Anybody here still oppose bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?

[Peace Patriot]

(I mean, after we restore transparent vote counting, and remove all 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, corporate control and profiteering in our election system.)

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

1. Bust corporate 'news' monopolies! (--including busting up monopolies that include both print and broadcast media).

2. Require equal time for opposing views on issues of public importance, of commercial broadcasters using our public airwaves.

3. Restore public service as a requirement for the license to use our public airwaves.

4. Remove corporate funding and influence from our public broadcasting networks. Fund them properly.

5. Reverse the privatization of cable, and apply the Fairness Doctrine to cable news.

--------

Requiring fairness and public service in the sectors of the media that are subject to public licensing and control improves competition on matters of investigative reporting, reliable and objective news, and the independence of journalists (from commercial motives), in all other news media. Print media then has to compete with real journalism on TV/radio.

Since Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, multinational corporations have taken over not only all traditional news/opinion media in this country, but also the U.S. military (for corporate resource wars), and, well, everything else--reducing news/opinion media basically to six giant monopolies (which also control world news). Aside from 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, nothing has been more damaging to our democracy than corporate 'news' monopolies. This damage has been on full display this week, as the six rightwing billionaire CEOs who control our public airwaves and all news media (except the internet) battle President Obama's jobs and economic stimulus package, by presenting overwhelmingly Republican views--the views of the transnational corporations and the super-rich--on our public airwaves. This is partly because many of the Democrats in Congress (the "Blue Dogs") were not really elected, and do not serve our interests--thus, our party is not vigorously advocating for the people--but it is primarily a matter of editorial and news show decisions that are not fair, that do not serve the public interest, and that reflect corpo/fascist views.

The Fairness Doctrine would make these self-serving decisions less possible, less acceptable and less legal. It would greatly improve "the marketplace of ideas" by re-introducing competition. It would bring alternative views and variety to public debate. It is not a punitive measure, and not an anti-free speech measure. It is the opposite. It would open things up, make them truly free. Corporate monopolies shut things down, and make things boring because it's all so the same, and induce feelings of despair and powerlessness in the population. Spirited debate with a wide range of ideas and voices, on the other hand, has a tonic effect on democracy. It involves people. It makes everyone's views valuable and potentially successful as to policy.

The Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters would also put print media on notice that we are aware of their responsibilities in a democracy, and will hold them to account if they lie to us, and promote unjust war and corporate theft, and when they fail to be objective and fair in their presentation of news and opinion columns. Print media are not subject to the Fairness Doctrine, but they will get the message. Corporations will furthermore be unable to place an "Iron Curtain" over large regions of the country, by getting a "lock" on all print/broadcast news outlets, through monopolistic practices. Newspapers and TV/radio news shows will be independent again. Media conglomerates will not be permitted. News businesses will be limited in scope. And local media, and local small businesses of every kind, will benefit.

VARIETY is the key. That is what the Fairness Doctrine is all about. It has an unfortunate name--"fairness doctrine." It should instead be called the Free Speech Initiative.

[bbinacan]

1. I oppose it.

Unless all media becomes government run (I hope this never happens), we have to let the market decide. When liberal/progressive media people get better at what they do, then we can have parity.

[ChazII]

2. Agreed.

Phoenix is the flagship station of Nova M and while they are having some difficulties, the local business community is very supportive. They just recently moved from 1480 to 1190 on the dial.

[Peace Patriot]

6. "Let the market decide." Monopolies are not a market. They KILL the market.

The Fairness Doctrine (the Free Speech Initiative) is mainly about monopolies--monopolies over markets, monopolies over opinion. Monopolies suppress free speech.

[bbinacan]

9. What?

If Liberal media could get their act together, the "monopolies" would put them on the air.

[Doctor_J]

12. You suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

You're been listening to Limpballs and InHannity so long you sympathize with them. Do you also believe O'Reilly's claim that White Men are oppressed and that people who wish you Happy Holidays are terrorists?

[bbinacan]

15. The only thing

I suffer from is an open mind, an opinion, and FREE THOUGHT. I'm sorry that I don't fit in your narrow interpretation of the world. I hope you have a pleasant night. I'm headed to bed.

[Dinger]

64. "If Liberal media could get their act together the "monopolies" would put them back on their air."

Your words

[Abq_Sarah]

14. Is there some secret cabal

That is forcefully refusing to allow progressive talk radio to go over the airwaves?

The problem isn't a government assisted monopoly, it's a lack of audience. You actually have to listen to talk radio and you have to let their sponsors know your business is because of their advertising. My town has no "conservative" local stations but we do have a very vibrant progressive station. They are a success because WE listen.

I don't want my station to be forced by law to broadcast conservative opinions. that's a chickenshit way to force your opinion on others.

[eridani]

21. It isn't secret. Everybody know about it

Ask about the former Air America station in DC that was doing very well.

[Abq_Sarah]

30. It wasn't doing well

Their ratings sucked. Arbitron was measuring them at a fraction of a point when they were taken off the air. How many advertisers can you get for a fraction of a point? The problem is, we all want it on the air but we don't necessarily want to take the time to be loyal listeners. We're more likely to hop on the web than dial in a radio station.

[eridani]

38. That's true about the web. I listen to radio only in my car

I do podcasts or live streaming when at home. Still, I think that there is an element of corporate conspiracy here. Not easy to get off the ground if corporations specifially boycott you.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310010

An internal ABC Radio Networks memo obtained by Media Matters for America, originally from a listener to The Peter B. Collins Show, indicates that nearly 100 ABC advertisers insist that their commercials be blacked out on Air America Radio affiliates. According to the memo, the advertisers insist that "NONE of their commercials air during AIR AMERICA programming." Among the advertisers listed are Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, Federal Express, General Electric, McDonald's, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and the U.S. Navy.

[tedx]

57. that's not a conspiracy. that's brand stewardship.

brands don't wish to be identified with the vitriolic, profane, and consistently hateful speech of air america's on-air hosts. given the ugly way things are expressed by a randi rhodes or mike malloy, combined with the low levels of listenership...well, most companies simply don't want to deal with the hassle.

they've figured out that you can't offend someone into buying your product.

[Spazito]

62. LOL, I know, Rush is so loving, compassionate, etc....

NO ONE could accuse him of hate talk! If he was, most companies wouldn't advertise on his show, right?

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

[grantcart]

71. breaking up monopolies and reinstalling 'the fairness doctrine'

are two completely different things.


Monopolies should be broken up period.

[Doctor_J]

10. When progressive media get better, we have parity?!?

Wow, this is complete horseshit.

You spend way too much time listening to/watching GOPropaganda. The 6 people who decide what we watch/listen to/read are extremely right wing, and any progressive voice that begins to reach too many people will be silenced, either like Rather or like Gary Webb.

You think there are 1,000 times as many reactionary voices on the radio because they're all better at their jobs than Hartmann & Stephanie? You think that no newspapers have Labor sections because no one would read them? You think that Repuke candidates get 4 times as many newspaper endorsements because their candidates are that much better than the Dems? How drunk or brainwashed are you?

Your absurd post shows the degree to which many in our party have battered spouse/Stockholm syndrome.

[bbinacan]

13. You need to relax.

Are you suggesting that all media content be scheduled by the government?

[eridani]

22. No, just that monopolies be completely destroyed nt/t

[eridani]

20. If you get good and Clear Channel takes your station away because they don't--

--like tht fact that you influenced the 2006 and 2008 elections, then what? Profitable progressive radio stations have been replaced by unprofitable place holders more than a few times.

[Honeycombe8]

24. I disagree. I think Fairness Doctrine should be brought back. It worked.

I think some of the posters don't remember pre-Reagan. I'm old enough to remember (unfortunately?)....and it DID work pretty well. It prevented tirades, and parades of only one viewpoint, from having undue influence on the public.

It's hard for the networks to employ, but even if it's done haphazardly, it is an improvement to what we see now. I'd welcome it.

[camera obscura]

27. Agreed.

[Life Long Dem]

31. Have you watched MSM lately? I think not.

How is it balanced with all Republicans and no Democrats for the news over the stimulus package?

Tell me you watched the news, and what you saw?

Otherwise, how's it going Rush?

[bbinacan]

32. Rush?

My you're clever.

[Doctor_J]

48. You probably also love American health care (market-driven and WORST in the world),

poison food in stores (get the FDA off my back!), and would like to privatize the Fire Department, Police Department, and water supply.

Please stop listening to Rush and Boortz, or at least stop posting their shitty anti-American drivel here.

[olkaz]

58. hear hear

100% agree.

[Doremus]

72. The Fairness Doctrine served this nation well for much of the 20th century.

It did not deter free speech. It deterred propaganda from flowing unfettered on OUR airwaves.

When it was repealed in the 80s, the free market did NOT self-regulate (surprise! :eyes:). The media imploded into a 24/7 ideological monolith that is the antithesis of its original purpose as the Fourth Estate.

As with finance, common-sense regulation of the media is not only in our best interests, it's crucial to our Democracy.

Why in hell Democrats would support a failed Ronald Reagan policy is a question I'm still waiting for someone to answer.

[Hamlette]

83. The Internet is better for liberal news/entertainment than radio or TV

Which is why the right "won" the battle for that medium. Radio works when listeners like being told what to do, lectured to, listening to rants blah blah. Same for cable "news". The Internet (which the left OWNS and always will) if better suited to people who want information, interaction, thought.

I was not a big Air America fan. NPR used to be reliably good but is now hit and miss and I can read so much faster than I can "listen" (people can talk) that I'd much rather get my information online. I can scan articles, read tons of points of view, research anything, including trivia.

Bringing back the fairness doctrine won't work. Give me the Internet. I can surf/read online news on the train on my way to work. Let them listen to screaming talking heads in their traffic jams.

[AZ Criminal JD]

3. I oppose it also

Network and cable would have to eliminate their news and commentary programs. People would find an excuse to be opposed to a viewpoint or an issue no matter how trivial just to get on the air.

[eridani]

23. Networks are not entitled to jackshit from the public. The public is supposed to own the airwaves.

The Fairness Doctrine would apply ONLY to media with limited bandwith like the airwaves. Cable and the internet would not be affected, as bandwidth is unlimited.

[AZ Criminal JD]

45. Where does it say the public "owns" the airways?

Cite please. The government regulates bandwidth of the airways because it is limited. It does not "own" it.

[eridani]

50. In the Federal Communications Act of 1934

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1254

The Federal Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the airwaves, which are considered public property.

[greguganus]

53. Public property? Bidding started at $6.4 BILLION for portions of 700 Mhz band.

Frequencies are auctioned off to corporations for the highest bid. Try using someone's frequency that they purchased, and tell the FCC it's public property when you get caught. You will be fined.

http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2007/08/the_700_mhz_club.html

[verges]

54. They are leasing. Not buying. nt

[eridani]

55. It it the public that has the original right to auction it off n/t

[RepublicanElephant]

4. Thank you!

i'm sick and tired of corporations setting the public discourse in this country.

but since most americans don't seem to mind or even notice the corporate domination in our media, the least we can do is make media as fair and balanced as possible.

not enough people will search out the facts on the internet or from independent media.

most americans depend on a 30-minute corporate evening newscast to keep them "informed."

in the name of public interest, and democracy, the media should be held accountable to report the FACTS, not push ideologies.

BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!!

[bbinacan]

5. That makes no sense.

edit: see post #1

[MagickMuffin]

7. Of course I'm NOT opposed to bringing it back

I think the Democrats should be standing right there with the rethuglicons when the cameras are rolling at the Capitol. At least they could filibuster the interview:rofl:

[Solomon]

8. I don't think it's necessary. They are hanging themselves

with their nonsense. The public is sick to death of being hoodwinked and it is getting wise about the media.

[Doctor_J]

11. Yeah, sure they are.

:eyes:

[w4rma]

16. I wholehartedly support it. (nt)

[chill_wind]

17. I support it and then some: Congressman Maurice Hinchey's

Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA)

[tedx]

59. ...is unconstitutional. period.

look, folks. it's the very first thing the founders put into writing. the way to counteract speech you don't like is with more speech...not restrictions on that with which you disagree.

United States Constitution



Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Doremus]

73. Straw man.

Requiring that the news media provide equal time to differing opinions is not limiting free speech.

If anything, it expands the opportunity for free speech.

This tired straw man deserves to be retired already. :eyes:

[rpannier]

18. I support it

[quiller4]

19. I still oppose a return of the Fairness Doctrine n/t

[Baikonour]

25. After last week's all out media blitz against Obama..

I think it's pretty clear why we need the Fairness Doctrine, in some form, back.

[camera obscura]

28. No, the answer is that we need a Democratic party that's willing to fight on their own.

This media gap would be solved quickly if they knew how to deploy their surrogates. Obama was great at this in the primaries, but whoever is running the show now is out of touch.

[Baikonour]

41. So you think it's okay, let alone responsible, for the media to do what it did last week?

They may as well had said that Obama held a gun to Daschle's head and forced him to not pay his taxes.

And look at how they spun that story about Obama not wearing his jacket in the oval office, even though pictures exists of the past 4 presidents not wearing their jackets either.

It should not be the Obama team's responsibility to go on the defensive over such frivolous nonsense, especially during times like these. I understand that the Daschle story was big news, but my god, the man didn't commit first degree murder. What the MSM needs is an alternative voice to counter these ridiculous strawman arguments. We are lucky to have people like Olbermann and Maddow in primetime but still, it is simply not enough to fight all the lies and smears.

I will agree with you, though, about the primaries. Obama was virtually bulletproof to every smear that the repukes could throw his way. So now I have to ask myself, what in the hell is Axelrod doing, if it is indeed his fault?

[camera obscura]

42. I am guessing that Axelrod is no longer in charge and the White House bureaucracy is failing us

I believe that it is the president's job to defend himself, whether that president is Democratic or Republican. I like the freedom of media we have in America right now, and I don't think it would be hard to counter what the media did last week if we'd at least TRIED.

[Doctor_J]

49. Big Media, not Obama, decided to air an all-GOP onslaught last week

IMO, Big Media will oppose FD at their own peril. If they don't start cleaning up their act, no one forces them to stop running anti-American propaganda, many of them will end up like Goebbels did in the 1940s.

[tedx]

67. o, dim one!

they aren't "smears" when they're the truth. the tv media leans so overwhelmingly left that it isn't even a matter of debate, even among the marginally intellectually honest. moreover, it's not only acknowledged by those inside, it's also empirically borne out in independent/non-partisan study after study after study.

it is the true stalinist who, unsatisfied with ideological domination of tv, newspapers, and magazines, plus a huge chunk of the internet, demands dominion over the dissenting voice that finds an dfaudience over the radio waves.

i'm afraid your post makes you sound like a petulant and under-informed idealogue. i believe that anyone who reads it must also be forced to read a post that expresses an opposing point of view.

you know, in the name of "fairness"...

[Doremus]

74. Refer, please, to the graph in Post #7.

Now tell us how our armies of surrogates are supposed to obtain equal time when all but one of the cable news channels PURPOSELY don't include them?

Fall on the floor and have a tantrum?
Say pretty please?
Beg?

Expecting any monopoly to play fair is naive to the extreme.

[onenote]

26. First, how are you defining the term "monopoly". Second, I doubt the FD's return would change much

I agree that the lack of diversity in media is an issue -- as it has been for a long time, even pre-dating the repeal of the FD.

But labelling the media as a monopoly, when it most certainly is not as that term is generally used in legal and economic circles, doesn't help move the reform ball forward, imo

Also, I'm also someone who's been around long enough to remember radio and tv before the repeal of the FD and the notion that its return which might well be struck down as unconstitutional anyway) would make much difference strikes me as wishful thinking. Does anyone remember a lot of progressive talk radio existing before the FD was repealed? I don't. In fact, I don't remember much talk radio at all. I do remember Morton Downey (definitely not progressive) and the Smothers Brothers being forced off the air and replaced by Hee Haw. If that could happen when there was an FD, why do people see its return as a panacea?

[LWolf]

29. I've never opposed bringing it back. I still don't.

With updates to make it relevant in the world of modern media.

[GinaMaria]

52. +1 nt

[Occam Bandage]

33. I oppose it. Since there is no monopoly in the media,

let the public decide what shows they will support and what shows they will not. It isn't the government's job to dictate that.

[Mz Pip]

34. I don't need the government

to decide what is 'liberal' or what is 'conservative.' I can figure it out for myself. I know what Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly are and I don't listen to them.

[ClassWarrior]

35. According to last year's study, the FD isn't nearly as important as diverse local ownership...

...of stations. It was done by FreePress and the Center for American Progress. Read it here: http://www2.freepress.net/docs/talk_radio.pdf

Also, the numbered list you posted in the OP is not the Fairness Doctrine, and it's deceiving to label it as such. Please educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

NGU.

[KharmaTrain]

36. Almost ALL of This Has NOTHING To Do With The Fairness Doctrine

This all falls under Reregulation of the public airwaves...a combination of things that have happened over the past 30 years that allowed our airwaves to be controlled by fewer and fewer hands.

For example...you're #1 falls under the "Crossownership" rules. Those prevented a newspaper from owning broadcast outlet in the same city. #3 falls under the old license regulations that required Public Service programming...that was stripped in the early 90's (the "Real" Fairness Doctrine only pertained to these programs...not talk shows)...also license renewal periods should be moved back from 7 years to 3 years (where it used to be) and to allow for easier challenges and preferences for license renewals and transfers to local and/or minority ownership to create more diversity of voices and formats.

#4 I have a problem with. If left to the government, Public Broadcasting would be non-stop lectures in front of a blackboard...no NOVA, no Nature, no Frontline...programs that are among the finest on television thanks to some very dedicated corporate backers. For years, the government debated fully funding public broadcasting...why they came up with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967...that helped create multiple forms of financing. Leaving public broadcasting to the whims of politicians is asking for even more manipulation, not less.

On #5...what I think you need to focus on is the original franchising rules that required cable operators to be a lot more responsive to their communities than they are now. Deregulation whiped out the renewals on these charters and if you want to re-regulate this, it would be to once again put the power of price and content on a local level...turn cable into a utility like electricity or telephone.

Lastly, I always have a problem with the word "fairness". Whose fairness? Yours? Mine? And whose the final arbeiter of such things? The government? Imagine what the concept of "fairness" was over the past 8 years...paid for pundits.

The problem isn't fairness, it's access...reversing the repressive rules that drove local ownership out of broadcasting, overinflated the license values...thus it's very much time to re-institute caps on the number of stations a company can own and where they can own them.

I worked with the Fairness Doctrine. It has ZERO to do with variety nor even "balance". Talk shows were purposely labeled as "Entertainment" (why Rushbo calls himself an entertainer) to avoid any equal time provisions...or even any litigation for the bile he spews. Now if you want to deal with that issue...then make it possible for a bloviator to get sued for the lies they spew.

Remember, the GOOP would love to see a revised "Fairness Doctrine" that would prohibit an owner from switching formats, even if the station is losing money or has been sold...trying to legislate hate radio onto the dial. Now is that what you'd like?

Let the marketplace decide the fate of the hate spewers...they've become a liability in a business that can barely keep the lights on.

[Beacool]

37. I'm opposed to it.

Anyone who doesn't want to listen to the RW gang on the radio or over at FOX can simply change their stations or channel.

RW talk radio has as much right to exist as LW talk radio. Ditto for TV. The right has FOX and the left has MSNBC. I'm against any kind of censorship and attempts to muzzle freedom of speech, even when that speech goes against my beliefs.

:shrug:

[crimsonblue]

39. No on fairness doctrine.

[stevenleser]

40. I'm with you, see link

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Limbaughs-Ridiculous-Reces-by-Steven-Leser-081222-972.html

[totodeinhere]

43. I agree with Obama's opposition to bringing back the fairness doctrine.

Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

It would be a very slippery slope. Would Air America be required to give Ann Coulter a show on their network?

[lynne]

44. I oppose it. I oppose any/all politics of "take away" -

- and would prefer that we focus more on beating talk radio at their own game.

[anonymous171]

46. I can't wait to hear what Creationists and Global warming deniers have to say!

[RepublicanElephant]

47. hmmm...

so much support for the very free market/corporate media that colluded with bush/cheney to undermine our constitution in the name of free speech, of course.
:eyes:

[alwysdrunk]

51. Always opposed it; always will

Forcing companies to carry content that they don't want to carry goes directly against freedom of speach.

[liberalsince1968]

56. I'm all for the Fairness Doctrine.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. I do not like the idea of the government tell the press what they should say

But hey, it works pretty well in Cuba.

[sampsonblk]

61. Opposed. There must be a better way - NT

[wyldwolf]

65. I agree in principle to everything except #5... a better way?

How about this: Put time limits on how long an entity can can control frequencies on the dial and make attaining frequency rights easier and more affordable. Level the playing field so you and I can lease an TV or AM/FM frequency as easy as Clear Channel can.

But then create a "term limit" for how long a frequency can be controlled by one company. In my scenario, Clear Channel would have frequencies expiring every 10 or 20 years, in which case the frequency would be turned over to another person or company for a period time.

[GarbagemanLB]

63. I can't wait for 9/11 truthers to get airtime! and bigfoot believers! Everyone needs equal airtime,

right?


Yeah, I think it is a stupid idea.

[NorthCarolina]

66. I agree...Bring the Fairness Doctrine back

eom

[FormerDittoHead]

68. The market is perfect and self regulating, serving the interests of the general public.

:sarcasm:

Is that really what I'm reading on this thread? That "the market" in talk radio is somehow functional in serving the interests of the people?

[Dinger]

70. No Shit

This is one helluva weird-looking thread for DU.

[Beacool]

79. And the interests of the general public are only served if they hear LW views?

That smacks of communism. Let people decide who and what they want to hear and watch. Freedom of speech should not be only for those who share our political beliefs.

:(

[Clear Blue Sky]

69. I oppose it. Goes against the First Amendment.

[Doremus]

75. Wrong.

Can we put the tired old straw man to bed now?

[Life Long Dem]

76. The Fairness Doctrine sounds like a good idea.

But before I would demand something like this, I would first want to know what President Obama thinks about MSM first, before I did a anything.

[Milo_Bloom]

77. Fairness doctrine 'NO'. Anti-trust laws 'YES'

I am not for forcing somoene to put a particular viewpoint on the air.

However, I am for breaking up media monopolies and limiting the number of media outlets a single entity can own.

[depakid]

78. Gotta say- I'm all out of sypathy for folks who oppose this necessary reform

Seriously- you're your own worst enemies.

[Life Long Dem]

80. Dealing with the media takes all different forms.

All politicians want MSM's attention and they won't turn down being on the air with any MSM network. Except when Obama turned down Fox News, but I think it has to be a give and take relationship to get any air time.

Obama has been getting a lot of air time. So he must have a relationship that for the most part is probably better than it could be if they just ignore the president altogether.

Obama has a say in this because he deals directly with the media and has this relationship with MSM and yes Fox News. Everyone saw how Obama refused Fox News air time and later made a deal with them for the interview.

Just saying...and that's why I've backed off some against MSM. But from what I'm seeing now, if Obama struck a deal, it wasn't a very good one. :banghead:

[spanone]

81. bring it back....it worked. and a faux noose can't exist in the framework

they would actually have to be fair and balanced

[ItNerd4life]

82. If this comes back, will DU be next?

How anybody can support this is beyond me.

First it will be radio waves then it will be the internet. Good bye DU.

Sorry, I like having web-sites like this.

[biopowertoday]

84. Obama opposes it.