Fairness Docrine Coming Back?

[Annie]

I'm sure if you Nazis have your way the "fairness doctrine" will come back, you can't sell your shit by legitimate methods ie competition so you will dictate that it be swallowed..

Exactly!

There is nothing 'fair' about the Fairness doctrine.

The fact is that anyone has the opportunity to put a radio talk show out there. Broadcasters market what sells, what the public wishes to hear. The liberals have tried and tried to compete in this market and they have failed, over and over again. So why not take it by force?

This president and these liberal lawmakers are bad news and this nation is going to suffer.

I agree, but I think it also shines a light on the fact that most 'liberals' really are against free speech and markets. I think this puts them at odds with the majority of Americans.

 

[Care4all]

I'm sure if you Nazis have your way the "fairness doctrine" will come back, you can't sell your shit by legitimate methods ie competition so you will dictate that it be swallowed..

Exactly!

There is nothing 'fair' about the Fairness doctrine.

The fact is that anyone has the opportunity to put a radio talk show out there. Broadcasters market what sells, what the public wishes to hear. The liberals have tried and tried to compete in this market and they have failed, over and over again. So why not take it by force?

This president and these liberal lawmakers are bad news and this nation is going to suffer.

Only because you have NO IDEA what the Fairness doctrine is and how it operated when it was used....

sometimes i wonder if this is intentional for those on the right....passing along the bullcrap that Rush is spinning regarding it....but, i guess this is just typical....that no one bothers doing their own research on it!

care

 

[DiamondDave]

Some folks on the right are afraid of people hearing both sides of the argument?

Fox is about as center right as the New York Times.

Fox is Murdock. Murdock is far right. Fox is far right.

I see both right and left on MSNBC. Not a fake little shill like Holmer and Hannity.

There are as many liberals as conservatives. Check out the damn demographics. Since the last 8 years Reign of Terror and Stupidity, there are now more registered democrats than repubs.

So with your supposed argument here, you would then agree that anything funded by Soros or Gore is then inherently far left and inherently biased against an opposing viewpoint? So "Media Matters" and other things need to be forcibly counterbalanced within their own publications or shows or lectures?

Fox NEWS is more center than MSNBC... Whatever the talk show hosts are on there is of no consequence... just as Olberman's entertainment show does not matter in terms of whether MSNBC is left, center or right... but by far, MSNBC's news coverage is indeed left biased in a pretty severe way

Talk shows are entertainment.. and in no way need to be censored in this way

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm sure if you Nazis have your way the "fairness doctrine" will come back, you can't sell your shit by legitimate methods ie competition so you will dictate that it be swallowed..

Exactly!

There is nothing 'fair' about the Fairness doctrine.

The fact is that anyone has the opportunity to put a radio talk show out there. Broadcasters market what sells, what the public wishes to hear. The liberals have tried and tried to compete in this market and they have failed, over and over again. So why not take it by force?

This president and these liberal lawmakers are bad news and this nation is going to suffer.

Only because you have NO IDEA what the Fairness doctrine is and how it operated when it was used....

sometimes i wonder if this is intentional for those on the right....passing along the bullcrap that Rush is spinning regarding it....but, i guess this is just typical....that no one bothers doing their own research on it!

care

And radio/tv is not nearly as it was when there WAS the fairness doctrine... and neither was syndication....

And as stated... talk radio is entertainment... I don't see anyone screaming for opposing viewpoints to be forced upon Cosmo radio, or playboy broadcasts, or whatever other shows you wish to bring up

 

[Care4all]

the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with talk show hosts.....sigh

 

[Annie]

the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with talk show hosts.....sigh

It has to do with owners and 'local issues.' Right.

 

[auditor0007]

Some folks on the right are afraid of people hearing both sides of the argument?

Fox is about as center right as the New York Times.

Fox is Murdock. Murdock is far right. Fox is far right.

I see both right and left on MSNBC. Not a fake little shill like Holmer and Hannity.

There are as many liberals as conservatives. Check out the damn demographics. Since the last 8 years Reign of Terror and Stupidity, there are now more registered democrats than repubs.

Yea, we all see a lot of "right" on MSNBC, lmafao. Tell us all something; if so many people wanted to listen to liberal radio hosts, why aren't there more of them? Do you want us to believe that the greedy prick owners of radio stations are more interested in political allegiances than to making money? Why was Air America such a miserable failure? It hardly had any competetiion from other liberal programming? It should have been a gold mine. So why don't liberals listen to that type of programming.

I tell you what; if liberals listened, they would have shows all over the airwaves.

 

[DiamondDave]

the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with talk show hosts.....sigh

It does in terms of syndication to local radio...

If a local radio station chooses to air Rush (or some Air America show, for argument's sake) because it performs well and plays to the demographics and brings in the $$$, in no way should the local station be forced to have an opposing viewpoint, only for the sake of having an opposing viewpoint.... if the listening audience craves the other side, a smart business person will provide that

 

[Care4all]

the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with talk show hosts.....sigh

It has to do with owners and 'local issues.' Right.

It has to do with issues of Public importance.

Let's say the radio station owner with the only public station reaching the masses in his community, owns the local stadium/football team as well.....he wants the City to build a new stadium for the Football team on the tax payer's dime and all he does is promote such on his radio station, in his news casts...how great a new stadium will be yah dee dah....

BUT he doesn't have his station cover the news on the opposing views....why it would be bad to build him this stadium on the tax payer's dime....

he would be forced to do such Annie since he is using the Public's airwaves.

And not forced to put another radio talk show host on for an opposing point of view for the same length of coverage....that is utter bullshit.

He would have to cover it in his news casts, or through an ad that the opposing side wants to pay for and run on his station...., or an infomercial..... whatever the owner chooses as his means to let the public know the full story on the stadium he wants.

EQUAL airing time on opposing views of issues of Public importance IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

care

 

[Annie]

Fairness Doctrine Returns to Front Burner - 2009-02-14 07:00:00 - Broadcasting & Cable

Fairness Doctrine Returns to Front Burner
Democrats continue to raise specter of reinstatement, worrying broadcasters
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, February 14, 2009

Fairness Doctrine: Complete Coverage from Broadcasting & Cable

Commentary: Government Imposed 'Fairness' Is A Proven Failure

Democrats are still discussing the return of the Fairness Doctrine, either in its previous incarnation or in a new form. And all the talk is fanning the flames of broadcaster concerns.

The latest senator to bring up the issue was Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who told a liberal talk radio host that she'd had conversations with some fellow Democratic senators, and she expected there would be hearings on the issue in this Congress. Stabenow's office had not returned calls for comment at presstime, but some of her colleagues have done little to assuage broadcaster fears.

The flurry of activity on the Fairness Doctrine front has been building since the inauguration of President Obama. But the issue has been simmering for years as high-profile Democrats—John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi among them—either talked up the doctrine, or did not talk it down in conversations about attacks on Democrats from the right. Potentially adding more fuel to the fire, Kerry last week was made chairman of a new communications subcommittee with media oversight powers.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell helped ignite a new round of debate with a lengthy speech on the topic two weeks ago. The doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. McDowell warned that if it were revived, it might not “wear the same label. That's just Marketing 101: If your brand is controversial, make a new brand.”

He suggested that the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with terms like localism, diversity or network neutrality. “According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the doctrine: The government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint-neutral,” he said.....

 

[dilloduck]

I don't give a shit what it does. If it has to be called the "fairness doctrine" you can't bet your sweet ass that it ain't anywhere near fair.

 

[Annie]

the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with talk show hosts.....sigh

It has to do with owners and 'local issues.' Right.

It has to do with issues of Public importance.

Let's say the radio station owner with the only public station reaching the masses in his community, owns the local stadium/football team as well.....he wants the City to build a new stadium for the Football team on the tax payer's dime and all he does is promote such on his radio station, in his news casts...how great a new stadium will be yah dee dah....

BUT he doesn't have his station cover the news on the opposing views....why it would be bad to build him this stadium on the tax payer's dime....

he would be forced to do such Annie since he is using the Public's airwaves.

And not forced to put another radio talk show host on for an opposing point of view for the same length of coverage....that is utter bullshit.

He would have to cover it in his news casts, or through an ad that the opposing side wants to pay for and run on his station...., or an infomercial..... whatever the owner chooses as his means to let the public know the full story on the stadium he wants.

EQUAL airing time on opposing views of issues of Public importance IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

care

Care, you should do some reading about the number of 'airwaves' available. It's not the days of 'olde.'

 

[Care4all]

I don't give a shit what it does. If it has to be called the "fairness doctrine" you can't bet your sweet ass that it ain't anywhere near fair.

And you know this HOW?

 

[Care4all]

It has to do with owners and 'local issues.' Right.

It has to do with issues of Public importance.

Let's say the radio station owner with the only public station reaching the masses in his community, owns the local stadium/football team as well.....he wants the City to build a new stadium for the Football team on the tax payer's dime and all he does is promote such on his radio station, in his news casts...how great a new stadium will be yah dee dah....

BUT he doesn't have his station cover the news on the opposing views....why it would be bad to build him this stadium on the tax payer's dime....

he would be forced to do such Annie since he is using the Public's airwaves.

And not forced to put another radio talk show host on for an opposing point of view for the same length of coverage....that is utter bullshit.

He would have to cover it in his news casts, or through an ad that the opposing side wants to pay for and run on his station...., or an infomercial..... whatever the owner chooses as his means to let the public know the full story on the stadium he wants.

EQUAL airing time on opposing views of issues of Public importance IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

care

Care, you should do some reading about the number of 'airwaves' available. It's not the days of 'olde.'

There are no more public airwaves in radio or tv today than there was yesterday, so i have no idea what you mean?

 

[WillowTree]

I don't give a shit what it does. If it has to be called the "fairness doctrine" you can't bet your sweet ass that it ain't anywhere near fair.

And you know this HOW?

answer the basic question.. why can't progressives get their message out without having it legislated... doyathink? we'll wait !

 

[Annie]

It has to do with issues of Public importance.

Let's say the radio station owner with the only public station reaching the masses in his community, owns the local stadium/football team as well.....he wants the City to build a new stadium for the Football team on the tax payer's dime and all he does is promote such on his radio station, in his news casts...how great a new stadium will be yah dee dah....

BUT he doesn't have his station cover the news on the opposing views....why it would be bad to build him this stadium on the tax payer's dime....

he would be forced to do such Annie since he is using the Public's airwaves.

And not forced to put another radio talk show host on for an opposing point of view for the same length of coverage....that is utter bullshit.

He would have to cover it in his news casts, or through an ad that the opposing side wants to pay for and run on his station...., or an infomercial..... whatever the owner chooses as his means to let the public know the full story on the stadium he wants.

EQUAL airing time on opposing views of issues of Public importance IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

care

Care, you should do some reading about the number of 'airwaves' available. It's not the days of 'olde.'

There are no more public airwaves in radio or tv today than there was yesterday, so i have no idea what you mean?

Between AM/FM, SAT, INTERNET there are a myriad of venues that were NOT available in 1940's:

Fairness Doctrine

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year....

Yes there's more, bottom line, broadcasting and FCC saw the chilling effect it was having...

As I said, many liberals haven't a problem curtailing free speech or markets.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't give a shit what it does. If it has to be called the "fairness doctrine" you can't bet your sweet ass that it ain't anywhere near fair.

And you know this HOW?

I'm old and experienced in these propaganda matters

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some folks on the right are afraid of people hearing both sides of the argument?

Fox is about as center right as the New York Times.

Fox is Murdock. Murdock is far right. Fox is far right.

I see both right and left on MSNBC. Not a fake little shill like Holmer and Hannity.

There are as many liberals as conservatives. Check out the damn demographics. Since the last 8 years Reign of Terror and Stupidity, there are now more registered democrats than repubs.

Until I read this post, I never quite bought the image that my HS Biology teacher presented about a monkey sitting at a keyboard eventually typing out the plays of Shakespeare.

 

[Care4all]

I don't give a shit what it does. If it has to be called the "fairness doctrine" you can't bet your sweet ass that it ain't anywhere near fair.

And you know this HOW?

answer the basic question.. why can't progressives get their message out without having it legislated... doyathink? we'll wait !

it has NOTHING to do with Democrats getting their message out.

It has to do with issues of public importance, where the station who has the only Public radio in town reaching everyone, does not cover the issue of public importance thoroughly...where all that is important to the public is aired and the public can decide.

That's it.

it does not cover talk show hosts....

it is regarding the news, with issues of GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST and IMPORTANCE....not yackydee yak....political spinning of talk show hosts.

Care

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has to do with owners and 'local issues.' Right.

It has to do with issues of Public importance.



care

Care, you should do some reading about the number of 'airwaves' available. It's not the days of 'olde.'

Agree.

And, BTW, exactly where does public funding of NPR, left of center radio, fit in? How is it that our dime is paying for the expression of a political perspective???

I know, they claim it's only a tiny part of their funding, but-
"This is clever, but the impression it leaves is not accurate. Isolating "competitive grants" is no measure of NPR’s federal funding. NPR receives substantial money from the CPB – through member stations. The 2007 financial statement of NPR Inc. shows under "Revenues" that $65 million of its $169 million in reported revenues come from "Station programming fees," and another $2 million comes from "membership dues." Member stations receive grants through CPB, which they send back to Washington for dues and programming. "
NPR Says NB's 'Absurd,' Tells Fox News It's Fair and Balanced on Prayer Story | NewsBusters.org