In fairness, the Fairness Doctrine may not be of any real help to bring the media back to honesty.

[Stinky The Clown]

I've noticed a few threads, and lots of responses to various threads, wishing for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Others state that it only applies to candidates and would not shut up Rush Hannity, Bill Limbaugh, Glenn O'Reilly, or Sean Beck.

Well, it seems there's some conflating of the Equal Time Rule and The Fairness Doctrine.

From Wikipedia (which appears quite accurate on this issue): "The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates."

The Equal Time Rule is the one that applies to candidates, not The Fairness Doctrine. Again, from the Wiki: "The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates."

Perhaps of greatest importance is that these rules only applied to over the air broadcasts. Cable was never affected. And then there's the notion of "entertainer". The Drug Addled Pedophile always claims he is a simple entertainer.

Anyway, I just wanted to post this in hopes that we can be sure we're wishing for what's best and what could actually help ...... or not.

Links to Wiki below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

[AndyA]

1. It would obviously need to be updated to cover things like cable,

Perhaps it shouldn't even be called the Fairness Doctrine. But there must be some law that prohibits media such as Faux from doing what they do. Most of the time, Faux would need to have COMMENTARY at the bottom of the screen in order to get away with the type of "reporting" they do.

When so many trust Faux News as a legitimate source of news, that's a problem that must be addressed, or we're heading back to the censorship of Nazi Germany.

[Codeine]

2. But there isn't a legal framework to regulate cable content.

Or am I mistaken? :shrug:

Wouldn't be the first time.

[AndyA]

6. Cable content regulation could be part of it.

So could media ownership limitations to encourage diversity, so you don't eventually have Rupert Murdock owning ALL broadcast netorks, cable channels, radio stations, and newspapers.

(Scary thought.)

After Wall Street, we know corporations aren't going to police themselves. We also know they aren't going to do what's best for their customers. So we must establish laws that address honesty, accountability, and put limits on who can own what and where.

If we don't, we're begging for trouble down the road.

[LWolf]

3. We need a modern version.

One that is more stringent, imo, and one that covers all media.

[harkadog]

7. That of course would toss people like Keith and Rachel off the air.

All media? Including the internet? That would mean sites like DU would have to offer alternative viewpoints. Of course you know that don't' you?

[LWolf]

9. Of course, I've never listened to Keith and Rachel, so

I wouldn't miss them. Talk show hosts would have to be neutral moderators for guests? Or allow others air time to for rebuttal?

To be honest, I find the whole political talk-show phenomenon to be destructive and divisive, dividing the nation up into "teams" for rating purposes, and keeping the hate for the other team alive for the sake of ratings.

Would it diminish the nation to go back to news that is neutral, and to talk shows that moderated any discussion to include equal talk time for all points of view respectfully presented? Without the drama?

It's hard to hold people accountable for their behavior on an anonymous board. I wouldn't mind seeing the censorship go away. It would take a lot more moderators a lot more time to keep discussions honest. Still, how is DU different than Limpbaugh, except in the "side" it promotes?

Of course, DU allows more disagreement than talk radio-show hosts; it's not like we all agree on much. Some posts remind me of talk radio host-style drama, put-downs, and propaganda. Some DU posts already repeat right-wing talking points as if they are legitimate.

A modern version would have to negotiate all those issues. That doesn't mean that it can't, or shouldn't, be done.

[harkadog]

10. A site like DU would have to allow conservatives and ultraconservatives

to post on the site. Not just "disagreements among ourselves". It would have to allow posters promoting Republican, Libertarian, etc. candidates. In other words it would be destroyed. I don't agree with you about talk shows. I think they are great and that is what the First amendment is about.

[LWolf]

11. The first amendment is not about giving some people

a louder, more constant voice than others. Which is what talk shows do. I'm glad you enjoy them, since they are so prevalent, and not likely to go away.

It's interesting to me that you want to protect "free speech" for talk shows, but censor internet discussion boards. That seems a little contradictory.

[harkadog]

14. What are you talking about?

I don't want to censor anything. Your proposal would censor DU and anything else on the internet.

[LWolf]

17. How would giving everyone an equal voice

censor DU or the internet? Who would be censored?

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Would the floor around the office water cooler also need to be regulated?

Get a grip.

[harkadog]

15. Get a grip yourself

The so-called fairness doctrine if re-instituted would destroy any political programs or any programs where there was any 'controversy'. Is that what you want?

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Frank has something to say about that ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLEBQuj4QBM

(not a rick roll)

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Media consolidation is far more important that the FD ever was.

And the media consolidators are trying to do to the internet what they have done to radio, broadcast, and cable: drive diversity the fuck out.

I don't need equal time on false noise, I need a viable progressive left of center media competing fairly with other views.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I agree. I'll go one further, too ......

Of all the issues we face, media consolidation is number one. More important than the Re/Depression, more important than Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, more important than Obama's reelection, more important than a woman's right to choose, more impartant than the Supreme's horrible decision.

A fair and honest media reporting on any of these issues fairly would cause them to be seen for what they are and roundly opposed or supported. Right now all we have is a sufficient number of ignorant citizens to cause us to lose.

on edit ...... this reply is pretty much off topic from the narrow focus of the OP. But since its my thread ...... :)

[OHdem10]

8. The only real thing we need are Democrats who have conviction

and a willingness to stand up and spread our Philosophy--just
as Conservatives spread theirs. If they had conviction they
would be on TV just as often and spreading the Democratic Word.

Listen to the Pundits--they have difficulty getting Democrats
to come on TV.

Grayson is one of the newest members of Congress, I believe,
and he has been on TV more than most. Why? He believes in
something, is willing to prepare himself and has the conviction
to stand for something.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Telcom '96

That eliminated many of the ownership limits and public service requirements...opening the doors to massive consolidation of the public airwaves...putting control of the radio and teevee (including cable) into the hands of a select few corporations. Many were/are owned by big contributors to the rushpublican party. These corporations gobbled up the prime broadcast real estate and replace local voices and competition with cheap satellite programming (hate radio). They also flushed out a lot of experienced talent through constant "downscaling" and have driven the industry to the brink of bankruptcy (several corporates have already gone Chapter 11).

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to political advertising...ensuring all candidates were able to buy advertising time at the lowest rates and to provide "equal time" on mandated public affairs show (that no longer are required). News was exempt as was Talk programming that was considered "Entertainment.

It's not fairness, but access that's the problem...the need to revise or overturn this horrid rule that is at the root of many of today's problem.

Here's more about what Telcom '96...brought to you by Bill Clinton & Billy Tauzin is all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996