No, Virginia, Free Speech Is Not Being Attacked

rayboyusmc

Senior Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,015
341
48
Florida
Please read up on what the Fairness Doctrine really is.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.What is the threat here?
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]


The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3]

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949.[4] The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[5]

In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission asserted that the United States Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had voluntarily complied with the spirit of the doctrine. It warned that "should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of voluntary compliance] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated." [6]



In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[7]

Although similar laws had been called unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited spectrum of the public airwaves. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:


Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The part about lefty radio not making money has been proven wrong in multiple markets.
 
pick a number between zero and one.


that's how much i care, on a scale of ten, about the fairness doctrine.

edit- just saw your line re: lefty radio. if it can't make it here in boston, it ain't gonna make it nationally.
maybe a market here and there, but that's it.
 
Personally so long as it's equally enforced, there's nothing wrong with it as a idea. I can see folks like NPR for example, really hating it.

The core objection to it is, for fair-minded people anyway, more government interference in the free marketplace.
 
All I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes
 
All I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes

That made me spew chunks.:eek:

Wait, Colmes never got equal billing.:eusa_hand: He is a weak kneed version of Mr. Rogers without the charm.
 
All I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes

That made me spew chunks.:eek:

Wait, Colmes never got equal billing.:eusa_hand: He is a weak kneed version of Mr. Rogers without the charm.

That would have to do with the station on which they were aired. Now can you imagine a leftest version of Hannity? ^_^

I mean.. sure John Stewart and Steven Colbert have a wonderfully hillarious version of this already running smoothly but could you imagine all TV News networks having to present both sides? I mean if you think the pundits are bad now.. just imagine. :lol:
 
All I keep thinking is that every news program is going to turn into Hannity and Colmes

That made me spew chunks.:eek:

Wait, Colmes never got equal billing.:eusa_hand: He is a weak kneed version of Mr. Rogers without the charm.
but if you want fairness, thats exactly what you need
a conservative on EVERY news show
the liberals are already there
 
Personally so long as it's equally enforced, there's nothing wrong with it as a idea. I can see folks like NPR for example, really hating it.

The core objection to it is, for fair-minded people anyway, more government interference in the free marketplace.

I have to disagree here. I don't think the federal government should dictate to a private business what it can and cannot sell... barring illegality, of course. I do not think the government should require Fox News to give Al Franken any time to rebut any arguments presented on Fox nor do I believe that NPR or Air America (if it still exists) should be required to grant Rush Limbaugh any time on their station.

It is easy enough for me as a listener to find both liberal and conservative channels on the radio. If I want conflicting points of view, it doesn't take more than a second to push one button and hear the other side of the story.

What does the Obama administration think we are, idiots who can't change the channel of a radio?

Immie
 
NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are going to hate the Fairness Doctrine.

You fail to understand, it will only be enforced with talk radio. And then only conservative talk radio. None of the Liberal bias will be effected at all.

that is beacause there is no liberal bias......please do try to keep up.....

Ya and if you find the end of the Rainbow you will get a pot of gold. Sure thing.
 
Personally so long as it's equally enforced, there's nothing wrong with it as a idea. I can see folks like NPR for example, really hating it.

The core objection to it is, for fair-minded people anyway, more government interference in the free marketplace.

I have to disagree here. I don't think the federal government should dictate to a private business what it can and cannot sell...
I merely said the same thing in a different way.

Fair minded folks' objection to the "Fairness" Doctrine is about objecting to more government interference in the free marketplace.

Further, partisans and ideologues object to it for partisan and ideologue reasons.
 
Please read up on what the Fairness Doctrine really is.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing more than the Ideological Left trying to legislate their absurd notion of "Fairness" in Talk -Radio because they're unable to compete; they're point of view having been soundly rejected by the radio listening market.

The part about lefty radio not making money has been proven wrong in multiple markets.

No... It hasn't. IF leftist radio COULD make money, it WOULD make money and IF it COULD MAKE MONEY... there'd be no reason for Leftists to be trying to FORCE LEFTIST RADIO UPON THE PRIVATE RADIO MARKET...

That Leftist Radio is not thoroughly DESTITUTE in some HIGHLY ISOLATED INNER-CITY MARKETS... is IRRELEVANT to the discussion and the over-riding and wholly indisputable FACT that Leftist Radio IS SOUNDLY REJECTED BY THE RADIO LISTENING MARKET, without regard to where it's tried.

I personally ran "Guy James" a local whackjob Bolshevik out of the Public Forum business, by simply taking every lie he spewed on his 3 hour weekly show and disproving them on his OWN MESSAGE BOARD; until he finally just SHUT IT DOWN... His program dried up a few months later.... and that was THAT.

Leftists are idiots and idiocy just doesn't make good radio...
 

Forum List

Back
Top