The Fairness Doctrine: Just Say No (Huff Post)

[NYCGirl]

I agree with this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/the-fairness-doctrine-jus_b_166767.html

———snipped———

Stabenow, Harkin and Clinton must think paying lip service to the Fairness Doctrine keeps their base -- or at least Bill Press -- happy. But it's really just red meat for the other side, giving conservative talkers and bloggers something to rant about, raise money against, and rally their troops

Perhaps I'm missing a more subtle and sophisticated strategy in which these politicians are summoning the ghost of the Fairness Doctrine to keep Republicans so apoplectic that they won't have the energy to obstruct more important issues. I wish the Democrats were so clever.

More likely is that all this idle chatter will make it much harder to implement much-needed media reforms. Feeding the FDP encourages Republicans to attack any sensible media policy as the Fairness Doctrine in disguise.

Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is already slamming crucial issues like Net Neutrality as the "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet. This is ridiculous -- Net Neutrality by its very definition is content neutral -- but that doesn't mean the fear-mongering won't work.

Our leaders in Washington could instead be working to protect free speech and promote more voices in the public sphere. Congress could be moving legislation right now -- with broad popular and bipartisan support -- to rein in runaway media consolidation (the biggest obstacle to diversity of opinion on the airwaves), to increase public media funding and protect it from political interference, and to make sure the free and open Internet stays that way. Or they can keep blabbering about a backward-looking, politically doomed policy that never really worked and has been dead and gone for 20 years.

MORE AT LINK

[NJmaverick]

1. where there is smoke, there is usually fire

where the rightwing nuts go that crazy, there is probably something to it. They enjoy a huge advantage by having right wing media control. If the idea of balancing the playing field scares them that much, then it's probably a worth while endeavor

[NYCGirl]

2. Breaking up the media conglomerates is much more important. NT

[NJmaverick]

5. They don't have to be mutually exclusive

there is no reason to get the quick fix to ease the symptoms and then go after curing the disease. Although while divesting would make things for difficult for them, it wouldn't preclude them from continuing their domination.

[NYCGirl]

6. So no liberal radio stations, eh? It works both ways. NT

[NJmaverick]

7. What liberal radio stations? They are few and far between

you would end up losing a small fraction compared to what the right would lose.

Besides most poltical radio stations would simply have to be balanced with both liberal and conservative view points. That would certainly open things up to liberal on air personalities.

[NYCGirl]

8. Pass the Fairness Doctrine and you would assure there would never be any. NT

[NJmaverick]

9. It would be a fair trade off in my opinion

Rightwing talk radio taps into the anger and frustrations of the closed minded bigoted white males. There really isn't a similar group for liberal radio to tap into.

[BOSSHOG]

3. I have mixed feelings on the FD but his article doesn't sway me

The first paragraph is like saying we should not pursue laws against murder because it would be like throwing red meat to murderers. The fact that garbage who have never done anything for our country would rant and rave and rally the troops against a reimplementation of the FD (or something in the neighborhood) is the best reason to pursue it.

To quote sean hannity: Free Speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a job in radio. I couldn't agree more.

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with first amendment.

[NYCGirl]

4. I think you're drawing a false analogy with your first sentence. NT