Fairness Doctrine

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
One starts by establishing the goal, then works to produce the plan and guidelines needed to achieve it. So far, we're still arguing about the goal, with your side rejecting the very concept of fairness and serving the public interest.

What I don't understand about this debate is this: 90% of US households have cable or satellite TV, broadband is approaching 70% of US households in the next few years, many people have access to multiple newspapers , podcasts and satellite radio are getting more popular etc..

Yet, we are debating the "fairness" of AM radio?!? I understand the "public air" argument but if the goal is truly for "fairness and serving the public interest" then wouldn't it make sense to apply this to the avenues that are most used by Americans?

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Isn't it ironic that the same people who complain the loudest about the Patriot Act are the same ones who are now advocating this restriction of free speech? The amusing thing here is to watch the mental gymnastics they must go through to rationalize their hypocrisy.

Your above statement doesn't refute any of the arguments made on this forum, for or against the fairness doctrine.

 

[theeedude]

I think we need to give fairness a chance before bashing it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to give fairness a chance before bashing it.

Just like we gave the surge a chance befor bashing it right?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to give fairness a chance before bashing it.</end quote></div>
Just like we gave the surge a chance befor bashing it right?

The surge is getting its chance.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to give fairness a chance before bashing it.</end quote></div>
Just like we gave the surge a chance befor bashing it right?</end quote></div>

The surge is getting its chance.

And the unfairness doctrine had its chance before Reagan rightfully squashed it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to give fairness a chance before bashing it.</end quote></div>
Just like we gave the surge a chance befor bashing it right?</end quote></div>

The surge is getting its chance.
</end quote></div>

And the unfairness doctrine had its chance before Reagan rightfully squashed it.

Reagan squashed? All the more reason to reinstate it.

 

[Mxylplyx]

You liberals are walking a very, very dangerous road supporting this. Lets not forget that before democrats came to power, the government was controlled entirely by the Republican party. Giving a party precedent to regulate speech in any format essentially gives it to the other party, and it will come back to bite you. You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. Let me say again, before democrats took back the house and senate, the entire government was ruled by Republicans. Let that sink in a bit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Isn't it ironic that the same people who complain the loudest about the Patriot Act are the same ones who are now advocating this restriction of free speech? The amusing thing here is to watch the mental gymnastics they must go through to rationalize their hypocrisy.</end quote></div>



Your above statement doesn't refute any of the arguments made on this forum, for or against the fairness doctrine.

Previously in this thread I threw out the question "And who will be the judge of what is "fair and balanced"?". This is a critical question and no one has answered it. Should we put Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in charge of determining what's fair and balanced? IMO this is Pandora's Box and the potential ramifications are far reaching.

I'm a free speech advocate and am surprised that anyone here would support the "Fairness Doctrine" as it clearly advocates government intervention into a highly coveted right that both conservatives and liberals generally hold dear. Some Libs here obviously don't like conservative talk radio and will look the other way on the free speech issue if they think it works to promote their ideology. Libs have reasonable access to radio to propagate their ideology. However, since they can't make it work, they want to rig the game.

IMO...when government regulates free speech, it's no longer free speech.

There's little doubt that those here advocating the "fairness" of the Fairness Doctrine would sing an entirely different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. Hell...they would be screaming bloody murder and everybody knows it. This is nothing more than the rationalization of intellectually dishonesty.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
You liberals are walking a very, very dangerous road supporting this. Lets not forget that before democrats came to power, the government was controlled entirely by the Republican party. Giving a party precedent to regulate speech in any format essentially gives it to the other party, and it will come back to bite you. You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. Let me say again, before democrats took back the house and senate, the entire government was ruled by Republicans. Let that sink in a bit.

And you can thank the Reaganite scum that took over the airwaves after the fairness doctrine was overturned and brainwashed people for all those years to support Republicans. There is a reason a big portion of Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Now where would they get that idea?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Isn't it ironic that the same people who complain the loudest about the Patriot Act are the same ones who are now advocating this restriction of free speech? The amusing thing here is to watch the mental gymnastics they must go through to rationalize their hypocrisy.</end quote></div>



Your above statement doesn't refute any of the arguments made on this forum, for or against the fairness doctrine.

</end quote></div>
Previously in this thread I threw out the question "And who will be the judge of what is "fair and balanced"?". This is a critical question and no one has answered it. Should we put Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in charge of determining what's fair and balanced? IMO this is Pandora's Box and the potential ramifications are far reaching.

I'm a free speech advocate and am surprised that anyone here would support the "Fairness Doctrine" as it clearly advocates government intervention into a highly coveted right that both conservatives and liberals generally hold dear. Some Libs here obviously don't like conservative talk radio and will look the other way on the free speech issue if they think it works to promote their ideology. Libs have reasonable access to radio to propagate their ideology. However, since they can't make it work, they want to rig the game.

IMO...when government regulates free speech, it's no longer free speech.

There's little doubt that those here advocating the "fairness" of the Fairness Doctrine would sing an entirely different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. Hell...they would be screaming bloody murder and everybody knows it. This is nothing more than the rationalization of intellectually dishonesty.

The USSC upheld the fairness doctrine in 1969. Public airwaves are a limited resource that can be subject to such fairness rules.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
You liberals are walking a very, very dangerous road supporting this. Lets not forget that before democrats came to power, the government was controlled entirely by the Republican party. Giving a party precedent to regulate speech in any format essentially gives it to the other party, and it will come back to bite you. You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. Let me say again, before democrats took back the house and senate, the entire government was ruled by Republicans. Let that sink in a bit.</end quote></div>

And you can thank the Reaganite scum that took over the airwaves after the fairness doctrine was overturned and brainwashed people for all those years to support Republicans. There is a reason a big portion of Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Now where would they get that idea?

"brainwashed"

Are you serious?? Dave, is that you? You have proved yourself a tool not worth responding to when you use words like that. You sound just like a communist dictator, trying to protect the people from speech you find undesirable.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Conservative radio complains about the so called mainstream media bias, yet b!tch and moan when held to the same standard. Seems like a case of do as I say, not as I do.</end quote></div>
They may bitch and whine but they aren't enacting legislation to force a viewpoint to be heard.</end quote></div>
And that is a huge difference.

No one supporting the Fairness Doctrine has addressed some very simply, yet importatn points.

1. how should this apply to fictional shows that present a liberal, or conservative view point?

2. Will radio hosts need ot have show topics submitted to a government agency to get an "approved" counter point.

3. what if there are more then two sides to an issue, does the government get to decide which is the correct 'counter point'?</end quote></div>
I agree, that's the real issue. Only the most die-hard partisans should oppose the concept of requiring balanced coverage. The hard part is figuring out how to define and measure "balanced". That would be a much more interesting and challenging discussion.


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing.</end quote></div>
So do you think it's bad the government regulates the broadcast of pornography? If not, your assertion fails. (I also disagree that the Fairness Doctrine materially regulates speech, but that's covered in other posts.)

Pornography is another subject. If you expose yourself to a 6 year old, and get arrested is that having your free speech squashed?


We are talking about the government demanding the regulation of political speech.

 

[shrumpage]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
You liberals are walking a very, very dangerous road supporting this. Lets not forget that before democrats came to power, the government was controlled entirely by the Republican party. Giving a party precedent to regulate speech in any format essentially gives it to the other party, and it will come back to bite you. You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. Let me say again, before democrats took back the house and senate, the entire government was ruled by Republicans. Let that sink in a bit.</end quote></div>

And you can thank the Reaganite scum that took over the airwaves after the fairness doctrine was overturned and brainwashed people for all those years to support Republicans. There is a reason a big portion of Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Now where would they get that idea?</end quote></div>

Do you hear more political discussion on the radio now, or when you did 30 years ago?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
You liberals are walking a very, very dangerous road supporting this. Lets not forget that before democrats came to power, the government was controlled entirely by the Republican party. Giving a party precedent to regulate speech in any format essentially gives it to the other party, and it will come back to bite you. You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. Let me say again, before democrats took back the house and senate, the entire government was ruled by Republicans. Let that sink in a bit.</end quote></div>

And you can thank the Reaganite scum that took over the airwaves after the fairness doctrine was overturned and brainwashed people for all those years to support Republicans. There is a reason a big portion of Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Now where would they get that idea?

The irony of this post is unbelievable.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Toasthead

Liberals have tons of outlets...they are called the main stream media, why would they need additional talk shows to further spout their beliefs? Conservative radio thrives because its the ONLY place you will hear people discussion the other side of the issues.

Another example of the right-wing cult.

This would be the same MSM that had about 7 of 400 guests interviewed on programs before the Iraq war who were opponents to the war?

What 'other side'? That the world is flat? That Clinton murdered Vince Foster? That Saddam was a 9/11 plotter (41% still believe that)?

The difference is that liberals are 'fair'; they invented the fairness doctrine that gave the right more airtime, to make sure 'all sides' were heard; the same right that got rid of it.

That's why liberals tend to include other views like right-wingers in their media (Air America excepted, as it's a counter to right-wing talk radio), while the right does not. It's why the liberals made the fairness doctrine work, while the right-wing would prevent the fairness doctrine from working.

I have my doubts about restoring it. While it was destroyed in a bad way, by a partisan Reagan administration, the right make a good case how they can't administer it anyway.

Who would Bush appoint to oversee it, Geraldo Rivera? Ann Coulter?

It was more important when there were basically one three outlets, to ensure that the nation received diverse content.

A more sophisticated approach may be more helpful now, including protecting the internet from the schemes to let providers differentiate service based on fees paid.

Another wouold be to ban the Bush administration practice of the government creating propaganda to air as tv news segments without any disclosure to the viewer.

I also suspect that the market will increasingly catch up where the right's head start erodes over time. People eventually tend to learn they're being lied to.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Isn't it ironic that the same people who complain the loudest about the Patriot Act are the same ones who are now advocating this restriction of free speech? The amusing thing here is to watch the mental gymnastics they must go through to rationalize their hypocrisy.</end quote></div>



Your above statement doesn't refute any of the arguments made on this forum, for or against the fairness doctrine.

</end quote></div>
Previously in this thread I threw out the question "And who will be the judge of what is "fair and balanced"?". This is a critical question and no one has answered it. Should we put Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in charge of determining what's fair and balanced? IMO this is Pandora's Box and the potential ramifications are far reaching.

I'm a free speech advocate and am surprised that anyone here would support the "Fairness Doctrine" as it clearly advocates government intervention into a highly coveted right that both conservatives and liberals generally hold dear. Some Libs here obviously don't like conservative talk radio and will look the other way on the free speech issue if they think it works to promote their ideology. Libs have reasonable access to radio to propagate their ideology. However, since they can't make it work, they want to rig the game.

IMO...when government regulates free speech, it's no longer free speech.

There's little doubt that those here advocating the "fairness" of the Fairness Doctrine would sing an entirely different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. Hell...they would be screaming bloody murder and everybody knows it. This is nothing more than the rationalization of intellectually dishonesty.

I don't think that anyone would decide what is fair and balanced, the law would give ppl an opportunity to express opposing view points.

In Germany's last free election (1932 I think) the Nazi party got ~30 % of the vote. A large portion of their influence and propaganda came over the radio.
Whenever you get a control of a media outlet by a single entity (corporation, govt, etc) there is the risk of mass manipulation and distortion for the purpose that entity's own goals.

 

[Genx87]

Sweet jesus you really going to bring up the Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930s and their mode of influence as a basis of argument? You do realize technology wise we have moved ahead quite a bit. I know hard to believe it, but millions fly across the atlantic each year as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Sweet jesus you really going to bring up the Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930s and their mode of influence as a basis of argument? You do realize technology wise we have moved ahead quite a bit. I know hard to believe it, but millions fly across the atlantic each year as well.

What an example of raising an irrelevant distiction.

I guess analogies between birds and planes are wrong because one has feathers and the other steel, clearly they have nothing in common!

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Sweet jesus you really going to bring up the Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930s and their mode of influence as a basis of argument? You do realize technology wise we have moved ahead quite a bit. I know hard to believe it, but millions fly across the atlantic each year as well.

Ummmm. How does that address what I said? I know it's not my reading comprehension. Maybe you should explain a bit more please...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"I don't think that anyone would decide what is fair and balanced, the law would give ppl an opportunity to express opposing view points." - QTArrhythmic

Are you suggesting that we subsidize air time for Dems, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, KKK, etc. so that they all get a "fair" shake...or just Dems? They all have reasonable access to radio as well as numerous other media outlets to express their opposing views.

"In Germany's last free election (1932 I think) the Nazi party got ~30 % of the vote. A large portion of their influence and propaganda came over the radio." - QTArrhythmic

Good point. Also, in U.S.'s last election the Democratic party took control of the House and Senate. A large portion of their influence and propaganda came over the radio.

"Whenever you get a control of a media outlet by a single entity (corporation, govt, etc) there is the risk of mass manipulation and distortion for the purpose that entity's own goals." - QTArrhythmic

My point exactly!

 

[shrumpage]

Even though no one has tackled my very simple challenge here is another one.

Do Rush, Hannity Medved, Savage and O'Reily have the same opinion about the immigration bill?

Medved supports its, Savage doesn't - does that mean they balance each other out? If they have 3 hours each on the same station - would that be acceptable form of 'fairness'

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: senseamp
And you can thank the Reaganite scum that took over the airwaves after the fairness doctrine was overturned and brainwashed people for all those years to support Republicans. There is a reason a big portion of Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Now where would they get that idea?

Oh, I don't know.... Al Gore?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

zomgwtfbbqpwned!

:shocked:

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp

AM radio is broadcast and should be held to the same standard they hold other broadcast media, like television. If they want no media bias, it should apply to their medium too.</end quote></div>

And exactly what standard is television held to? The main channels that is; not the pay ones.
</end quote></div>

The conservatives hold television to the fairness standard. They complain about bias all the time. They should be held to the same fairness standard. Hence the fairness doctrine.

the difference is they don't use the force of the government to enact it. They attempt to sway the opinion of the people viewing it.


Look, Democratic Senators are outright saying its conservative radio they want gone. the only way to do so is to make it economically impossible for radio stations to broadcast what their audiences want.

Show me where the "Conservatives" are talking about using the government to restrict liberal views from opinion programs on TV. Go head, get your news sources in line.


The fact is, they are attempting to RESTRICT freedom of speech because they don't like the content. Some of them went so far as to make a radio station EXCLUSIVE to themselves and it failed miserably. Should their failure be rewarded by taking from those who succeed?

 

[smack Down]

I think we need a quality doctrine. It would do more to create a fair radio environment because we all know facts have a liberal bias.