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 The FCC repealed it in 1987 — Democrats at the time tried to forestall this move but were ultimately thwarted by a veto by President Ronald Reagan.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.
flamewar comin' (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to sit out this flamewar, but I just have to get involved.
Despite quite a bit of disagreement with him, I have a fair amount of respect for Kucinich, if for no other reason than he at least *seems* to be consistent in what he says and does. And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?
<sarcasm>Surely politicians are bought and sold by corporate interests. Surely we can trust committees of appointees to handle things in a "present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner."</sarcasm>
It seems like everyone in the political scene thinks that there is a media bias one way or another, and, for all I know, there probably is but I don't see it being made better by putting the politicians in charge of it.
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:5, Funny)
Who will watch the watchers of what the watchers watch?
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:5, Insightful)
Got that? He wants the Governtment "to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.". Remember, this is the same govt that will at any given time be led by the political party you are against. Do you want republicans to have this power to alter radio and tv science content? Do you want democrats to have this power to alter radio and tv economic content?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear merciful God, no.
Very good insight, and a strong argument against expanding the role, scope, and power of government in this way- because to
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:4, Insightful)
> people to talk about things in a fair, balanced manner,
> but unfortunately, people are only humans, and humans,
> as a group, simply cannot be trusted.
Well I'll just go ahead and play devil's advocate for a moment: Did it not occur to you that government consists of humans, in a group? For instance, the quotefrom Kucinich in TFA, "We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," tells you exactly what his intention is: He wants to forcefully spread his own agenda, regardless of the fact that it has failed in both the marketplace and the polls. His allegation of a narrow corporate agenda is patently absurd. If you compare the reports aired on Fox News with those on CBS, for instance, you'll find that either 'the agenda' is not narrow or if either station shows a narrow point of view, there is not one singular agenda at play. His solution is to replace this false perception with conditions in which a single entity would have final say over what could be aired, with the narrowing condition of furthering his progressive/socialist agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I'm not free to kill you for disagreeing with me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is "a view" and "an opposing view". That's silly. Let's take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:
I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on evolution vs. creationism?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on climatologists vs. global warming deniers?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on the "Moon hoax" or Cydonia?
What about Timecube?
The JFK assassination?
I have no idea how this could be implemented and not have it backfire.
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had enough of "fair and balanced" coverage, thank you.
-stormin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the problem is that the metric isn't well defined. Getting rid of the bill does, of course, solve this problem, but it remains that the majority voice isn't heard.
How about we make it simple? Petition enough people and you get to talk.
Why isn't there a real pastafarian controversy? Because not enough people are serious about
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:5, Funny)
I do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wikiped
The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that this law would be a flaming sword in the hands of virtually anyone that wants to pick it up. Combine increasingly partisan and divisive media with itchy-trigger-finger lawsuits and you start to see what kind of mess could occur.
Imagine if every time someone opened their mouth on a media outlet they were subject to threats, lawsuits, fines, etc. Stray one inch into foul territory, or better yet, report truth that ois politically damaging or offensive and watch your career go bye-b
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about the Timecube? The Timecube is humanity's future, and your denial of it demonstrates that you are ACADEMICALLY RETARDED and subject to the whims of JESUS HOMOSEXUALITY under the influence of the WORLD BANK.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no such thing as a "global warming denier." There are only deniers of anthropogenic global warming. And they're climatologists, too!
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.
There is certain media that the right has a monopoly over, AM radio being one of them. Pretty much all of the desirable media (ie movies, television, network news) is fueled by people who's politics lean to the left. Want to talk about how many college professors lean to the left? Will a fairness doctrine apply to them?
The fairness doctrine is silly, both sides get their messages out in different ways, over different media. Some of it is subtle, some isn't. If you are looking for a democratic talking head at 8pm EST, turn on MSNBC. Are you looking for someone who leans to the right? Turn on Fox News.
What you don't seem to know... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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?
And yet the rabid right, for all its media control (Score:4, Insightful)
The American people made their decision independently of Faux News & Rush Limbaugh. As a liberal I oppose the Fairness Doctrine. We don't need such an arbitrary system.
Still no need for a Fairness Doctrine (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem for Democrats is that they need to learn how to win elections. They don't need a fairness doctrine. They need a solid plan, and right now I think they're doing that. They won a lot of Republicans over (relatively speaking) for the recent minimum wage & prescription drug negotiation votes in Congress. Republicans in Congress are mad at being bullied by the radical Right.
Democrats have the power, now the
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
At best, your comment is an oversimplification.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah. When I hear people say "moderate", all I can think is that they don't want to make the effort to determine the better policy, and just default to splitting the difference.
But if I say that the First Amendment protects my right to say whatever I want on my website, no matter how unpopular, is that radical? By world standards, it is. In other countries, like France and Canada, you are not free to exp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a moderate doesn't affect your perception of objective reality, unlike how some people on the far-out edge of both liberal and conservative seem to think. Facts are facts and, to a moderate, opinions to the contrary won't change them.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. I hear news organizations say all the time "We're fair, we present BOTH sides"..
As a Libertarian, I say there's almost always more than 2 sides to an issue.
Take Gay marriage (which probably put Bush in office the 2nd time). Some are in favor, some are against, and others say that the government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses in the first place. I never ONCE heard the latter point of vie
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also "moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers" might not be the best way of getting your point across, but I digress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fed shouldn't even be allowed to decide these types of issues. They should be left up to the states so that people can govern themselves. It's a lot easier to be heard at a state level, or even local. If gays in California want to marry, they should be able to, and if the mormons in Utah or the moon worshipping throat slashers in Michigan want to marry multple wives then let the
False dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality, the issue is more complex. There are many issues and positions which may be nearly orthogonal to the single axis of 'gay marriage, for/against,' and unless you recognize that, you're going to oversimplify people's positions and pigeonhole them inappropriately.
"Equal time" laws create a false dichotomy where there may not be one. In a room of six people, you may be able to force three into "supporting" and three into "opposing" an issue, but within each three, they may be approaching the issue for completely different reasons, which may be incompatible for fundamental reasons even if they seem to be in agreement on the surface. (E.g., "I'm against gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin," and "I'm against gay marriage because all marriage is wrong and unnatural, regardless of who it's between.") To gloss over these differences and present it as being two-sided is false, and it does a disservice to the viewers of that program, by implying that there are only two opinions.
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:5, Insightful)
Although it's often harder to tell which the bad side is, purely political viewpoints can be just as factual on one side and bunk on the other. Yet with "fairness," the bunk will be elevated to the same level as the sound. For example, politics is full of economic viewpoints that are either factually incorrect, or basically just guesses. As soon as someone has one of these brilliant thoughts, now we have to give him equal billing to spread his nonsense?
I hate Fox news. I've rarely seen such a wretched hive of scum and villainy outside of the Rush Limbaugh show. They elevate bad ideas and squash clear thinking on a regular basis. Politics takes the place of science and dogma takes the place of thought. Yet I'd rather have them, and Brother Rush, even expand their broadcasts than to force thoughtful networks with good fact-checking to distribute ill-conceived, factually incorrect bullshit out of "fairness."
TW
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed! However, I'd like to add two points:
(1) Having two perspectives, neither of which is restricted by government, is valuable. I have changed my mind before based on hearing ideas from sources I wouldn't expect to agree with about anything.
(2) I think you could probably do without juxtaposing "I hat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Science doesn't fight religion, religion fights science. When scientists discover something that disagrees with a religion's belief, religion often chooses to simply say science is wrong, without looking fairly at the evidence. If it does look at the evidence, it oft
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to prevent the takeover of the media by single points of view, why don't they enforce tighter limits on station ownership?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The supreme court disagrees with you. the fairness doctrine has been ruled not to violate the 1st amendment. [fair.org]
Re:flamewar comin' (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is with self-labeling. How is someone supposed to objectively rate themselves on such a simple one-dimensional spectrum?
In the current system, people rate other people. Anyone who cares enough to find out can see the issues through the eyes of quite a few different people. On
If you watch a TV program, the only thing you need to know is that you're only seeing one viewpoint. If that's your only source of information, you are missing a lot of perspectives. Sometimes an entire channel shares common perspectives (Fox News), and sometimes many channels present only one perspective on an issue (the "MSM" is largely fed by the NYT). That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it means that if you get into an argument with someone, you'll probably lose, because you probably haven't considered their viewpoint.
There's no such thing as a balanced perspective. There are many perspectives, and the more you see the more you're immune from political trickery and double-talk.
"Liberal media" (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fox has a market, but it did not create that market. Their market are the people who feel they are not being served well by CNN. It's that simple. As far as "fair and ba
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
Rather than call it the "Fairness" doctrine, how about calling it
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, this doesn't exactly strike me as the type of regulation I would support. From the Wikipedia link, I'd support the reinstatement of the "two corollary rules of the Doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule"
Those seem much less controversial to me, though a week is a very long time to not respond to a personal attack.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:5, Insightful)
When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????
Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.
I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.
So, who actually benifits from this "Fairness Doctrine", why the only people Truly interested in censorship, who gets to decide what is, and isn't fair? Don't agree? Too bad because you don't get a say.
And how does one actually deal with the "new media", the internet and blogging? Does LGF have to hire a leftwing blogger in order to be "fair"?? How about MoveON.org? Do they have to hire right wing wackos?
The only reason why people are looking for a "fairness doctrine" is because they cannot compete in the world of ideas (AirAmerica???); nobody really wants to listen to Al Franken.
I always found it very interesting that it is the liberal, left wing people were the ones needing "fairness doctrine" to get their ideas out. I wonder though if the would allow a third viewpoint (Libertarianism), or if they would rather just keep it Al Franken vs Rush Bimbo.
There's a reason those stand out (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason those two stand out in your mind. They're unusual. Do you really think the blogosphere would have stayed quiet if there were a "balance" doctrine or are you just trolling? I hope for your sake it's the latter.
It's equally hard for me to believe that you don't realize that Fox News is the quintessential "right wing" media. The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected. Of the few episodes I've watched (because I was in someone else's house), I don't believe there wasn't a single one without an error more egregious than Dan Rather's. One lie even had one of the blonde ladies scratching her head. I guess she didn't get the memo that you're supposed to read the stories without questioning their veracity!
Because they get their news from the AP (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they get most of their news from the Associated Press (just like Fox News). I wouldn't call it crazy, however. Just lame. (And the occasional moderate liberal on Fox News hardly makes it fair and balanced, any more than the moderate conservatives on ABC, NBC, CBS, a
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like falsifying federal documents (Dan Rather/CBS)?? You mean like making up stories about homeless people and reporting them as fact??? You mean like blowing up a truck to show how "unsafe" it was?
Or how about paddling a canoe on a street to report on a flood, only to be shown that it was only 4" deep.
The fact is, EVERY
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a little exercise for you: some Republicans fret over the media's use of "insurgents" for the bombers in Iraq. They want the media to call them terrorists, which IMHO is slightly more accurate, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. So, should the FCC step in and require news outlets to call them terrorists? Should they require Fox to call them insurgents too? Who decides if something is balanced? Where do you draw the line.
Besides, with everyone complaining about the FCC being overly cautious after the Janet Jackson nipple incident, you'd think that everyone would realize that we don't want/need the FCC to try deciding things like this.
Re: (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 b
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:5, Insightful)
Bzzt, wrong. Nice uninformed try, however.
Repeal of the "fairness" doctrine basically made conservative talk radio. Limbaugh has been pointing this out for years. Prior to the repeal, AM was good for commodity price reports (cattle, wheat, etc.,) NPR and not much else. After, hundreds of radio shows ranging from psycho wackjob militia types to mainstream conservatives (yes, there are differences) appeared across the US.
Clinton et al tried the same thing in the early 90's. The Right labeled it the 'Hush Rush' bill. It died on the vine after the '94 sweep of Congress. They're back I guess, and for the same reason.
Legislating "fairness" in political discourse is bad. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, mkay? It's just wrong. If DeLay had tried to pull this you'd be apoplectic with hysteria about fascism. It isn't OK because it's coming from some left wing incumbent like Kucinich.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, that. In the 2006 elections not a single Republican congressman won against a Democrat.
Not one.
Yet we're led to believe that there's "no market" for radio with a liberal viewpoint.
I call bullshit. [mediamatters.org]
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:5, Insightful)
Factor in a super-polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton in 2008 and you will see the republican base come out in droves. About the only thing that has a chance to keep the republicans out of power is if the republican nominee is a socially liberal candidate. Even then, a ton of democrats would rather vote for a Rudy Guilliani type over Hillary.
Re:"Liberal media" (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing, that. In the 2006 elections not a single Republican congressman won against a Democrat.
Has nothing to do with this:
Yet we're led to believe that there's "no market" for radio with a liberal viewpoint.
Have you never heard of the Blue Dog Democrats? The Democrats gained a lot of traction in this election:
a - by moving way to the right in a lot of districts
b - by profiting from the usual 6-year itch.
Give me a break, if this election had anything to do with liberalism then Lieberman would not have trounced his democratic (and liberal) opponent. That was the real message of the election. Blue dogs win. Left-wingers try to take over by bouncing moderates out at the primary level, then get utterly slaughtered at the general polls. Yet some how, left-wingers think that they speak for the democratic party. Like most left-wing democrats you're cheerfully oblivious to the facts. The left-wing of the democratic party only helps win elections when it goes away. I wish you nuts would stop running your raving left-wing lunatics in serious elections, it makes it easy for the GOP to get Bush elected. Twice. As far as I'm considered, that's your fault for not giving serious opposition. The dems did way better than in 2006 by not by running liberals. If the dems take '06 as a license to move farther left you might as well not show up in '08.
Also: You're not "led to believe" anything. No one listens to Air America. And it's no wonder why - I tried several times and it was awful. There's no talent there. And what are the #1, #2 and #3 radio shows in America? Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Conservatives one and all (although Beck is more libertarian than republican). If you call stating the obvious "being led to believe" something, then yes, the country is being led to believe no one really likes far-left liberals. (Not that they love right-wingers either.)
Wake up. Extremists are extreme because most people think they are nuts. That's what it means, by definition to be at the edge of either wing of politics.
-stormin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
America is capitalistic so the socialism tends to camouflage itself as "Think of the Children" and "Save our Seniors from Destitution (after they partied their savings away)."
Eh? What do those sentiments have to do with socialism?
We had a massive experiment with socialism starting with lyndon johnson and it failed horribly. it probably destroyed an entire generation of the poor.
You're joking aren't you? Lyndon Johnson was a socialist? In what way? That you would even consider his policies to be socialist just demonstrates how skewed your perception is, and how right-wing America is. I mean, really. Socialist??? For what reason?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A minor short term safety net is not socialism. What we had was.
No, it wasn't. Did the government take over private industry to enrich the state?
"Think of the children" is an endless wedge they use to expand government at every opportunity.
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.
I do not like the government taking all my money and giving it to others without my consent.
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
Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Now every story on global warming will need to be 1/3 saying it's happening and humans are at least partly responsible, 1/3 saying it's happening and it's 100% natural, and 1/3 saying it's not happening at all, and things like arctic melting [slashdot.org] are just a hoax manufactured for leftist propaganda.
Meanwhile, any show on PBS or the Discovery Channel that deals with evolution in any way shape or form will have to cover not just the scientific consensus that natural selection has been at work for millions of years, but also Intelligent Design and young-Earth creationism. Similarly, anything about geology will have to include both the old-earth consensus and the idea that, for instance, the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood.
Let's see if we can find Velikovsky [wikipedia.org] and von Daniken [wikipedia.org] a place while we're at it.
And let's not get started with making sure the Viet Cong's point of view is presented with equal weight to both the hawk and dove sides of the American point of view....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Honest" helps in both cases -- but "fair" requires an arbiter, and we already know what this government considers to be "fair."
Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why debates like global warming and evolution loom so large, because in the interests of "fairness" views that are held by very small minorities of people are given the same amount of play as views that are extensively proven and supported.
Rather than this, I'd rather see a standard of truth applied to non-opinion mass media...Make them cite their numbers, and post the credentials of their "experts", and make them admit to errors of fact that appear on their broadcasts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting 1/3 of the discussion to be fact based would be an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The intent of the doctrine is irrelevant. The implementation of any such doctrine would almost certainly mean that media outlets would make every issue, even if it's not really widely controversial, in
Racism more troubling that "fairness" (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that there serious problems with the way controversial issues are presented on the major television channels in the USA. I'm not convinced that the problem is fairness, per se. Instead, the problem seems more related to a tendency to present extremely complex issues in a simplistic binary manner (e.g. that the USA will either "succeed" or "fail" in Iraq).
I am even less convinced that legislation can solve the problem. The only solution that I see is to let people who care about being informed move to other more complete sources of information such as the internet.
The one thing that does bother me is the implicit racism in many of the entertainment shows on the major television channels. I wouldn't mind seeing a rule that the racial/ethnic/religious affiliations of the villians has to be chosen at random. Essentially, if it wouldn't be OK to portray Jewish people in a particular role then it shouldn't be OK to porttray any ethnic group in that role.
Free market - hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
Forced, Uninentional Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Fairness Doctrine silences right talk radio (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is that left wing talk radio doesn't sell ads, because no one listens to it. So radio station operators had to chose between a few hours of right wing talk radio that was profitable, balanced by a few hours of left talk that wasn't, or just filling the airwaves with silly pop songs that generated decent revenue consistently.
You don't have to believe me, you can go check for yourself the respective popularity & profitability of Air America vs Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly, Mike Savage, etc.
Left wing talk radio doesn't sell. So forcing radio stations to carry equal amounts of right wing and left wing radio makes them lose money, so they drop it altogether.
Now like most internet forums, Slashdot is teeming with lefties. I imagine most of you will be fine with this cause talk radio is just a bunch of right-wing hate mongers, right? Eh? No harm in silencing that, huh?
Unless, of course, you happen to think freedom of speech and property rights stands for something.
The obvious counter is that the airwaves are public property, and you're right. You're also ignoring that the leftist point of view permeates most broadcast TV quite thoroughly (Yes, except for Fox). If you don't realize it, it's for the same reason fish don't realize they're wet.
Truth is the elimination of the fairness doctrine made the airwaves more fair, because presenting a right wing point of view became profitable when you weren't burdened with the left wing. It wasn't be the first government policy that had the precise opposite of it's intended effect, and it won't be the last.
If you support the return of the fairness doctrine after actually paying attention to the history of it, you might as well say "Free speech for me, but not for thee."
It's not "Right Wing" that sells... (Score:5, Insightful)
For another example - intentionally taken from other than the "talk radio" arena to help emphasize my point, "Judge Judy" might be a well qualified judge...or, she might not. The reason she has a TV show, however, is because she's a "bitch on wheels".
Contraversy, imflammatory statements, and being a general cynical asshole might make you popular to the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't make your point of view better or inherently more popular.
You OBVIOUSLY don't actually listen to Rush (Score:4, Insightful)
>these days are to "intelligent discourse" as "Professional Wrestling" is to
>"Combative Sports". Rush Limbaugh was not popular because of his knowledge of
>political matters (which he may well have had), he was popular because he made
>controversial and obviously inflammatory statements on the air. Apparantly, he
>was better at it than Al Franken.
I have been listening to Rush for about 10 years. I can tell you with a great deal of experience that people listen primarily BECAUSE they don't get his viewpoint on the mainstream media (MSM) that existed before he came around. Frankly, 3 to 20 million daily listeners (depending on who you believe) wouldn't stick around one person that long just for the hijinks. And it's those listeners who will be lobbying their congresscritters to kill this legislation.
Contrary to your assertion, everyone that I know who ACTUALLY listens to Rush (and I personally know dozens) thinks that he makes high quality arguments that speak truth, and that the average MSM folks are blathering idiots who desparately need to be countered. Sure, we enjoy his hyperbole, and frankly it's refreshing to hear SOMEBODY tease the liberals mercilessly, but that's secondary to wanting to hear what we believe to be the truth.
And before you go ranting about me and my friends being a bunch of hicks, let me point out that I live in a strongly blue state, with a middle to high income, flight test community of military pilots and scientists and engineers who uniformly have one or more college degrees, plus a fair mix of Walmart-shopping wage earners with high school diplomas. In short, it's not exactly average red state stuff.
So get off your high horse about Rush. We conservatives (some of whom DO read
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.
Not to Burst your Bubble (Score:2, Insightful)
doubtful constitutionality (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitutionality of the 'fairness doctrine' was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) on the basis that the FCC content-based regulation of broadcast television programming was appropriate in light of scarce broadcast resources and its mandate to act in the public interest for limited broadcast airwave frequencies. In other words, with only so many frequencies to dole out, it made sense at the time for the FCC to have some role in ensuring that a diverse array of viewpoints had access to broadcasting.
In this day and age, where over-the-airwaves broadcast TV is mandated to be replaced by digital TV receivers (where interference and broadcast scarcity are much less of an issue) quite soon, and where cable, satellite, and the Internet have opened up innumerable avenues for mass and niche media and communication, the rationale for Red Lion just totally falls apart. This was essentially the rationale of the FCC in the 1980s when it did away with the fairness doctrine for precisely the reason that it felt it was no longer justified in light of the then-contemporary media environment (an environment that has only become more numerous and fragmented than it was then, and certainly compared to the days where all there was were the 'big three' networks).
Plus, do we really want FCC bureaucrats editing TV programming for political content? That just seems like a system ripe for abuse.
IANAL (though I very recently passed the bar exam and so I'm very close to being one...)
The Fairness Doctrine worked out great last time (Score:3, Informative)
My fellow Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all.
So, now Slashdot will be required to have dupes? (Score:2, Funny)
Quote from TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice to see this from the FCC chair, but what can he do about it?
Foolishness (Score:2)
Furthermore, a measure
Define "fair" (Score:2)
The Wikipedia article on Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org] is marked as being non-neutral. Ohhh the irony!!!
From the Supreme Court ruling upholding this:
All Channels Aren't Created Equal (Score:2, Insightful)
"To say that this is an antiquated concept in a time of several-hundred-channel cable TV, satellite TV, satellite radio, and of course our little Internet, is to state the obvious."
Fails to acknowledge that not all communication media are created equal. Broadcast frequencies, which are easily received by inexpensive, common televisions and radios, are fundamentally different than satellite channels that are vended by select providers, which are in turn wholly differen
How is something deemed fair? (Score:2)
How do you even begin to enforce it? It's free speech, it doesn't have to be fair or even remotely factual.
If you don't like how a radio or TV station is broadcasting its news, then you boycott it and convince others to do the same. It doesn't matter anyway, I think most people are realizing that getting the news online is quicker and easier than watching it on TV, and this law wouldn't
What does the Constitution say? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's hardly a fair counter-example (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) The public has already chosen what they like to listen to and watch -- the market can, and does, give people what they want.
(2) This is really just a back-door attempt to squelch a format where liberals have been unsuccessfully trying to penetrate for years: talk radio. The idea is to FORCE radio stations to pick up the next "Air America" if they're going to continue to broadcast Rush Limbaugh. But, (going back to #1), if nobody listens, is there a benefit? To Liberals there is -- by forcing "fairness," a Radio station will have to silence about half of its conservative voices.
(3) It's not like there's a paucity of available opinions -- the Internet has made it possible for every side to get its message out, with very little budget. Plus, things have changed since the days where CBS, NBC and ABC rules the TV airways. There are now hundreds of television stations.
(4) What about the First Amendment? Sure, the fact that they're public airways means that they are subject to some restrictions, but do we really want to add more limits on speech?
(5) Despite what Commissioner Copps said, it's not going to get rid of garbage TV (I'm thinking NBC's "Fear Factor" as a great example), because those shows don't espouse any political opinions.
The Democrats are beginning the process of making sure they're not re-elected in 2 years. Did any candidate run on the Fairness Doctrine?
Incidently, the differences between the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality are: (1) one is content-based and one isn't and (2) Net-Neutrality regulates the information pipes, not the sources.
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 t
And who will say what is fair and balanced? (Score:2)
Get to the root: Tax net assets (Score:3, Insightful)
There is every reason to charge a use fee for property rights that would not exist in the absence of government and very little reason to tax domestic economic activities.
The failure to tax the right thing results in an accumulation of wealth in the hands of those already wealthiest and this results in increased centralization of ownership of everything including the means of indoctrinating the populous.
Moreover, as people increasingly recognize on both the right and left, it is important to avoid replacing centralization of wealth with centralization of political control. Tax revenues should be evenly dispersed to the citizens without any prejudice in a citizens dividend so they can enjoy the kind of yeoman class independence that created people like Newton and the Wright Brothers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
psst free hint: populous, besides being a game, is a word meaning "populated" or "full of population". The populace is the collected population.
Anyway you have a good point but I take issue with one part of it:
That wasn't needed by Newton or the Wright Brothers. Instead, we should simply
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think your .sig could do with a better compression method.
fair it ain't (Score:3, Interesting)
As another comment said, conservatives now have Fox News and tal radio, while liberals have all of CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN. That the liberals could not mount a successful talk radio operation is a primary motivating force for returning the Fairness Doctrine.
The effect of the Fairness Doctrine, overall, is antithetical to free speech, and in the presence of a rational court position, it should be found unconstitutional.
This is utterly wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Democrats are really interested in media no longer representing narrow corporate interests they will instead support policies encouraging the democratization of media.
Any or all of these would do far more to encourage varied viewpoints in mainstream media than any kind of stupid mandate for 'fairness'. All that does is make sure both mainstream clubs get their say instead of random citizens with their many and varied viewpoints. There are generally far more than two sides to any issue.
The Democrats aren't miffed about corporate centralized control of media, and any protestations to the contrary are shown to be complete hypocrisy by things like the fairness doctrine. They're only miffed that this centralized control has tended to exclude them.
Not at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a serious problem of these "intelligentsia" running around during the Clinton sex scandal tha