The Return of the Fairness Doctrine? 732
Slithe writes "Last week at the National Conference for Media Reform, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich (a long-shot candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination) stated that the Fairness Doctrine may be reinstated. Kucinich will be heading up a new House subcommittee that will focus on issues around the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation that required broadcast media to present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner. The FCC repealed it in 1987 — Democrats at the time tried to forestall this move but were ultimately thwarted by a veto by President Ronald Reagan. Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have stated that it was only used to intimidate and silence political opposition. At the convention, Kucinich said, 'We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda. We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.'" In the interest of fairness, here is a Republican, free-market perspective on the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine worked out great last time (Score:3, Informative)
Fairness Doctrine = More stupid programming (Score:3, Informative)
What would happen is that no radio station would ever introduce a political radio show (incumbent ones with huge audiences would likely stay and be counterbalanced with unprofitable "other side"), because if I want to take a chance on a 1 hour radio program, I need to give up 2 hours, one for the program I am interested in, and one to counter-balance it. The net affect is that stations move away from talk radio, and move towards top-40 pop music, where they know that they'll make money and not need to deal with the FCC.
The way it is structured is designed to destroy political programming, because political programming is only interesting if it is one-sided to some extent. Equal time to both sides isn't entertaining.
Now, this is targeting conservative media, because conservative media uses the confrontational political format. Liberal media of that type has failed in the marketplace, because it's boring... The extreme left-wing websites are entertaining, but they don't translate into the other media spheres because of the self-perception of America's left of being intellectually elite, which requires not entering the name calling gutter that is how talk radio is fun. Compare Rush Limbaugh to Air America... his program is funny, mostly childish making fun of people, bad impressions, punning, etc., it's gutter humor applied to a political sphere. Listen to Air America programming, it's a bunch of people whining about politics. Air America launched when the country, politically, was the exact opposite of when Limbaugh's popularity exploded (1992-1994, during the Democrat "tyranny" of full control of three branches, 2004-2006 was similar with Republican "tyranny"). Rush Limbaugh ran "America Held Hostage" as his theme, mocking the whole process. Air America screamed about how evil Gitmo is. The former is funny and tongue-in-cheek, the latter is up for serious discussion that people don't want during their daily commute.
The "liberal media bias," as it exists, is much more a function of American political distribution than a fundamental approach to the market. Fox has proven that one can insert a "conservative media bias" and compete in the marketplace, albeit with less funding and inferior reporting. People don't choose the liberal media in the open market (Fox proved that by entering, people are split, shocking considering the superior journalism of CNN), they choose media and just get the bias. The bias isn't intentional, it isn't corporate strategy to push people leftward, it's a function of the fact that to run nationwide media services essentially means setting up shop in NYC or LA, and NYC and LA are liberal cities. Further, our journalism schools graduate people that are disproportionately left of center, the field attracts liberals (improve the world, expose evil, etc., etc.), so naturally, the media trends liberal. It does so not out of a conspiracy, but just the fact that the people gathering the facts are more likely to be left-of-center, and inadvertently spin things.
The fairness doctrine would not affect news programming, so liberal/conservative spin would remain there. It would affect opinion/commentary programming, which would dry up and disappear, and we would get more thoughtless brain-dead programming.
I'd love to see a viable liberal talk radio or similar program that survives on its merits, but they need a framework that is entertaining. Things like Daily Kos show that the people do exist, but they need a format that isn't cheerleading for the Democratic Party and it actually entertaining on its merits.
Air America would have been much better off if it was designed as a viable business, attempting to attract an audience, instead of a political effort
Re:Choosing Sides (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:4, Informative)
Let me help you out:
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:3, Informative)
The supreme court disagrees with you. the fairness doctrine has been ruled not to violate the 1st amendment. [fair.org]
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:2, Informative)
When's the last time you watched any of those stations? Ever heard of Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, or Joe Scarborough? CNN International is fairly balanced, but every domestic all-news channel in the US panders to the conservative viewership. Now it may well be that liberals simply don't watch enough TV for anyone to care about their demographic, or maybe the controversial stances of conservatives/ultra-conservatives just make for more dramatic television, but whatever the reason, there has been a clear and steady march to the right among domestic US news stations and shows ever since the debut of FOX "News".
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:1, Informative)
It's fringe groups that have broken off from the official church, mostly in Utah and with a few hundred to maybe a few thousand members each, who still practice polygamy. They may call themselves mormon, but they aren't associated with the official church in any way. Those groups usually hide out in the mountains or extremely rural areas where they aren't likely to ever run into any kind of law enforcement.
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:5, Informative)
That really depends on your point of view. To me, Rudy Guliani, McCain, Bush, etc aren't real conservatives. Buchanan, Tancredo and such are. However I have the sense to realize my bias accounts for that, and most people do percieve Guliani, McCain, Bush as conservatives. Unfortuantly, you haven't grown into that point.
Just a hint: Joe Lieberman doesn't count as either a Liberal or a Moderate. Joe Biden doesn't count as a liberal, and Hillary Clinton doesn't either. Barak Obama does, sometimes.
Sure, just don't count O'Reilly, Bush, etc as conservatives then. Deal?
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, no. Clinton shut the government down TWICE to make the republican congress come back with BIGGER budgets. Or don't you remember the "the evil republicans are gutting the school lunch program!!!" (note: they weren't, they were increasing it both on a total basis and on a per-student basis - both relative to inflation - they were merely not growing it as fast as it had been crown earlier)?
Later on, of course, Clinton and the Republicans were capable of compromise, and we got a short-lived (almost) surplus.
Re:Fairness Doctrine silences right talk radio (Score:5, Informative)
Its also a fact that many journalists today, especially talking head TV types are going to abandon their personal beliefs in favor of whatever view point drives their ratings the best so most are blowing with the wind, Anderson Cooper being a sterling example. They will also generally do and say whatever their editors and bosses tell them to, since most of them will sacrifice their ethical position personal beliefs to stay employed and to get ahead in a very competitive business.
Re:BULLSHIT (Score:4, Informative)
Please do not substitute "liberal" for "democrat". Not every single little thing the democrats care about automatically become part of the "liberal agenda" and--though this may sound downright RADICAL--there are actually MORE THAN TWO POSSIBLE POLITICAL POSITIONS in the world.
Re:And yet the rabid right, for all its media cont (Score:2, Informative)
The Republicans lost because they fucked up, not because the Democrats have learned how to win elections. I can make a case for this, and I have written about this in my journal.
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:2, Informative)
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:2, Informative)
Have fun in your little dream world. Don't come crawling to the rest of us when reality hits you in the ass.
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:3, Informative)
No, it wasn't. Did the government take over private industry to enrich the state?
An expanded government is not socialism. You can expand the power of any type of government, be it capitalist, fascist or libertarian, without it becoming socialist.
When did the government take ALL your money? And since when were taxes an inherently socialist thing? Capitalist governments have been taking taxes for a very long time. Seems you just don't like government power and taxes - but I don't know why you call that socialism, when those things are common to all types of government.
No, it's not "close enough" by any means.
Do you have any evidence of that? It's certainly not the experience of most countries in the world. America has a huge problem with poverty, quite stunning compared to other modern wealthy countries. Meanwhile, the countries with good welfare systems have much fewer problems with crime and health and other problems relating to poverty. The poor are more equal members of society than they are in America. Contrast this with almost every country without any welfare or safety net, and there are shocking problems.
So, I guess the government shouldn't take any of your money to build roads, or fund the army, or help corporations? By the way, the government issues the money, it's not really yours, it's the property of the US Mint. Without any government, you wouldn't have currency in the first place.
But the biggest thing is that it probably costs you more NOT to have that money help people - your standard of living is lower if there are lots of people suffering. And if society falls apart into chaos, then your money isn't going to help you much. It also isn't going to help much if you get robbed or killed.
So, I guess you shouldn't take advantage of any of the services the government provides, like roads, police, parks and fire departments. After all, those things were created from money taken without people's consent. It's all socialism.
But once again, you have confirmed that you're a pretty hardcore right-winger, so it's no surprise you see any more moderate position as socialism or "left wing." Perhaps you shouldn't live in a democratic society, and more to somewhere without much of a government, where everything is based on who has the most money or guns.
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:4, Informative)
I think you may be associating non-NPR programs with NPR news. A Prairie Home Companion is produced by American Public Media (APM). APM does not produce NPR news (meaning programs like All Things Considered, Morning Edition, etc). Most likely, you're listening to your local public radio station that airs programs in addition to NPR news. Whatever Garrison Keillor says is not the editorial opinion of NPR.
I had to look up the initialism LGBT (I learned something new on /.!). I can't say I've heard NPR news reports that PROMOTE gay issues. Does reporting on the gay marriage controversy imply an endorsement? If yes, then Fox News is guilty as well.
NPR is the only news outlet I've ever heard that actually provides in-depth news reports. I especially enjoy when they cover Supreme Court cases by reporting on the dialogue between lawyers and the justices.
As for voter fraud reporting, here's just one link I found on the NPR site http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=6444162/ [npr.org].
As far as being left or right, I prefer to think of myself as independent. I don't subscribe to any extreme or narrow minded agendas.