Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

[Dan Stubbs]

Ever since Reagan decided to end the Fairness Doctrine the quality of our media and news presentations has gone down hill. Had he not ended this, there would have been no Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. We'd be a better country.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: I’d Rather Have Debate Than Ranting-and-Raving Journalism

By Nancy Graham Holm

When it comes to influencing public opinion, broadcasting has been the single most powerful force in American society since the turn of the 20th century, but especially since 1987.

Why 1987?

Because that’s the year American society lost accountability for one-sided opinions spread over the airwaves. More specifically, August 1987 is when American broadcasting lost The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation that required owners of broadcast licenses to present both sides of controversial issues considered to be in the public interest.

Failure to comply risked a challenge to the owner’s license.

The abolition of The Fairness Doctrine had many opponents but they lost to the Reagan Revolution anti-regulatory extremists. Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler, sneered at the principle that broadcasters bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse. It was all nonsense, said Fowler. “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.”

More.

Meanwhile — seizing the moment — a highly charismatic radio personality in Sacramento started sharing his opinions. He was clearly “conservative” when he started talking — not to people but at them — and without the threat of a FCC license challenge, nobody could ask KFBK to present the other side of his rants. This was Rush Limbaugh and he established his brand in northern California until 1988 when he moved to NYC to launch his national program. The rest is history with imitators such as Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Bill O’Reilly.

Limbaugh likes to say that The Fairness Doctrine was all that stood between conservative talk show hosts and the popularity they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. He was right. In 1992, Ronald Reagan wrote him a thank you note “for promoting Republican and conservative principles.”

Reagan and his appointed commissioners had argued that The Fairness Doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. In addition, they claimed in phenomenally twisted arguments that it discouraged debate.

They were wrong on both points. The Fairness Doctrine encouraged diversity of opinion and with that, well argued debate.

Those days are gone and instead of debate we now have “rant and rave” journalism. On one side is Fox News and on the other is MSNBC.

People don’t just seek information when they tune in but also validation of their personal prejudices. That includes me. I know that Rachel Maddow and almost any program on NPR will make me feel good while just 10 minutes of Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on Fox News will give me a ferocious headache.

The defectors were particularly worried about the passive indifference of the American public who never seemed to notice that they’d lost control of a public asset: the airwaves. Mr. and Mrs. Jones didn’t pay attention when “boring but important” issues disappeared from discussion.

More.

Last week Rush Limbaugh attacked an entire female news team on CBS This Morning: Gayle King, Nora O’Donnell and 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl. He called them “stupid,” “ignorant,” and “wrong.” There is irony here, because two of the same adjectives can be applied to him any day of the week.

Limbaugh is woefully ignorant and wrong about many things but he is not stupid. His is a sadly wasted intelligence. A college dropout after just two semesters at Southeast Missouri State, Limbaugh has never subjected himself to the discipline of acquiring an education. He’s never committed himself to reading complex ideas, writing term papers, sitting mid-term and final examinations or arguing with people smarter than he is. In brief, he’s never been held accountable for his ideas, except from his enemies whom he glibly dismisses as partisan.

In the final analysis, Limbaugh and Maddow are symbolic of a seriously divided nation. Veteran TV journalist and NPR’s Says You, Paula Lyons speculates that it’s because we don’t listen to the same newscasts. Lyons says she’s worried about her country to which I say: “me too!” Lyons quotes Michael Kranish who reminds us that “an explosion in the availability of information has coincided with historic levels of political polarization, the starkest divide since the early 1900s.”

Would bringing back The Fairness Doctrine help? Maybe. Whatever. It’s not likely to happen any time soon. No matter what you hear these days.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: I'd Rather Have Debate Than Ranting-and-Raving Journalism | HuffPost

Yep, the Progressives found out that they could not get or take over the radio stations to control what was being said about them they wanted to level the field and shut up the conservatives and cut off the information. This is why the want to have the law brought back. View attachment 212790

No. I don't rally think that's the case.

Old Trick, is naming a progressive law with a high sounding name. Fact is that the law cuts off free expression of opinion on the radio. This is one media that the Progressive don't control. They did have the NPR and a few AM stations.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Reagan was of course wrong to end the Doctrine – there were no First Amendment ‘violations.’

The Doctrine was the victim of the right’s ridiculous anti-regulatory extremism that continues to this day.

However, whether or not the Doctrine should be reinstated is moot.

‘The media’ are more than just the FCC licensed ‘broadcasters’ – in the age of wireless communications, streaming, and internet hosting sites there is ample opportunity for “rant and rave” journalism to exist via media outlets not subject to the Doctrine.

The funniest thing is Republicans put it in place the 1st place to combat FDR and it back fired on them that's why Regean was so right to end it.

Now that is a false statement.

 

[Pogo]

Ever since Reagan decided to end the Fairness Doctrine the quality of our media and news presentations has gone down hill. Had he not ended this, there would have been no Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. We'd be a better country.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: I’d Rather Have Debate Than Ranting-and-Raving Journalism

By Nancy Graham Holm

When it comes to influencing public opinion, broadcasting has been the single most powerful force in American society since the turn of the 20th century, but especially since 1987.

Why 1987?

Because that’s the year American society lost accountability for one-sided opinions spread over the airwaves. More specifically, August 1987 is when American broadcasting lost The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation that required owners of broadcast licenses to present both sides of controversial issues considered to be in the public interest.

Failure to comply risked a challenge to the owner’s license.

The abolition of The Fairness Doctrine had many opponents but they lost to the Reagan Revolution anti-regulatory extremists. Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler, sneered at the principle that broadcasters bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse. It was all nonsense, said Fowler. “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.”

More.

Meanwhile — seizing the moment — a highly charismatic radio personality in Sacramento started sharing his opinions. He was clearly “conservative” when he started talking — not to people but at them — and without the threat of a FCC license challenge, nobody could ask KFBK to present the other side of his rants. This was Rush Limbaugh and he established his brand in northern California until 1988 when he moved to NYC to launch his national program. The rest is history with imitators such as Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Bill O’Reilly.

Limbaugh likes to say that The Fairness Doctrine was all that stood between conservative talk show hosts and the popularity they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. He was right. In 1992, Ronald Reagan wrote him a thank you note “for promoting Republican and conservative principles.”

Reagan and his appointed commissioners had argued that The Fairness Doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. In addition, they claimed in phenomenally twisted arguments that it discouraged debate.

They were wrong on both points. The Fairness Doctrine encouraged diversity of opinion and with that, well argued debate.

Those days are gone and instead of debate we now have “rant and rave” journalism. On one side is Fox News and on the other is MSNBC.

People don’t just seek information when they tune in but also validation of their personal prejudices. That includes me. I know that Rachel Maddow and almost any program on NPR will make me feel good while just 10 minutes of Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on Fox News will give me a ferocious headache.

The defectors were particularly worried about the passive indifference of the American public who never seemed to notice that they’d lost control of a public asset: the airwaves. Mr. and Mrs. Jones didn’t pay attention when “boring but important” issues disappeared from discussion.

More.

Last week Rush Limbaugh attacked an entire female news team on CBS This Morning: Gayle King, Nora O’Donnell and 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl. He called them “stupid,” “ignorant,” and “wrong.” There is irony here, because two of the same adjectives can be applied to him any day of the week.

Limbaugh is woefully ignorant and wrong about many things but he is not stupid. His is a sadly wasted intelligence. A college dropout after just two semesters at Southeast Missouri State, Limbaugh has never subjected himself to the discipline of acquiring an education. He’s never committed himself to reading complex ideas, writing term papers, sitting mid-term and final examinations or arguing with people smarter than he is. In brief, he’s never been held accountable for his ideas, except from his enemies whom he glibly dismisses as partisan.

In the final analysis, Limbaugh and Maddow are symbolic of a seriously divided nation. Veteran TV journalist and NPR’s Says You, Paula Lyons speculates that it’s because we don’t listen to the same newscasts. Lyons says she’s worried about her country to which I say: “me too!” Lyons quotes Michael Kranish who reminds us that “an explosion in the availability of information has coincided with historic levels of political polarization, the starkest divide since the early 1900s.”

Would bringing back The Fairness Doctrine help? Maybe. Whatever. It’s not likely to happen any time soon. No matter what you hear these days.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: I'd Rather Have Debate Than Ranting-and-Raving Journalism | HuffPost

Yep, the Progressives found out that they could not get or take over the radio stations to control what was being said about them they wanted to level the field and shut up the conservatives and cut off the information. This is why the want to have the law brought back. View attachment 212790

No. I don't rally think that's the case.

Old Trick, is naming a progressive law with a high sounding name. Fact is that the law cuts off free expression of opinion on the radio. This is one media that the Progressive don't control. They did have the NPR and a few AM stations.

You know a wag doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he goes "the NPR".
Reminds us of those who worry about catching "the gay"....

Again --- all those names I posted earlier --- Coughlin, Pyne, Sheen, Lewis, Harvey et al --- did their thing with the Fairness Doctrine fully in place and it doesn't seem to have "cut off" their free expression, does it. Buckley did his show on PBS. Because it was too intellectual to sell deodorant on commercial TV.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Ever since Reagan decided to end the Fairness Doctrine the quality of our media and news presentations has gone down hill. Had he not ended this, there would have been no Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. We'd be a better country.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: I’d Rather Have Debate Than Ranting-and-Raving Journalism

By Nancy Graham Holm

When it comes to influencing public opinion, broadcasting has been the single most powerful force in American society since the turn of the 20th century, but especially since 1987.

Why 1987?

Because that’s the year American society lost accountability for one-sided opinions spread over the airwaves. More specifically, August 1987 is when American broadcasting lost The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation that required owners of broadcast licenses to present both sides of controversial issues considered to be in the public interest.

Failure to comply risked a challenge to the owner’s license.

The abolition of The Fairness Doctrine had many opponents but they lost to the Reagan Revolution anti-regulatory extremists. Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler, sneered at the principle that broadcasters bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse. It was all nonsense, said Fowler. “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.”

More.

Meanwhile — seizing the moment — a highly charismatic radio personality in Sacramento started sharing his opinions. He was clearly “conservative” when he started talking — not to people but at them — and without the threat of a FCC license challenge, nobody could ask KFBK to present the other side of his rants. This was Rush Limbaugh and he established his brand in northern California until 1988 when he moved to NYC to launch his national program. The rest is history with imitators such as Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Bill O’Reilly.

Limbaugh likes to say that The Fairness Doctrine was all that stood between conservative talk show hosts and the popularity they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. He was right. In 1992, Ronald Reagan wrote him a thank you note “for promoting Republican and conservative principles.”

Reagan and his appointed commissioners had argued that The Fairness Doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. In addition, they claimed in phenomenally twisted arguments that it discouraged debate.

They were wrong on both points. The Fairness Doctrine encouraged diversity of opinion and with that, well argued debate.

Those days are gone and instead of debate we now have “rant and rave” journalism. On one side is Fox News and on the other is MSNBC.

People don’t just seek information when they tune in but also validation of their personal prejudices. That includes me. I know that Rachel Maddow and almost any program on NPR will make me feel good while just 10 minutes of Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on Fox News will give me a ferocious headache.

The defectors were particularly worried about the passive indifference of the American public who never seemed to notice that they’d lost control of a public asset: the airwaves. Mr. and Mrs. Jones didn’t pay attention when “boring but important” issues disappeared from discussion.

More.

Last week Rush Limbaugh attacked an entire female news team on CBS This Morning: Gayle King, Nora O’Donnell and 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl. He called them “stupid,” “ignorant,” and “wrong.” There is irony here, because two of the same adjectives can be applied to him any day of the week.

Limbaugh is woefully ignorant and wrong about many things but he is not stupid. His is a sadly wasted intelligence. A college dropout after just two semesters at Southeast Missouri State, Limbaugh has never subjected himself to the discipline of acquiring an education. He’s never committed himself to reading complex ideas, writing term papers, sitting mid-term and final examinations or arguing with people smarter than he is. In brief, he’s never been held accountable for his ideas, except from his enemies whom he glibly dismisses as partisan.

In the final analysis, Limbaugh and Maddow are symbolic of a seriously divided nation. Veteran TV journalist and NPR’s Says You, Paula Lyons speculates that it’s because we don’t listen to the same newscasts. Lyons says she’s worried about her country to which I say: “me too!” Lyons quotes Michael Kranish who reminds us that “an explosion in the availability of information has coincided with historic levels of political polarization, the starkest divide since the early 1900s.”

Would bringing back The Fairness Doctrine help? Maybe. Whatever. It’s not likely to happen any time soon. No matter what you hear these days.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine: I'd Rather Have Debate Than Ranting-and-Raving Journalism | HuffPost

Yep, the Progressives found out that they could not get or take over the radio stations to control what was being said about them they wanted to level the field and shut up the conservatives and cut off the information. This is why the want to have the law brought back. View attachment 212790

No. I don't rally think that's the case.

Think harder.