The Fairness Doctrine

[Shogun]

And I know of no media establishment out there that purposely sticks to a format as part of some grand conspiracy....look how many times a radio station will change formats because they are loosing money on a failed format....same thing here, liberal talk was attempted & it didn't work....this isn't PBS here we are talking about, these are private businesses that set up the station, pay the bills, employ people working there & paid for the license to broadcast. They have every right in the world to do what it takes to make money back on that investment...this is a classic case of trying to solve a problem that doesn't even exist...

To go further, you keep mentioning about these finite resources...yet, you mentioned the internet, XM radio, etc....you mean to tell me that radio trumps all other forms of communication in this country....you mean to tell me people don't have computers, TVs, access to newspapers, etc.? Spare me....this is nothing more than libs trying to limit freedom of thought in this country with ideas they don't agree with.....

again. radio stations do not OWN radio waves. sorry. they pay for a LICENSE. One that can be revoked for the sake of sharing a national resource. If RADIO is no longer the kind of investment that you are looking for then, again, take your format to xml or the internet.

And I suggest you figure out how xml works as opposed to how radio works before you start throwing rocks that will come flying back atcha. xml and the net are not finite to the same degree as the radio spectrum. But, please, continue to be ignorant if that is what you choose. Much like your choice yesterday, it's just not working out for you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are kidding, right? We just watched 8 years of warrantless wiretapping, political favoritism, and torture and you still deny that you voted for a "wannabe" King twice.

I AM GLAD YOU WILL HAVE TO WATCH OBAMA, A BLACK MAN, RULE THIS COUNTRY FOR 4 YEARS.

I did not vote for GW ,fuck nut, not once not ever.

And when the patriot act is the topic of a thread I'll be happy to respond.
and i was always opposed to warrant less wiretaps and the loss of habeas corpus. and until you get your facts straight shut the fuck up.

So the fairness doctrine is not an attack on free speech as far as you're concerned?

Like that load Schumer, you liken free speech to pornography?

 

[Shogun]

You're silly. I don't know why you keep insisting that I'm mad though. I'm not mad. You're just wrong. You can enforce all kinds of things, that doesn't make them right. I believe you may have mentioned as much when Bush was doing them.

Im not wrong by a long shot. If you want to prove me wrong then go google a thing or two about the finite radio spectrum and why the FCC continues to be so selective with station licenses. Trust me, regulating a national resource fairly is hardly wiretapping Americans.

 

[Shogun]

So the fairness doctrine is not an attack on free speech as far as you're concerned?

it's not an attack on free speech. Rush, Hannity and every other talking head could be removed from radio today and as long as they still have the internet and xml and a vector by which their message gets across there is no restriction on speech. This is not a matter of shutting down a message so much as it is using a shared resource for more than conservative talking points.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can't? Cause that's what the GOP did for 8 years. Talked out of both sides of their mouths.

you are so dense bobo. this is not about the GOP it's about the government dictating what one can say. Period. it is an assault on the first amendment.

Radio used to be a big industry, until it was deregulated and all those thousands of individually owned small business' were bought up by 10 companies. Those are public airwaves. Those companies don't own the airwaves. They just purchase the right to use our airwaves.

So then let another radio station compete for the licenses. Air America tried and failed. No one listened and advertisers stayed away in droves because no one wanted to hear what they said.

It's like defense spending or oil companies. The defense companies are profitting off tax payers dollars. So it doesn't qualify for the free market rules. And oil companies are taking our oil off our lands.

No it's nothing like defense spending. It is free speech.

We can regulate them a little more than the car companies or computer companies, as an example, because they aren't making anything that the "free market" can buy.

they are selling advertising and that is a service that you purchase.

I don't think I'm explaining myself properly.

you never do

All I know is the GOP deregulated radio so they could buy everything up and spew their propoganda without competition.

you are now officially diagnosed as paranoid. The GOP owns ALL the radio stations so they can bad mouth the Dimocrats?

Time to get back on the anti-psychotics.

Rush is a piece of shit. Randi Rhodes would be more popular if Clearchannel put her head to head against him. But they won't, because they prefer Rush's propoganda. And this serves society how?

I don't listen to Rush but he sells advertising and people listen to his show more than they listen to others. That is good business but Dimmies don't understand that.

Let a left wing show get on the air and compete for listeners and advertising dollars. If they can.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's not an attack on free speech. Rush, Hannity and every other talking head could be removed from radio today and as long as they still have the internet and xml and a vector by which their message gets across there is no restriction on speech. This is not a matter of shutting down a message so much as it is using a shared resource for more than conservative talking points.

Isn't that what public radio is for? NPR is decidedly liberal and they take government money force them to be fair before you tell a private business what to do.

the Dimmies can get a show and broadcast as well. so why don't they?

this is the government dictating to a privately owned and operated business what it can and cannot air. Even if it means airing what its target audience doesn't want to hear.

If the government wants to do that then the required opposing view should pay the station for the time.

What's next you can't tell a joke about a Dimmie on a sit-com unless you tell a joke about a Repudlican? After all TV is public airwaves too.

 

[Shogun]

Isn't that what public radio is for? NPR is decidedly liberal and they take government money force them to be fair before you tell a private business what to do.

the Dimmies can get a show and broadcast as well. so why don't they?

this is the government dictating to a privately owned and operated business what it can and cannot air. Even if it means airing what its target audience doesn't want to hear.

If the government wants to do that then the required opposing view should pay the station for the time.

What's next you can't tell a joke about a Dimmie on a sit-com unless you tell a joke about a Repudlican? After all TV is public airwaves too.

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. Clear channel does NOT own the radio waves. It does NOT own the radio specrum or any location on the band. Private business is free to take it's operation to a different forum that is not a finite national resource. I've named two myself. If you choose to ignore these most basic facts about radio then so be it. Enjoy the next four years.

 

[Ravi]

for that matter, there isn't an area in the country where there isn't tons of available spectrum on AM and FM, so why hasn't some liberal capitalist glommed on to some of it and set up shop?

Prolly because liberals don't need fat drug addicts to tell them what to think.

 

[del]

Prolly because liberals don't need fat drug addicts to tell them what to think.

neither do conservatives. i actually listened to that fat loser for awhile today. he was going on about how Prop 8 was proof that "true" conservatism won when it was presented properly. he went rapidly downhill from there.

what a buffoon-how anyone on either side takes him seriously totally mystifies me.

 

[Navy1960]

The Fairness Doctrine preceeds rightwing nutcase radio. The original intent was to make sure ALL information was made public. Amazingly, the right wing has issues with information getting out there, while whining that their free speeh is being suppressed. This from the same people who try to boycott anyone who offends them.

And to address the people who have this bizarre idea that somehow the airwaves are "free" and should be unregulated, I direct their attention to FCC v. Pacifica.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The airwaves are regulated. How many media outlets can be owned by an individual or corporation, and logs have to be constantly maintained as to content.

RED LION BROADCASTING CO. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)

MR. JUSTICE WHITE :

We need not and do not now ratify every past and future decision by the FCC with regard to programming. There is no question here of the Commission's refusal to permit the broadcaster to carry a particular program or to publish his own views; of a discriminatory refusal to require the licensee to broadcast certain views which have been denied access to the airwaves; of government censorship of a particular program contrary to 326; or of the official government view dominating public broadcasting. Such questions would raise more serious First Amendment issues. But we do hold that the Congress and the Commission do not violate the First Amendment when they require a radio or television station to give reply time to answer personal attacks and political editorials.

It is argued that even if at one time the lack of available frequencies for all who wished to use them justified the Government's choice of those who would best serve the public interest by acting as proxy for those who would present differing views, or by giving the latter access directly to broadcast facilities, this condition no longer prevails so that continuing control is not justified.

Even where there are gaps in spectrum utilization, the fact remains that existing broadcasters have often attained their present position because of their initial government selection in competition with others before new technological advances opened new opportunities for further uses. Long experience in broadcasting, confirmed habits of listeners and viewers, network affiliation, and other advantages in program procurement give existing broadcasters a substantial advantage over new entrants, even where new entry is technologically possible. These advantages are the fruit of a preferred position conferred by the Government. Some present possibility for new entry by competing stations is not enough, in itself, to render unconstitutional the Government's effort to assure that a broadcaster's programming ranges widely enough to serve the public interest.

In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and [395 U.S. 367, 401] ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. 28 The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.


It is so ordered.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Jillian, while I am not making any argument that would suggest the Federal Govt. has no interest or right to regulate the spectrum of public airwaves. What I am suggesting is two things, one is that when the Court rendered it's decision in the Red Lion case it was clear that the argument was a limited spectrum argument and does it violate the stations First Amendment if equal time is given. While both these questions were addressed, today the limited spectrum agrument does not apply and if you read the entire decision you will see that Court even suggest as the spectrum grows there is merit in revisiting the issue. Further, the Court in the decision does not suggest IMHO an allotment for equal time in so much as it suggests time to rebutt and that time as far as my read is concerned is left open to interpretation. So given that , it would appear that a radio station would have every right to allocate whatever time they deem necessary for such issues, if it even gets that far after a legal challenge, which after the spectrum argument is presented I don't believe it will. The other thing I am suggesting, is that any law or rule imposed would apply to ALL liberal and conservative and would in effect cut both way's and may not have the desired effect of it's intended victems, so in that case, it would be much more prudent to just turn off what you or anyone else finds not to their liking or compete in the market place and build an audience. IMO a radio station is a business and as long as the on-air personalities are making money for them, they could care less what their views are.

 

[sealybobo]

you are so dense bobo. this is not about the GOP it's about the government dictating what one can say. Period. it is an assault on the first amendment.



So then let another radio station compete for the licenses. Air America tried and failed. No one listened and advertisers stayed away in droves because no one wanted to hear what they said.



No it's nothing like defense spending. It is free speech.



they are selling advertising and that is a service that you purchase.



you never do



you are now officially diagnosed as paranoid. The GOP owns ALL the radio stations so they can bad mouth the Dimocrats?

Time to get back on the anti-psychotics.



I don't listen to Rush but he sells advertising and people listen to his show more than they listen to others. That is good business but Dimmies don't understand that.

Let a left wing show get on the air and compete for listeners and advertising dollars. If they can.

You're just wrong. You guys said there wasn't an interest for liberal media/news/talk and we are seeing with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, there is. And even if conservatives are more into talk radio than liberals are, the fact is, there was no one on a national stage that could have or would have challanged Bush when he was lying us into war.

That's why there needs to be fairness.

Not to mention there is an audience for it. Maybe even bigger than Rush's audience. Just syndicate Randi Rhodes against Rush in all major markets and see.

I hear from people in red states all the time calling into liberal talk shows. They say they have to get it on the internet or through serriuss or xm radio. God forbid the truth gets told in Georgia or Tennessee or Texas.

 

[Care4all]

RED LION BROADCASTING CO. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)

MR. JUSTICE WHITE :

We need not and do not now ratify every past and future decision by the FCC with regard to programming. There is no question here of the Commission's refusal to permit the broadcaster to carry a particular program or to publish his own views; of a discriminatory refusal to require the licensee to broadcast certain views which have been denied access to the airwaves; of government censorship of a particular program contrary to 326; or of the official government view dominating public broadcasting. Such questions would raise more serious First Amendment issues. But we do hold that the Congress and the Commission do not violate the First Amendment when they require a radio or television station to give reply time to answer personal attacks and political editorials.

It is argued that even if at one time the lack of available frequencies for all who wished to use them justified the Government's choice of those who would best serve the public interest by acting as proxy for those who would present differing views, or by giving the latter access directly to broadcast facilities, this condition no longer prevails so that continuing control is not justified.

Even where there are gaps in spectrum utilization, the fact remains that existing broadcasters have often attained their present position because of their initial government selection in competition with others before new technological advances opened new opportunities for further uses. Long experience in broadcasting, confirmed habits of listeners and viewers, network affiliation, and other advantages in program procurement give existing broadcasters a substantial advantage over new entrants, even where new entry is technologically possible. These advantages are the fruit of a preferred position conferred by the Government. Some present possibility for new entry by competing stations is not enough, in itself, to render unconstitutional the Government's effort to assure that a broadcaster's programming ranges widely enough to serve the public interest.

In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and [395 U.S. 367, 401] ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. 28 The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.


It is so ordered.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Jillian, while I am not making any argument that would suggest the Federal Govt. has no interest or right to regulate the spectrum of public airwaves. What I am suggesting is two things, one is that when the Court rendered it's decision in the Red Lion case it was clear that the argument was a limited spectrum argument and does it violate the stations First Amendment if equal time is given. While both these questions were addressed, today the limited spectrum agrument does not apply and if you read the entire decision you will see that Court even suggest as the spectrum grows there is merit in revisiting the issue. Further, the Court in the decision does not suggest IMHO an allotment for equal time in so much as it suggests time to rebutt and that time as far as my read is concerned is left open to interpretation. So given that , it would appear that a radio station would have every right to allocate whatever time they deem necessary for such issues, if it even gets that far after a legal challenge, which after the spectrum argument is presented I don't believe it will. The other thing I am suggesting, is that any law or rule imposed would apply to ALL liberal and conservative and would in effect cut both way's and may not have the desired effect of it's intended victems, so in that case, it would be much more prudent to just turn off what you or anyone else finds not to their liking or compete in the market place and build an audience. IMO a radio station is a business and as long as the on-air personalities are making money for them, they could care less what their views are.

Many areas in the country, still only have the limited broadcast stations....i did not know this when i was in massachusetts, but it is very evident now in rural maine....unless you have money to spare, people do not get the internet here...my three neighbors do not even own computers because we can not get a decent broadband internet and we can not get any reasonable television unless you have the money to pay for satelite, which is $60 bucks a month...and the only way i was able to get broadband, and a crappy speed broadband at that, was thru verizon wireless on my expensive laptop computer for over $60 bucks a month....when the average salary for males in this state is $17k gross and the average yearly salary for women here is $16 k gross, there is not the money available to pay for these expensive programs...broadcast radio and broadcast tv, (only 2 stations come in) are the only means of media that are not cost prohibited.

We went the first year and a half here with no broadband at all available, only recently did verizon add a tower for wireless that BARELY reaches me with speeds on only 700-800k...sprint wireless does not reach us nor does Att wireless....no dsl and no cable available.*

 

[KGB]

again. radio stations do not OWN radio waves. sorry. they pay for a LICENSE. One that can be revoked for the sake of sharing a national resource. If RADIO is no longer the kind of investment that you are looking for then, again, take your format to xml or the internet.

And I suggest you figure out how xml works as opposed to how radio works before you start throwing rocks that will come flying back atcha. xml and the net are not finite to the same degree as the radio spectrum. But, please, continue to be ignorant if that is what you choose. Much like your choice yesterday, it's just not working out for you.

a lot of businesses don't own the buildings they rent, yet that doesn't give the landlord the right to dictate how that business conducts itself....& as usual from libbies, you missed the point....radio is one means of getting a message out. The same tools that conservatives use to get the message are available to liberals. However, because libs can't stand thought that doesn't mirror their own, they try to suppress it....you have TV, internet, XM radio, newspapers, & yes, even the radio spectrum to get your message to the masses. The only difference is, the market decides what gets put on. On the TV side, it tends to be heavily slanted towards liberal media. On the radio, conservative talk. The Fairness Doctrine violates free speech & freedom of thought by its intended application.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Many areas in the country, still only have the limited broadcast stations....i did not know this when i was in massachusetts, but it is very evident now in rural maine....unless you have money to spare, people do not get the internet here...my three neighbors do not even own computers because we can not get a decent broadband internet and we can not get any reasonable television unless you have the money to pay for satelite, which is $60 bucks a month...and the only way i was able to get broadband, and a crappy speed broadband at that, was thru verizon wireless on my expensive laptop computer for over $60 bucks a month....when the average salary for males in this state is $17k gross and the average yearly salary for women here is $16 k gross, there is not the money available to pay for these expensive programs...broadcast radio and broadcast tv, (only 2 stations come in) are the only means of media that are not cost prohibited.

We went the first year and a half here with no broadband at all available, only recently did verizon add a tower for wireless that BARELY reaches me with speeds on only 700-800k...sprint wireless does not reach us nor does Att wireless....

Well crap, it sounds like Maine needs the same thing we had in Europe AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio and Television Service). It plays about an hour of everything. An hour of rock/pop, an hour of country, an hour talk etc. It's all things to all people and therefore less than mediocre.

 

[KGB]

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. Clear channel does NOT own the radio waves. It does NOT own the radio specrum or any location on the band. Private business is free to take it's operation to a different forum that is not a finite national resource. I've named two myself. If you choose to ignore these most basic facts about radio then so be it. Enjoy the next four years.

the beginnings of suppression from the Left......notice the underpinings, nationalized control of resources....dictation on content, suppression of speech that the Left does not tolerate....

 

[KGB]

You're just wrong. You guys said there wasn't an interest for liberal media/news/talk and we are seeing with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, there is. And even if conservatives are more into talk radio than liberals are, the fact is, there was no one on a national stage that could have or would have challanged Bush when he was lying us into war.

That's why there needs to be fairness.

Not to mention there is an audience for it. Maybe even bigger than Rush's audience. Just syndicate Randi Rhodes against Rush in all major markets and see.

I hear from people in red states all the time calling into liberal talk shows. They say they have to get it on the internet or through serriuss or xm radio. God forbid the truth gets told in Georgia or Tennessee or Texas.

And what truth might that be....the lies libbies love to tell the people through public education, TV & other outlets.....

libbies can't stand when things don't go their way....see the 2000 election where even after stacking the deck & prompting an unconstitutional court challenge, they still lost....

 

[Shogun]

the beginnings of suppression from the Left......notice the underpinings, nationalized control of resources....dictation on content, suppression of speech that the Left does not tolerate....

Again, as it's been since the inception of fucking radio stupid, RADIO STATIONS DO NOT OWN THE FUCKING RADIO WAVES. You do know what a fucking LICENSE IS, right?

Hey, get your ruby ridge on, motherfucker. I hear evolution calling.

 

[sealybobo]

And what truth might that be....the lies libbies love to tell the people through public education, TV & other outlets.....

libbies can't stand when things don't go their way....see the 2000 election where even after stacking the deck & prompting an unconstitutional court challenge, they still lost....

See Gore v Bush you ignorant bastard.

What lies do we tell? Do tell?

You mean lies like YES WE CAN? Because I think you've been lying all this time telling us NO WE CAN'T.

 

[Shogun]

And what truth might that be....the lies libbies love to tell the people through public education, TV & other outlets.....

libbies can't stand when things don't go their way....see the 2000 election where even after stacking the deck & prompting an unconstitutional court challenge, they still lost....

This must be the most Ironic Post i've seen all week. So, here you are complaining about how liberals can't stand when things don't go our way yet you don't seem to know that things DID go our way and that is exactly why YOU are here stomping your fucking foot. Things didn't go your way, dude. I'm sure you can't stand that. My advice to you is to get your ruby ridge on and show us that you mean business.

 

[sealybobo]

the beginnings of suppression from the Left......notice the underpinings, nationalized control of resources....dictation on content, suppression of speech that the Left does not tolerate....

I'm all for free markets. If you buy parts and put together a great fucking product, by all means, sell it for whatever you want.

But when it's our airwaves, our oil or our electricity, you will sell it at a fair price. Who sets that price? GOVERNMENT! Not the companies that sell it.