Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

[HereWeGoAgain]

Liberals hate this fact of life...


The left loves to listen to music in the car or Fred and Harry in the morning comedy bits they are not interested in news and politics


The right loves to listen to news and politics on the AM dial ..


What they so want is to eliminate that so everyone becomes indoctrinated sheep ...


.

The right doesn't listen to politics. That's not what happens on talk radio.

Then why are you so upset and want to bring it back? Your talking to a guy who used to listen to the radio when the fariness doctrine was in effect.


All it was... wolfman Jack and the likes of Larry lujack . The problem is you don't like knowledge spread .

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

You're free to start a lefty station,nobody is stopping you.
....other than the fact it'd go broke.

 

[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

Actually the Fairness Doctrine was championed in the 1930s by Republicans who were jealous of the airtime FDR was getting with his "fireside chats".

And when Edward R. Murrow ran his program on the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy, McCarthy requested airtime to respond. CBS gave him the entire show to do it.

Might want to try another fantasy. This one ain't flying.

 

[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.

So, we need to bring back an unconstitutional law because only opinions that lean to the political left is real news. Got it.

It was neither a "law" nor unConstitutional. It was a condition of licensing the public airwaves, which were by definition severely limited, declaring that if you have a radio station where most people do not, then you have to allow balance on your (PUBLIC) airwaves if you're going to take a controversial position.

Did I mention PUBLIC? I might have forgot to mention that. From the inception of broadcasting we (the US) decided that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC. Not everywhere did that but that means they have to (in theory) be used in the PUBLIC interest. And that in turn means that you didn't get to monopolize that avenue of PUBLIC discourse just because you had more money to throw into a transmitter.

It's the same thing that goes on here --- I can't just toss this post up and expect no response or rebuttal. Your ability (or anyone's) to contest what I just posted here (or anywhere) is what the Fairness Doctrine did for the severely limited PUBLIC airwaves.

Did I mention that the airwaves are PUBLIC? That means "not private".

Of course they've since been sold out to corporate interests but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

That's why you shouldn't rally.

 

[Pogo]

Liberals hate this fact of life...


The left loves to listen to music in the car or Fred and Harry in the morning comedy bits they are not interested in news and politics


The right loves to listen to news and politics on the AM dial ..


What they so want is to eliminate that so everyone becomes indoctrinated sheep ...


.

The right doesn't listen to politics. That's not what happens on talk radio.

Then why are you so upset and want to bring it back? Your talking to a guy who used to listen to the radio when the fariness doctrine was in effect.


All it was... wolfman Jack and the likes of Larry lujack . The problem is you don't like knowledge spread .

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

No they were not, it was all one sided and told you what they wanted you to hear.


With Rush and all the other talk show hosts they are reporting and commenting on news the MSM ignore and you know and I know if the fairness doctrine would be brought back it would be the end of talk radio.

Utter bullshit.

Didn't stop Father Coughlin, did it. Ooopsie, 1930s. Didn't slow down Fulton Lewis or Bob Grant or Joe Pyne, did it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Actually the Fairness Doctrine was championed in the 1930s by Republicans who were jealous of the airtime FDR was getting with his "fireside chats".

And when Edward R. Murrow ran his program on the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy, McCarthy requested airtime to respond. CBS gave him the entire show to do it.

Might want to try another fantasy. This one ain't flying.

Already posted it


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals hate this fact of life...


The left loves to listen to music in the car or Fred and Harry in the morning comedy bits they are not interested in news and politics


The right loves to listen to news and politics on the AM dial ..


What they so want is to eliminate that so everyone becomes indoctrinated sheep ...


.

The right doesn't listen to politics. That's not what happens on talk radio.

Then why are you so upset and want to bring it back? Your talking to a guy who used to listen to the radio when the fariness doctrine was in effect.


All it was... wolfman Jack and the likes of Larry lujack . The problem is you don't like knowledge spread .

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

No they were not, it was all one sided and told you what they wanted you to hear.


With Rush and all the other talk show hosts they are reporting and commenting on news the MSM ignore and you know and I know if the fairness doctrine would be brought back it would be the end of talk radio.

Utter bullshit.

Didn't stop Father Coughlin, did it. Ooopsie, 1930s. Didn't slow down Fulton Lewis or Bob Grant or Joe Pyne, did it.

And who are them? Once again Rush and the rest on the AM dial didn't start till and take off till 1987 when the fairness doctrine ended.


.

 

[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

Actually the Fairness Doctrine was championed in the 1930s by Republicans who were jealous of the airtime FDR was getting with his "fireside chats".

And when Edward R. Murrow ran his program on the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy, McCarthy requested airtime to respond. CBS gave him the entire show to do it.

Might want to try another fantasy. This one ain't flying.

Already posted it


.

You posted FDR, you forgot to mention McCarthy. And then you tried to credit Reagan.
The FCC did it, not Reagan.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals hate this fact of life...


The left loves to listen to music in the car or Fred and Harry in the morning comedy bits they are not interested in news and politics


The right loves to listen to news and politics on the AM dial ..


What they so want is to eliminate that so everyone becomes indoctrinated sheep ...


.

The right doesn't listen to politics. That's not what happens on talk radio.

Then why are you so upset and want to bring it back? Your talking to a guy who used to listen to the radio when the fariness doctrine was in effect.


All it was... wolfman Jack and the likes of Larry lujack . The problem is you don't like knowledge spread .

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

You're free to start a lefty station,nobody is stopping you.
....other than the fact it'd go broke.

I know I swear it was only me and like 50 people nation wide who would listen to liberal Air America, it was funny this one caller would try to trick them , it was so easy to call in because no one was on the line ..


.

 

[Pogo]

The right doesn't listen to politics. That's not what happens on talk radio.

Then why are you so upset and want to bring it back? Your talking to a guy who used to listen to the radio when the fariness doctrine was in effect.


All it was... wolfman Jack and the likes of Larry lujack . The problem is you don't like knowledge spread .

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

No they were not, it was all one sided and told you what they wanted you to hear.


With Rush and all the other talk show hosts they are reporting and commenting on news the MSM ignore and you know and I know if the fairness doctrine would be brought back it would be the end of talk radio.

Utter bullshit.

Didn't stop Father Coughlin, did it. Ooopsie, 1930s. Didn't slow down Fulton Lewis or Bob Grant or Joe Pyne, did it.

And who are them? Once again Rush and the rest on the AM dial didn't start till 1987 when the fairness doctrine ended.

"Them" are some of the right-wing talk show hosts from the 1960s, '50s, '40s on back. You want to opine about talk radio and you don't know who Charles Coughlin was?

Fulton Sheen? Paul Harvey? Barry Farber who I believe is still on the air?
How 'bout William F. Buckley? Ringy digny a bell?

ALL of these and more were on way before 1987.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Actually the Fairness Doctrine was championed in the 1930s by Republicans who were jealous of the airtime FDR was getting with his "fireside chats".

And when Edward R. Murrow ran his program on the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy, McCarthy requested airtime to respond. CBS gave him the entire show to do it.

Might want to try another fantasy. This one ain't flying.

Already posted it


.

You posted FDR, you forgot to mention McCarthy. And then you tried to credit Reagan.
The FCC did it, not Reagan.

What you forgot the Democrats passed a bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine and Regean vetoed it???



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then why are you so upset and want to bring it back? Your talking to a guy who used to listen to the radio when the fariness doctrine was in effect.


All it was... wolfman Jack and the likes of Larry lujack . The problem is you don't like knowledge spread .

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

No they were not, it was all one sided and told you what they wanted you to hear.


With Rush and all the other talk show hosts they are reporting and commenting on news the MSM ignore and you know and I know if the fairness doctrine would be brought back it would be the end of talk radio.

Utter bullshit.

Didn't stop Father Coughlin, did it. Ooopsie, 1930s. Didn't slow down Fulton Lewis or Bob Grant or Joe Pyne, did it.

And who are them? Once again Rush and the rest on the AM dial didn't start till 1987 when the fairness doctrine ended.

"Them" are some of the right-wing talk show hosts from the 1960s, '50s, '40s on back. You want to opine about talk radio and you don't know who Charles Coughlin was?

Fulton Sheen? Paul Harvey? Barry Farber who I believe is still on the air?
How 'bout William F. Buckley? Ringy digny a bell?

ALL of these and more were on way before 1987.

And they were not popular....

 

[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

Actually the Fairness Doctrine was championed in the 1930s by Republicans who were jealous of the airtime FDR was getting with his "fireside chats".

And when Edward R. Murrow ran his program on the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy, McCarthy requested airtime to respond. CBS gave him the entire show to do it.

Might want to try another fantasy. This one ain't flying.

Already posted it

You posted FDR, you forgot to mention McCarthy. And then you tried to credit Reagan.
The FCC did it, not Reagan.

What you forgot the Democrats passed a bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine and Regean vetoed it???

More revisionist bullshit.

You can't "forget" what never took place --- can you.

 

[Pogo]

I'm 57, I think I can say what I'm saying. Used to be both sides were given equal time. Now it doesn't happen. We are not getting knowledge from the likes of Limbaugh.

No they were not, it was all one sided and told you what they wanted you to hear.


With Rush and all the other talk show hosts they are reporting and commenting on news the MSM ignore and you know and I know if the fairness doctrine would be brought back it would be the end of talk radio.

Utter bullshit.

Didn't stop Father Coughlin, did it. Ooopsie, 1930s. Didn't slow down Fulton Lewis or Bob Grant or Joe Pyne, did it.

And who are them? Once again Rush and the rest on the AM dial didn't start till 1987 when the fairness doctrine ended.

"Them" are some of the right-wing talk show hosts from the 1960s, '50s, '40s on back. You want to opine about talk radio and you don't know who Charles Coughlin was?

Fulton Sheen? Paul Harvey? Barry Farber who I believe is still on the air?
How 'bout William F. Buckley? Ringy digny a bell?

ALL of these and more were on way before 1987.

And they were not popular....

Once again Bull Fucking SHIT. In the 1930s you could literally listen to Father Coughlin without owning a radio, just by walking down the street. Those names I cited made careers out of it and were on for literally decades.

"Popular" is completely immaterial here anyway, so you're trying to go with this "if I never heard of it -- it never existed" song and dance.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It was neither a "law" nor unConstitutional. It was a condition of licensing the public airwaves, which were by definition severely limited, declaring that if you have a radio station where most people do not, then you have to allow balance on your (PUBLIC) airwaves if you're going to take a controversial position.

The government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves is infringing upon the freedom of speech no matter how you want to spin it. This is what authoritarian regimes do.

 

[Pogo]

It was neither a "law" nor unConstitutional. It was a condition of licensing the public airwaves, which were by definition severely limited, declaring that if you have a radio station where most people do not, then you have to allow balance on your (PUBLIC) airwaves if you're going to take a controversial position.

The government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves is infringing upon the freedom of speech no matter how you want to spin it. This is what authoritarian regimes do.

The government has never "dictated what has to be broadcast over the airwaves". Period.

I know this business inside out, trust me. From the initial licensing process to the material radiated into the either. I worked in broadcasting both before and after the FD was in place and it had a net effect of absolute zero on what we did.

Go ahead and try to show me any instance of 'the government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves' other than the Emergency Action Notification System in times of public hazard.

It doesn't exist. You get your license to broadcast "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". HOW you do that is never "dictated".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Go ahead and try to show me any instance of 'the government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves' other than the Emergency Action Notification System in times of public hazard.

The Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Pogo]

Go ahead and try to show me any instance of 'the government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves' other than the Emergency Action Notification System in times of public hazard.

The Fairness Doctrine.

You can sit and post the words "The Fairness Doctrine" all day but it doesn't answer the question.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Go ahead and try to show me any instance of 'the government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves' other than the Emergency Action Notification System in times of public hazard.

The Fairness Doctrine.

You can sit and post the words "The Fairness Doctrine" all day but it doesn't answer the question.

You not getting the answer you want doesn't mean it hasn't been answered

 

[Pogo]

Go ahead and try to show me any instance of 'the government dictating what has to be broadcast over the airwaves' other than the Emergency Action Notification System in times of public hazard.

The Fairness Doctrine.

You can sit and post the words "The Fairness Doctrine" all day but it doesn't answer the question.

You not getting the answer you want doesn't mean it hasn't been answered

I asked you for an example of the government dictating what had to be broadcast, which is what you suggested. You keep coming back with three words you don't even understand.

That's not an answer. And you won't find one because no such example EXISTS. When you apply for a license, or apply to renew it, there is no litmus test for "content". You simply spell out examples of how you served the public interest with your programming, and that bar is extremely low. You broadcast the Farm Market report at 4 am and the City Council meeting just before that, and X number of PSAs. You're done. And it's entirely up to you what that content was.

Not up to the government --- up to you.