Now that we got Keith back maybe it is time to ask for fairness doctrine to be back too

[curious one]

We need fairness in the media. Progressive radios are dropping like flies all over the place. In my area all pf them are gone and replaced with RW loud mouths. Maybe it is time to ask FCC to restore the fairness doctrine.

[FrenchieCat]

1. what's the fairness doctrine gonna do for Cable?

YOu think the house is gonna pass a bill?
does the FCC get to do it all on their own?
Really?

[curious one]

2. Maybe I am a simpleton, but I think if we start sending emails, fax, phones, ... to everyone,

We may get it done.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I'll join you on that.....but the Fairness doctrine last I checked

was only for network television...something to do with the People's airwaves.

Reagan got rid of it. He was smart, that old bastard...smart in helping the GOP
stay in power.

[curious one]

4. I know what he did. They always slip things in when no one is looking and benefit

from it later. They are masters at it.

[LWolf]

6. I think we need to update it to include cable.

A modern version for modern media. Perhaps this is something we can agree on. Ronald Reagan's de-regulation and privatization efforts spawned the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, FOX "news," a generation of "news" spun to order by a few large owners, and set us up for the current corruption of the media. Re-instituting some modern regulation could help to reverse that trend.

It's a place to start.

[Occulus]

8. I will second that

perhaps we should explicitly exclude the internet, though.

[LWolf]

11. I'm a big supporter of net neutrality.

I'm not sure how a modern version would affect that; I see the inevitable evolution towards a more complete merger between tv and the net somewhere down the line.

[Occulus]

23. Net neutrality died with this election.

:(

[LWolf]

24. I hope not, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope at this point.

:(

[OneGrassRoot]

13. I hugely THIRD that!!! :) n/t

[Enthusiast]

5. Restore the Fairness Doctrine! nt

[Exilednight]

7. Here's the problem, Keith Olbermann is against the fairness doctrine, as are many left leaning .....

pundits.

The only place it still legally applies is PBS and NPR and that's only because of their charters and their dependence on government financing.

[OneGrassRoot]

14. Then perhaps it's new legislation altogether....

Something that doesn't exist but applies to new media.

Something similar to the Fairness Doctrine as well as "truth in advertising."

The fact that people are being paid to lie and misinform without consequence is beyond appalling and so very dangerous.

[Exilednight]

16. No disagreement there. I would love to see a law that would require .............

pundits and news organizations to print or state retractions on the front page or the top of the show for anything found to be a lie or misinformation. Or perhaps a disclaimer at the beginning of opinionated shows that states that what they are saying is strictly opinion and in no way should be accepted as "news".

[OneGrassRoot]

17. Absolutely. How could such a movement begin in today's world...

of so many options...so many that great efforts get lost amidst the white noise.

Something to think about. I think this is a viable starting point to at least get the issue more front and center, especially since the door has been opened a tiny bit with the Olbermann situation.

I've seen several instances of the media discussing "journalism" versus "opinion."

It would be good to get grassroots media people...at the local level...to get on board and promote it locally. Especially the younger people starting out in the business still have integrity in mind and aren't as beaten down by the system as the older people, perhaps. And they know how to use social media tools.

If we could get a handful of media persons -- not national and not seen as partisan in any way -- who understand the difference between an opinion pundit and investigative journalist and how dangerous the blurring of the lines has become, maybe they could help launch a campaign to bring more attention to this?

[LWolf]

25. Frankly, I don't choose a position based on Kieth Olbermann or any other left-leaning pundits.

I think we need a new, updated version that would include cable. I don't care if we call it "fairness doctrine" or "media neutrality," etc.; I want the media regulated.

[Dr Morbius]

9. I'm against it.

Sorry.

I believe a problem comes in with collusion between cable "news" providers and cable companies, and that a problem comes in with excessive ownership of media (think ClearChannel). Limit ownership, make stern rules regarding cable packages, and implement new methods of assuring accountability in the media; do not dictate content for the media. That's my opinion.

[Exilednight]

18. This is a huge part of the problem. Newscorp had to ask, and ......

received, a waiver to own two major newspapers and two television channels in the same market. There is no way that waiver should of been issued. There should also be legislation about how many media outlets any one corporation or individual is allowed to own. Centralizing our media to a small handful is quite dangerous.

[Recursion]

10. Do you trust a Republican FCC appointee to decide what is a "fair" presentation?

This was always the problem with the Fairness Doctrine.

[seabeyond]

12. i saw sunday lineup excluding fox. 9 repugs. 1 dem. nt

[Cid_B]

15. Maybe they should make more entertaining radio...

Just a thought...

[pinboy3niner]

19. There is a danger in allowing a government role...

...in regulating news content.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the OP. I don't want to see the camel's nose under that tent.

[Kingofalldems]

20. Freepers don't like the Fairness Doctrine

It must be good.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

21. No, thanks

I'll take a pass on restoring the Fairness Doctrine. The net result of its restoration would be UNfair. It would likely be extended to cable AND the internets and I'll be dipped if I want to see one-for-one liberal-to-Repiglicken opinion here where it matters.

More to the point, if you want to see representation of ideas returned to the public airwaves, you're far better off supporting the repeal of the portion of Clinton's Telecommunications Act that allowed concentrated media ownership. Therein lies the problem. It's how all those radio and teevee licenses got bought up and conglomerated into the hands of right-wing corporations.

Ultimately, the paucity of liberal media broadcasting is a function of lack of ownership. If licenses became available for wealthy liberals to purchase, we might be able to convince them that they need to do that. Right now, however, building a "liberal Clear Channel" would be next to impossible because of the Clinton Telecommunications Act.

[fascisthunter]

22. YES WE DO!!!!

always the more conservative the more likely to go along with the media just the way it is.... gee, I wonder why?

[laughingliberal]

26. Funny you should mention that. When I signed my petition I said I would be contacting my Senator...

Harry Reid, about revisiting the Telecommunication's Act of 1996.