generation that doesn't have air waves but has WiFi.

It was an old idea and your lives weren't that much better under it. You still had two terms of Nixon and Reagan with a break for Carter.

The elections we lost the worst electorally were all under a time when a fairness doctorine was in place.

[RC]

35. What are you talking about?

The Fairness Doctrine has to do with Broadcast radio, AM & FM and TV. You know the "Public Airwaves".

What do you think Rush, Hanney and all the other reality challenged wingnuts use with hardly a centralest, let alone any liberal voices to be heard?

We need the Fairness Doctrine reinstated.

[Festivito]

4. Even you'll become older.

And, in your home, you'll listen to what is comfortable. Right now WJR's signal out of Detroit his several states and Rush gets his hour, so does Hannity, also a couple other mostly RW talkers, and NO DEM VOICE AT NO TIME NO DAY NO WAY.

People who hate Rush just leave the thing on 24/7 and hear Rush when he's on. You don't have to force them to listen.

They force themselves.

Yes, we need to keep the internet, and be ahead of them for as long as we can stay ahead of them.

But, they'll be back with a vengeance.

[AllentownJake]

7. The FCC has no jurisdiction over the web

and yes when I get older I'm sure there will be new media and a new media device that I'm not as comfortable with as my computer.

We are fighting a battle that we lost in the 80s that cost us in the 90s and is now going through its decline.

I just don't see the reason to spend the political capital and to force the GOP to do the right thing strategically for their future.

[depakid]

Huh?

Of course it does!

Where do you think the fight over net neutrality (among other things) resides?

[AllentownJake]

17. If we had a fairness doctorine over content on the web

this site would cease to exist.

[depakid]

19. Of course the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't apply to the web

Though without net neutrality, it would be much more difficult to prevent various entities from favoring certain sites over others.

[depakid]

14. Yet another post with no idea what the Fairness Doctrine Fairness Doctrine was

-what it did, how it worked and why it's needed.

:eyes:

[AllentownJake]

16. If your going to take shots at my ignorance

At least take the time and courtesy to post a link to enlighten me.

[depakid]

18. Here ya go

Two recent posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8022613&mesg_id=8023049

The difference between the web and radio & TV is that the web can't easily be monopolized- though there are plenty of far right propaganda sites out there(and people do in fact get false and misleading information from them).

[Festivito]

3. No, we need the fairness doctrine or better for the future.

We have to hit everything. And, they do have internet presence. People just are not believing them even though they do have better funded graphics. This will change. People will forget. Dems will rebuild the economy, and then they will return, steal the media and steal the property once again years from now.

Our problem in getting information out has been that we did not have a media outlet for Gore and Kerry. They piled Gore's lies, and we could not respond that they were fabricating those lies. Air America helps. But, it will wane as people forget how angry they are now. And its coverage is sporadic, bad quality signal, and poorly administered at the local station level.

We need to be alongside them no matter how much money they have to push us away in whatever medium they use.

The internet is great, but unless we make it possible for everyone the way we made electricity available everywhere, it will remain a great thing for some and not all voters. We miss coverage in rural areas specifically because we do not have the fairness doctrine.

As long as we have media that is full, like FM and AM, we need a fairness doctrine to let other sides of stories speak, because they'll be back.

[alwysdrunk]

5. You think more people listen to AM than use the web?

I know you are talking about access and availability, but that increases towards 100% every year. It won't be long before having a cellphone means having broadband internet access. Soon, even audio-only content will be accessed via the web.

And what about the OP's point about the generational gap? I'm 31. I've never listened to Air America. II don't even own a working radio. I have 4 PC's in my house. I have probably 10 different devices that access the web, only my stereo even has an AM receiver on it. I only ever listened to FM radio in my car and only for music and local info. I think most people my age are similar.

I have to think the number of hours per week of usage for the internet is far higher than AM radio for the public as a whole. Let the old farts have it.

[AllentownJake]

8. Right now we are going through a transition phase

NBC, ABC, and CBS are about to shrink and be forced to go through fundamental strategic changes...the executives at the companies that hit the right time and right strategy will survive the rest will be like typewriter executives in the 80s.

[Festivito]

11. I can understand.

AM may die, but we'll need it for a few more elections. Seniors may be stodgy, but they vote regularly.

That FM you listen to in the car gives you news with the traffic and they filter what you hear.

This was an easy election. They wanted us to win. Boom and Bust, that's how they operate.

They will find ways to limit our speech again, even on the internet. It's already being tried that certain sites off home internet return more slowly, the home ISP literally holds it just to make it less attractive than the higher profit sites. AT&T also says they can stop my service if I say bad things about them.

[AllentownJake]

12. People who listen to Rush

want to listen to Rush. They don't want fair and balanced. They want their view point expressed and Rush does it in a way that is funny to them. Not to me but to them. If you change Rush's format to a debate show and Rush announces he is going to stream on the intertubes his followers are just going to learn how to use computers to hear him.

Its the same reason I watch Rachel Maddow or go to Daily Kos. I don't watch Rachel for a fair and spirited debate or to hear the GOP side.

[Festivito]

20. Not so. He's on their station and they don't change the channel.

They mostly ignore him, but occasionally they take a break. That's what they hear. Whatever is on. Rush's message is the same each day. Dems bad, Cons good. Over and over.

You have your choice now. It will slowly disappear. Single stations will work to dominate. I hope they don't but they will try. The commercials will become directed directly at you, and at some point you'll get a different news story than your neighbor. Because it is tailored to you. But, what news stories will be replaced and with what.

[AllentownJake]

21. I hate to break it to you

There are alot of people in this country that like Rush Limbaugh and his points of view and that is the reason why Rush Limbaugh is on in ever city in this country and is a multi-millionaire.

Same thing with Bill O'reilley and with Sean Hannity.

[Festivito]

23. Sure, but only until they realize that he lies and lies and lies.

Then they look at him differently. And then they realize they've lost a lot of money to sweet sounds of propaganda. And we have lost tankers full of money. We've lost more money than some small countries are worth.

If someone has to stop people from hearing some truth in order to stay on the air with the ratings that keep him there, there is something wrong with that person doing what he's doing.

[AllentownJake]

30. Actually no they don't

They make excuses for him. Trust me, have you ever tried to confront a Rush fan with truth? I think we demonize their leaders a little too much without realizing the base is filled with lots of demons as well.

Even under a fairness doctorine the other side doesn't get to pick the person expressing the other side. So Rush will pick the person expressing the other view

What you'll essentially get is a worse version of Hannity and Colmes.

[Festivito]

38. Don't underestimate the power of radio's voice in the background.

It repeats, it is trusted as replicated, that is that the same truth or lie comes across every radio tuned to that station.

Republicans do have their epiphanies. It takes longer and more bricks falling on them, but they are reachable.

Oh, Rush would not pick the alternate voice. The station owner would be responsible. And his license could come under fire for not complying well.

[AllentownJake]

6. Traditional Radio is dying and so are the TV networks

It seems to me its a partisan battle over something that does not matter.

People my age to 35 are not consuming the product on AM/FM radio. If something is on Satelite or streamed from the intertubes than it is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

The only thing your doing is moving the disgusting media that a certain part of this population likes and moving it into another forum.

My generation voted for Barack 70-30 and Barack's internet outreach is alot part responsible for that.

I'm guessing in 10-20 years there won't even be a network news room and Rush, Hannity, and their ilk will be relics of the past like Larwence Welk.

[comtec]

13. thats what they've been saying about radio for 30 years+

It's always on the verge of dying.
it'll never go away - thank goodness.

I think there needs to be fairness in media, restrict ownership of stations and all media to companies.

IMHO we need to prevent ANY FOREIGN company from owning AMERICAN media.

That would kill murdoch and his hate mill fastest.

prevent ONE COMPANY from OWNING ENTIRE MARKETS, by buying ALL the radio stations in that area.

ENCOURAGE PUBLIC STATIONS! by making low-power permits cheaper and easier to get.

The Fairness doctrine, ironically enough, right now would hurt US MORE than them!

but in a few years after control has been FORCED back into MORE PUBLIC HANDS, then maybe the fairness doctrine can come back in full swing.

I listen to AM OVER the internet :)

[alwysdrunk]

25. Now THIS is a good point. I don't want media oligopolies

Now, if we are talking about limiting how large a media company can get, that I can get behind. But forcing a company to carry content that they don't want to carry is a whole other thing.

[AllentownJake]

27. Fully Agreed

[AllentownJake]

29. The Fairness Doctorine and Media Consolidation

are two entirely different issues.

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.

And 30 years ago you didn't have hand held devices that were your phone, record collection, email, and internet access that can plug into your car stero or TV.

[Festivito]

22. True, but they're not dead yet.

We will need a retention system for internet news. Help insure that people are seeing the same news.

But, until then we'll need to win a few more elections.

[AllentownJake]

26. 2010 and 2012 is totally determined on whether

we don't have a great depression.

2016 will probably be the last election where AM radio has any possible impact.

[comtec]

31. Space communication will be by radio...

anything extra Terra, radio signals are smaller, less bandwidth, and generally analog,
Radio will be around for a v e r y long time.

[AllentownJake]

32. Yes when we get to Mars

I hope we have evolved past Rush.

[FreakinDJ]

9. ALL Propaganda is BAD Propaganda

Its not about "Stagigerize" - its about Democracy

And you can't have a true Democracy when the citizens don't know the truth.

85% of the American populace beleived Saddam Hussien was involved in 911 for how long? That right there is proof positive Re-regulation is in dire need

[AllentownJake]

10. So you move Propoganda from the AM dial to

the Web where it can't be regulated at all

That's all you are doing and if you think the web will be better than AM radio look at the Birth Certificate nonsense.

85% of America can't find Iraq on a map btw. We are very stupid ignorant people who got a decent leader despite ourselves.

[AllentownJake]

15. I want to add that the reason most Americans believed that

Is that their President and Vice President told them that after they had just watched two land marks in two cities hit by air planes.

Rightly or Wrongly people were inclined to trust the President (It was right to look to the President for leadership after the attack it was wrong of the President to lie us into war).

No Fairness doctorine can ever stop a US President after 3000 Americans are killed on American soil by a foriegn attacker from shamelessly lying us into a war. The people who should have stopped that were the US Congress.

If you want to restore democracy we need to end the police action nonsense and if you want to go to war with a country than the US congress has to actually vote to declare war on a nation before an attack is authorized with the exception of self defense of bases or the actual physical United States and its territories.

[TheKentuckian]

33. Break up these ownerships and it would help but

I really believe the reason the media is so awful is that news departments are expected to be profit bearing so in a practical effect, the mission has moved from public service to selling ads which means that only a fairly smart, discriminating, and most importantly a very demanding public will ever drive them to do their jobs.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I've said this before and got seriously chewed out for it

AM radio is a dying medium and the longer the right wingers cling to it, the better off we are.

I would be in favor of re-instating the fairness doctrine for television (at least broadcast TV). I do think it was better in the days when the news was a public service and not another profit center.

[depakid]

36. "the days when the news was a public service "

We should also recall that there were much tougher standards to meet regarding public interest programming and benefit to the community, and they had to be proved up at license renewal time.

Yet another of the many rational media regulations that had worked well for many years prior to their systematic dismatlement by Mark Fowler (a corrupt media lobbiest appointed by Reagan to head his FCC).

[LWolf]

37. I'd rather have a modern version of a fairness doctrine. nt

[snowbear]

39. I don't know enough about the Fairness Doctrine to agree or disagree, but....

.
.

I do think it's good that we talk more about it here, and it's REALLY good to read the opinions from all sides on it!!

~~~~