Do we really need a "Fairness Doctrine"?

[steelmania75]

Think about it. If the mainstream media is liberal, and there's blogs on the internet such as this one, the HuffPost, and the Daily Kos, do we really need it?

[havocmom]

1. oh boy

can I get the concession stand on this one?

:popcorn:

[Patsy Stone]

5. I don't know about you

but I love it when they're curious about stuff.

:popcorn:

[havocmom]

9. yeah, it's cute, isn't it?

Like watching birds when you play a recording of calls.

[dysfunctional press]

22. self-delete

wrong place.

[depakid]

2. "If the mainstream media is liberal"

:rofl:

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all.

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the commercial talk stations in his town he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

.......

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[baldguy]

3. People afraid of the "Fairness Doctrine" are afraid of a free exchange of ideas.

They're afraid of democracy.

[Oregone]

14. If someone's argument is strong enough to stand on their own, they should welcome the opposing view.

And as a society, we should mandate it.

[Change has come]

4. LOL

Thanks for the laugh! :hi:

[babylonsister]

6. Busted! HA! nt

[av8rdave]

7. The "liberal media" is another myth successfully perpetuated by the right

It seems to me that we either need the Fairness Doctrine restored or we need to totally revamp media ownership rules.

[prairierose]

16. We really need to do both..

restore the fairness doctrine and revamp media ownership rules and break up the conglomerates that have taken over the media. It is bad enough that there is little public affairs programing left but there is also little local ownership and this leads to very little local news also. so not only do people not understand what is happening in the country or the wider world, they also have no idea what is happening their town or area.

[jmowreader]

8. If the mainstream media WAS liberal, we wouldn't need it, no

The mainstream media is just as liberal as the far-right-wing quadrillionaires who own it.

[rocktots]

10. Yes it is needed...!

It would be nice to have a 'true' left wing, and a 'true' right wing, and both can slog it out, the TV and Radio airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY.

That being said, only the far LEFT OF LEFT will WATCH or listen to Amy Goodman, only the far right will listen and agree with Blush Blimpo.

If corporations and special interests are allowed to dictate what is said, than nothing will ever change.

We need some true far left and far right on the air, because sometimes, they actually do overlap on issues of freedom.

This will never happen though.

[havocmom]

18. Popcorn!

git yer popcorn!

:rofl:

Stop! Yer killin me!

:rofl:

[Oregone]

13. I disagree a bit...

Even if the media was "liberal", its still good public policy to outlaw owner censorship. All views should be aired, not just conservative or liberal views (or whatever else they want to label the media).

[FreakinDJ]

11. Only if you want Democracy in America

[Oregone]

12. Yes we do.

[Orrex]

15. I make a habit of adding Tombstoned DUers to my Buddy List

Welcome to my Buddy List, steelmania75! I mean, you're not there just yet, but I figured I should welcome you before you get the boot.

[havocmom]

19. you do that sniffer check too?

We should keep percentage scores

[wtmusic]

17. Have you nothing better to do on a Monday night, Rush? nt

[catnhatnh]

20. Yesterday is dead and gone....

and tomorrow's out of sight,
and I haven't got a pet,
Help him make it through the night...

I'll check in the morning and see if you're still here to eat the kibble.

[FrenchieCat]

21. The Corporate Media is about as liberal as Sean Hannity!

IN fact, they are soooooo NOT liberal, they are one of the big reason we are in this fucked up mess.

[dysfunctional press]

23. absolutely NOT. what we need is a de-consolidation of the media...

and limits on ownership. rolling back the telecom bill that bill clinton signed into law would be a FANTASTIC start.

[depakid]

30. "Free" market soultions have worked so well in every other industry

haven't they?

Nope. This is a textbook case of market failure that can only be remedied by renewed regulation and enforcement.

[dysfunctional press]

39. how do limits on ownership constitue a 'free market'...?

besides- people who think that a 'fairness doctrine' would effect entertainment programs like rush limpballs or glenn beck would be sorely disappointed by the reality.

[depakid]

40. There's that meme

In practical terms- Limbaugh et al aren't "entertainment." No sensible person would argue that (not that I'm arguing against divestment- just saying it won't solve the problem by itself.

[dysfunctional press]

41. they are and would still be categorized as 'entertainment'...

it's not their fault if some people interpret it as more than that...

are you beginning to see why a 'fairness doctrine' would be utterly worthless in achieving what it's supporters think it would...? :shrug:

[sharkynola]

24. Fairness?

I think with the advent of the internet we should be more worried about what's accurate and what's not. You can listen to conservative talk radio all day long but if you really think that's 'news' or 'facts' maybe you should re-consider what your reality is......................

[tkmorris]

25. Welcome to DU Shark!

May you last a lot longer than our friend the OP there, who is assuredly on his way back home quite soon.

:toast:

[Bucky]

34. Welcome to DU, Sharkyola

You get my last heart.

[Strong Atheist]

37. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[backscatter712]

26. The real Fairness Doctrine, or the Hannitized strawman?

Hannity and other right-wing assclowns have tossed forward this ridiculous strawman version of the Fairness Doctrine, conflating it with the Equal Time rule (the Equal Time rule is still in effect, and strictly limited in scope to political advertising - if your TV station broadcasts n minutes of ads for one candidate, it should at least offer the opportunity for the other candidate to air n minutes of ads, assuming he's got the money to pay for them.)

The real Fairness Doctrine did not have an equal time rule. In fact, it gave radio and TV stations quite a bit of leeway, but at the same time, gave them the duty to cover all sides of a political discussion. They could slant to one side if they wanted - there's plenty of room for editorial commentary in the Fairness Doctrine, but you're not allowed to shut the other side out.

That's all the Fairness Doctrine is. It scares people like Rush and Hannity because even though they could still have their shows, and still attack the hell out of the left wing, they couldn't do so completely unchallenged, and would have to face having occasional guests on their show that might *gasp* disagree with them!

[av8rdave]

27. The only times Rush has been remotely entertaining

are when he is exposed to people other than his pre-screened "dittoheads." He is totally incapable of intelligent debate, which is why he avoids it.

The de facto leader of the Republican Party. Says a lot about Republicans, doesn't it?



Come to think if it, what I said above isn't entirely true. Rush and Hannity are both VERY entertaining when they're frothing at the mouth over the Fairness Doctrine! Almost as much fun as a good old fashioned GD flamewar!

[mmonk]

28. Mainstream media liberal? This is DU. We live in the real world.

[liberalpress]

29. Funny thing is

whenever I ask somebody to point out SPECIFICALLY the liberal bias in the media, they just shrug and say "It's everywhere."

Trnaslated from talkshowese into everyday English, that means, "I can't give specifics. It's just something I heard on the radio so it must be true."

Oh, and by the way, full disclosure: I must admit I'm old school. I believe the media should be neither liberal or conservative but neutral, presenting both sides, lettting listeners decide which viewpoint is correct. Oh, and I also think radio should be local. Wow. I'm such a dinosaur.

[elizfeelinggreat]

31. Count me with the dinosaurs!

They can't even manage to tell you what song you just heard, never mind the local weather or traffic.


After seeing the documentary about that one man who kept a little radio station going during Katrina I think we should all be involved in getting those laws changed.

[ChazII]

35. Another dinosaur here. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

32. What do you mean, "we", Kimosabe?

Nice try.

[Bucky]

33. Is it an example of the Fairness Doctrine when right wing talking points end up on DU?

(Pssst, you forgot to mention how the facts have a well known left wing bias as well)

[Strong Atheist]

36. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay. nt.

[ShortnFiery]

38. YES! It's a good start in continuing efforts to BREAK-APART the corporate controlled M$M. n/t

[spanone]

42. yes we do because the media is not liberal and what do blogs have to do with fairness?

another hit & run post

[Cerridwen]

43. Yup.

Psssst, your r/w talking points are showing.

If you're truly curious, read this.

[MadBadger]

44. I dont like you. I only like the freepers who donate before pissing on DU

[rollingrock]

45. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

hah! and I thought I was a nOOb.

[Skittles]

46. LOLOL

you poor, ignorant thang :rofl: