William Randolph Hearst says... The Fairness Doctrine? What a joke!

[Writer]

It won't cover my newspapers, because my newspapers aren't subject to FCC regulations. Heck, it won't cover cable networks, either, for the same reason. And forget that new-fangled gadget - the Internet.

Why? Well, I'll tell you, skipper! It's because there's this extremely inconvenient constitutional item called the First Amendment that says that it doesn't matter who owns the press - whether it's me or whether it's my Uncle Phil - we have the right to use our newspapers as a means of self-expression. It's just like the old penny presses from the Eighteenth Century. Those were all partisan rags meant to support the Republicans or the Whigs. This whole idea of a "fair press" is a Twentieth Century invention following the Progressive Age. But if you talk to the Average Joe the Plumber-type, he wouldn't be able to tell you that. He believes in a tit-for-tat press. Tit? Oops. I beg your pardon, miss. Didn't mean to offend ya.

If you want to, as you say "change the media," well then heck, you'll need to revisit the First Amendment, not some lackluster measure put forth by the toothless tiger called the FCC! Do your homework - heck go talk to a media scholar or a First Amendment scholar. They'll set you straight. That is, if you're willing to listen to some good 'ole-fashioned common sense.

Hey - and while you're at it - pick up today's copy of the New York Journal. I'll let you know exactly how I feel about the internment of German immigrants during The Great War.

ROSEBUD!

Signed,

~WRH~

[w4rma]

1. What's your point? The advocates of that rule, including myself, all know this. (nt)

[Writer]

5. So you want to curtail free speech in order to push for a fair press? n/t

[w4rma]

7. How does the fairness doctrine curtail free speech? It forces more speech on public airwaves. (nt)

[Writer]

8. Because it governs the content of news reporting. It is a content-based regulation..

Dan Rather spoke up against the Fairness Doctrine in front of Congress in 1987 for this very reason.

[w4rma]

9. It adds more content. So what's your problem? (nt)

[Writer]

10. And that is the very problem - you are forcing the hand of journalists to cover...

particular stories. It is government intercession in the freedom of the press.

Do you have a problem with the First Amendment?

[w4rma]

11. And what's wrong with journalists being forced to cover important topics when using public airwaves?

I don't see a problem here. Right now they only cover one side of a topic and ignore the other side(s). So they are using the public airwaves to convince people of things rather than giving the public all the information to decide on their own.

[Writer]

12. Because that's contrary to the principles of the First Amendment.

So if you want to permit this type of government control over media content, you will have to revisit the First Amendment... that's a rather tall order.

You know, there is something else that doesn't happen often enough that should for the sake of democracy: voting. Why don't we all vote? We should vote; it's a part of being a good citizen. But many eligible voters don't. Why don't we force them to vote? Make it mandatory? Because voting is a form of symbolic speech, and the government cannot compel a person to speak (outside of a courtroom) as much as it cannot prohibit speech through prior restraint.

There are many aspects of a free society that ideally should happen (fair speech devoid of hate and in support of democracy), but they don't. Why? Because we are a FREE SOCIETY. American democracy is not set-up in order to tell people how to behave outside of common law.

[Oregone]

19. The first amendment is an amendment, which can be amended and repealed

Its not the divine word of god declaring absolute morality. Damn man. Get over it.

[Writer]

21. How would you amend the First Amendment? n/t

[Oregone]

23. By curtailing the "Freedom" or the "free press"...(amending it)

* gasps from the crowd *

Yeah, I know you have an issue with that. I don't care.

I would make the privileged press responsible to the people and revoke their "freedom", insofar as it means they can be subjected to an owner's censorship. This might seem extreme. Ive lived in a reality created by not doing this, and it is very damn well extreme (full of war and wealth disparity).

[w4rma]

24. The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment are entirely compatible.

It survived many years of court challenges. It's a Constitutional rule.

[Oregone]

Its a matter of trust. Would you trust the government to force the hand, or people like Bernie M.

Really, because thats what is happening. Do you want the government to force more content, or corporate owners to censor content. You are choosing the later to support.

[Writer]

18. The reality is that the media are at the behest of whomever owns them.

So if you're saying that the owners have control over content? Well, yeah. But if you want to create a public-funded media system that the government controls, then that's something else entirely.

[Oregone]

22. If the media has privileges, they most certainly should have responsibilities

How much should a society give, without asking back? The Fairness Doctrine asks for truth via eliminating corporate censorship.

[Oregone]

15. Censored speech is not free speech

Fairness Doctrine protects against censorship. Bottom line.

[Writer]

16. Only the government can "censor." Otherwise the media are in the private sphere and can be...

controlled by the private person or entity that own the media.

[Oregone]

17. Ah, I didn't know it was only censorship when a government did it, and not some rich SOB.

* shakes head *

Whatever then. I guess it was cool all the control the media owners had over the message after 9/11 and the wars. If thats "freedom" in a "free society", fuck it. I don't need it.

[Writer]

20. I think all that crap was because of public sentiment after 9/11.

And the media, being the commercial entities they are, were appealing to us. Hence, no real oversight of the Bush Admin.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. psst, I will also let you in on another

big secret... the guy who sank the Maine worked for my newspaper chain

[Writer]

3. Yes, indeed. That's that yeller journalism. n/t

[RC]

4. Cable may not be subject to the Fairness Doctrine, but the off air tv and radio

stations they carry sure are. And that is enough.

[KoKo]

6. Exactly...and Cable needs to be revisited....

[RC]

13. Cable itself was never covered because it is not broadcast over the air.

It is the "Public" airwaves that are covered under this Doctrine.

[KoKo]

25. Doesn't matter...the issue of "airing both sides" needs to be addressed with Cable... n/t

[Writer]

27. And how can you justify the government constitutionally controlling cable content? n/t

Sorry for the alliteration.

[Oregone]

14. Fuck the first amendment then. Fairness Doctrine now.

Yes, I mean that. Just because a fallible amendment was created for a failable constitution, doesn't mean its the divine word of God. They should amend such, to protect the people from a monopoly of ideas. The press cannot be "Free" if the ownership can control and tailor the message, and censor viewpoints on important public issues.

Stop corporate censorship now. Institute the Fairness Doctrine.

[Cerridwen]

26. The 1st Amendment does NOT guarantee you profit, platform,

megaphone, bully-pulpit, audience, revenue (advertising dollars), protection from backlash (boycott), publically granted license or guarantee of same, the right to claim lies as truth (see case law about falsely crying fire in a theatre), nor protect you from bankruptcy for exercising your 1st Amendment rights.

We live in a "market" driven, capitalistic society/economy.

The First Amendment is fine.

Go do your debate with the "market."