The Fairness Doctrine

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....

How is giving the public MORE information on ONLY CRITICAL PUBLIC ISSUES suppression of speech?

sounds like doubletalk to me, set out to deceive.

the fairness doctrine DOES NOT force the stations to have another talk show of liberals to combat a talk show of conservatives or visa versa...

the fairness doctrine requires broadcast stations that are leasing our airways from the public, to service the public with pertinent information to the public.

As example, let's say the guy that owns ALL the radio stations with the farthest reach, also owns the town's football team....

And this owner is persuing the gvt for them to build him a new stadium that will cost the tax payers a near billion in their money to build a new football stadium for the guy...

this radio station owner would be required by the fairness doctrine to report BOTH SIDES of this issue so that the public can be well informed on the issue before it is voted on....and the broadcast radio guy would be prevented from ONLY GIVING his point on the issue that would benefit him greatly while possibly hurting the public....by making their taxes go up to pay for his stadium.
 
Last edited:
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.

well, you are absolutely fucking wrong. IF you try and put a strip club in a building rented by a fucking church then guess what.. YOU get to relocate. It's hilarious to watch you right wing motherfuckers jettison the collective rights of those who OWN the means of production just as soon as it doesn't fit your predictable fucking schemes.

Indeed, radio in ONE means. It's not the ONLY means. Hell, you have the internet to make progress with. INstead you sit here and cry like a bitch just because you can't dominate the sandbox of one vector. boo fucking hoo, child. You accusations regarding free speech are about as impressive as your 08 election results.
 
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.*

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

While I understand Care there is an issue for paying for services , my point is according to the court rulings on this issue and the case I cited is the one most often cited was based partially on the argument that the spectrum was limited and at that time it was so it was a valid argument. So now is that true? Another question is this, are opposing voices unable to find methods by which they cannot be heard on the spectrum due to it's limitations? If it is simply a marketing issue, where the audience does not support the on air personality then I submit the in todays media the Federal Govt. has no regulatory powers to suggest that a radio station hire a certian kind of radio personality. . They do however have power to regulate the specturm and can if instituted insist on providing time to rebutt issues. That time can be as far as I can see would be up to the individual station owner. This issue while and interesting one, will eventually lead to a very long protracted court battle Care, and honestly I don't see much changing no matter how much they wish it change. The best ave. would be to spend money allocated to do this on increasing broadband services to areas like yours that don't have it. This will have the effect of lowering the cost of delivering those high speed services to you and allowing you more choices across the spcetrum.
 
How is giving the public MORE information on ONLY CRITICAL PUBLIC ISSUES suppression of speech?

sounds like doubletalk to me, set out to deceive.

the fairness doctrine DOES NOT force the stations to have another talk show of liberals to combat a talk show of conservatives or visa versa...

the fairness doctrine requires broadcast stations that are leasing our airways from the public, to service the public with pertinent information to the public.

As example, let's say the guy that owns ALL the radio stations with the farthest reach, also owns the town's football team....

And this owner is persuing the gvt for them to build him a new stadium that will cost the tax payers a near billion in their money to build a new football stadium for the guy...

this radio station owner would be required by the fairness doctrine to report BOTH SIDES of this issue so that the public can be well informed on the issue before it is voted on....and the broadcast radio guy would be prevented from ONLY GIVING his point on the issue that would benefit him greatly while possibly hurting the public....by making their taxes go up to pay for his stadium.

Given the amount of information resources available these days, you can't make the argument that because conservative talk radio has been so successful, that the liberal message isn't getting out. Didn't this country just elect a liberal President DESPITE the fact conservative talk radio exists? The problem here is one of targeting by the Left. They wish to shut down Hannity, Rush, Quinn & Rose, Savage, Beck, etc. because of the content & are using this so-called Fairness Doctrine to achieve it.

As far as your example goes, don't we have enough government interference in our lives as is? The fact is, liberal talk shows go away because people don't want to listen to it. However, liberal media does well in the newspaper & TV, yet you never hear a conservative call for the Fairness Doctrine there....
 
well, you are absolutely fucking wrong. IF you try and put a strip club in a building rented by a fucking church then guess what.. YOU get to relocate. It's hilarious to watch you right wing motherfuckers jettison the collective rights of those who OWN the means of production just as soon as it doesn't fit your predictable fucking schemes.

Indeed, radio in ONE means. It's not the ONLY means. Hell, you have the internet to make progress with. INstead you sit here and cry like a bitch just because you can't dominate the sandbox of one vector. boo fucking hoo, child. You accusations regarding free speech are about as impressive as your 08 election results.


notice the key phrases here my friends....the ones bolded are pages right out of the Left's playbook. I am the one defending the INDIVIDUAL's RIGHT, yet you mention the COLLECTIVE RIGHT.....

Let me ask you something, if Air America had actually succeeded & the Left dominated talk radio, would you be calling for a Fairness Doctrine at that point?
 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

While I understand Care there is an issue for paying for services , my point is according to the court rulings on this issue and the case I cited is the one most often cited was based partially on the argument that the spectrum was limited and at that time it was so it was a valid argument. So now is that true? Another question is this, are opposing voices unable to find methods by which they cannot be heard on the spectrum due to it's limitations? If it is simply a marketing issue, where the audience does not support the on air personality then I submit the in todays media the Federal Govt. has no regulatory powers to suggest that a radio station hire a certian kind of radio personality. . They do however have power to regulate the specturm and can if instituted insist on providing time to rebutt issues. That time can be as far as I can see would be up to the individual station owner. This issue while and interesting one, will eventually lead to a very long protracted court battle Care, and honestly I don't see much changing no matter how much they wish it change. The best ave. would be to spend money allocated to do this on increasing broadband services to areas like yours that don't have it. This will have the effect of lowering the cost of delivering those high speed services to you and allowing you more choices across the spcetrum.

THAT'S where YOU have gone wrong on this Navy...

The fairness doctrine DOES NOT require that the Station "hire a certain kind of radio host"...THIS IS THE LIE that you have been told.

It only requires that on issues that are important to the public, that the radio/tv station give pertinent information on both sides of the issue of public importance.

It does not require equal time, it does not require the same type program to reveal both sides...

it can be mentioned in one of their news programs with a blip on it...

care
 
For the LAST TIME, this has nothing to do with talk radio....even though both libs and conservatives seem to keep spouting this, IT IS NOT TRUE.
 
Care, it is centered around political talk radio...that is the focal point


Every city I have been in, there has always been a conservative station and a liberal station. Competition really is a beautiful thing
 
THAT'S where YOU have gone wrong on this Navy...

The fairness doctrine DOES NOT require that the Station "hire a certain kind of radio host"...THIS IS THE LIE that you have been told.

It only requires that on issues that are important to the public, that the radio/tv station give pertinent information on both sides of the issue of public importance.

It does not require equal time, it does not require the same type program to reveal both sides...

it can be mentioned in one of their news programs with a blip on it...

care

Good morning Care, I don't think you read my words in context respectfully, in short, some advocate that on air personalities be hired to offset a liberal voice or a conservative voice. I submit that A. the Federal Govt. as I mentioned above as no regulatory right to do that and B. I'm agreeing with you on the fact the Fairness Doctrine does not advocate that. What my position is is actually quite simple Care. That the because the old argument on this was one that the lack of specturm or available avenues for the listener to hear opposing views was there there was a need to make the LIMITED spectrum fair which I don't see any fault in. Further what I have also said Care, was that even if the Fairness Doctrine were brought back in it's current form , you are correct that the need to provide a rebuttal is up to the station and as long as the the view of the on air personality has been them so be it. See we are not that far apart as you thought. It is just my opinion that the Fairness Doctrine is a non starter because the ability to hear opposing views is so vast now, the argument that because you cannot hear it on one specturm it needs to be implemented is a weak one IMHO.

Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[1]
 
Good morning Care, I don't think you read my words in context respectfully, in short, some advocate that on air personalities be hired to offset a liberal voice or a conservative voice. I submit that A. the Federal Govt. as I mentioned above as no regulatory right to do that and B. I'm agreeing with you on the fact the Fairness Doctrine does not advocate that. What my position is is actually quite simple Care. That the because the old argument on this was one that the lack of specturm or available avenues for the listener to hear opposing views was there there was a need to make the LIMITED spectrum fair which I don't see any fault in. Further what I have also said Care, was that even if the Fairness Doctrine were brought back in it's current form , you are correct that the need to provide a rebuttal is up to the station and as long as the the view of the on air personality has been them so be it. See we are not that far apart as you thought. It is just my opinion that the Fairness Doctrine is a non starter because the ability to hear opposing views is so vast now, the argument that because you cannot hear it on one specturm it needs to be implemented is a weak one IMHO.

Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[1]

NAVY, Newpapers were NEVER regulated by the fairness doctrine because they were never limited as the airwaves are....even way back when the fairness doctrine was in place, it only covered PUBLIC broadcast stations that were LIMITED in airspace...newspapers could be a dime a dozen and there are no limits on newspapers, the same with cable stations, there are no LIMITS to cable stations while there is a limit to public broadcast radio and tv.

so there would be no fairness doctrine for the internet, it is limitless...HOWEVER the public's broadcast stations ARE LIMITED....and we give the leases to very few people.

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 Fairness Doctrine
 
Last edited:
notice the key phrases here my friends....the ones bolded are pages right out of the Left's playbook. I am the one defending the INDIVIDUAL's RIGHT, yet you mention the COLLECTIVE RIGHT.....

Let me ask you something, if Air America had actually succeeded & the Left dominated talk radio, would you be calling for a Fairness Doctrine at that point?

You don't have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to a NATIONAL RESOURCE. Sorry to break it to you.


And yes, even if the left dominated talk radio I would still be fore sharing the finite resource of the radio spectrum. But, let's not forget that no one is telling you that right wing ideas cannot be fostered; they just can't use a publically shared resource as if it's their own personal sandbox. You have options. You just don't want to entertain them because crying about lefties is easier than sharing a finite resource.
 

You don't have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to a NATIONAL RESOURCE. Sorry to break it to you.


And yes, even if the left dominated talk radio I would still be fore sharing the finite resource of the radio spectrum. But, let's not forget that no one is telling you that right wing ideas cannot be fostered; they just can't use a publically shared resource as if it's their own personal sandbox. You have options. You just don't want to entertain them because crying about lefties is easier than sharing a finite resource.

Just admit your real desire is to suppress speech you disagree with and you are hoping to use some bullshit ass regulation to help you accomplish your anti-free speech mission so we can end this insipid discussion and move on!
 
and yes navy, we are close to agreeing! :)

If I mentioned newspapers or implied that newspapers for some reason were part of the spectrum then I apologize. The spectrum I am talking about or avenues to be heard are where one speaks, you you listen. See the chart I gave you, which I know looks like a nice little rainbow, lol but it does show the vast spectrum and oppose that to 1969 when the Red Lion case was heard. In 1969 you had what ? 3 major TV channels, AM Radio and FM was still in a infant in the broadcast spectrum. We do agree on a lot of things, however, IMO this Fairness Doctrine again is a non-starter and so much more time and energy can be focused on issues that need attention that this one which will in the end go no where.
 
Just admit your real desire is to suppress speech you disagree with and you are hoping to use some bullshit ass regulation to help you accomplish your anti-free speech mission so we can end this insipid discussion and move on!

i will ask you TE, how does giving the public MORE information regarding issues of great public interest SUPPRESS speech?
 
Just admit your real desire is to suppress speech you disagree with and you are hoping to use some bullshit ass regulation to help you accomplish your anti-free speech mission so we can end this insipid discussion and move on!

If that were the case we'd be calling for a ban on fat white dudes on the radio. but hey, if you need to cry go ahead and get it out of your system now. Or, like I've suggested previously, go get your Ruby Ridge on and show us that you mean business.

OR, go find where you have an individual right to a national resource in the constitution. You crybaby motherfuckers have gotten used to eating right wing chocolate for so long that you seem to think the rest of us don't count. Sorry. Fuck you. Evolve or die, poopypants.
 
Last edited:
i will ask you TE, how does giving the public MORE information regarding issues of great public interest SUPPRESS speech?

Look at the effect it had in the past. Look at the way it was implemented. Stations did not want to take the time and effort (and pay the legal fees) to figure out if they were in compliance with the regulation, so they just didn't air political content. Pretty easy solution. Remember, this is business. Spending time in the courts is not usually how you make money. Also, you have to understand how the FCC gains compliance from it's licensee's. If they fine you, you would think that you could appeal it to the courts right? Like any administrative law ruling. But, not really, the FCC has blocked the granting of license renewals, additional stations licenses and M&A for corporations that are appealing FCC rulings to the courts.

What that means in this case, is that there would be no real right of appeal in an FCC ruling on the fairness doctrine. Not to worry, the businesses wouldn't even get to that point, they'll choose not to play. The result is that currently available political content programs will be taken off the air.

But, assuming there are some brave stations that are willing to give it a go, they would have to reduce their current content and provide the alternative view point. I'm assuming here that they couldn't put on profitable conservative shows in the 6 am - 6 pm and put on unprofitable liberal shows on 6 pm - 6 am. There would be some insistence on opportunity if not parity of listenership. So, let's take a station like WMAL in Washington that current airs a line up of Fred Grandy and Andy Parks (yes, that's Gopher from the Love Boat), Chris Plant, Rush, Shawn Hannity and Mark Levin from 6 am to 7 pm. Half of those shows would have to be cut to make way for shows with an alternate viewpoint. That would suppress content.

Further, because the confusion created by mixing content, listenership would no doubt be reduced. There are gains to be achieved, as is common knowledge, with lead in shows etc. If you alternate or only do mornings etc, you will damage your listenership and reduce profits.
 
Look at the effect it had in the past. Look at the way it was implemented. Stations did not want to take the time and effort (and pay the legal fees) to figure out if they were in compliance with the regulation, so they just didn't air political content. Pretty easy solution. Remember, this is business. Spending time in the courts is not usually how you make money. Also, you have to understand how the FCC gains compliance from it's licensee's. If they fine you, you would think that you could appeal it to the courts right? Like any administrative law ruling. But, not really, the FCC has blocked the granting of license renewals, additional stations licenses and M&A for corporations that are appealing FCC rulings to the courts.

What that means in this case, is that there would be no real right of appeal in an FCC ruling on the fairness doctrine. Not to worry, the businesses wouldn't even get to that point, they'll choose not to play. The result is that currently available political content programs will be taken off the air.

But, assuming there are some brave stations that are willing to give it a go, they would have to reduce their current content and provide the alternative view point. I'm assuming here that they couldn't put on profitable conservative shows in the 6 am - 6 pm and put on unprofitable liberal shows on 6 pm - 6 am. There would be some insistence on opportunity if not parity of listenership. So, let's take a station like WMAL in Washington that current airs a line up of Fred Grandy and Andy Parks (yes, that's Gopher from the Love Boat), Chris Plant, Rush, Shawn Hannity and Mark Levin from 6 am to 7 pm. Half of those shows would have to be cut to make way for shows with an alternate viewpoint. That would suppress content.

Further, because the confusion created by mixing content, listenership would no doubt be reduced. There are gains to be achieved, as is common knowledge, with lead in shows etc. If you alternate or only do mornings etc, you will damage your listenership and reduce profits.


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 Fairness Doctrine
 
If that were the case we'd be calling for a ban on fat white dudes on the radio. but hey, if you need to cry go ahead and get it out of your system now. Or, like I've suggested previously, go get your Ruby Ridge on and show us that you mean business.

OR, go find where you have an individual right to a national resource in the constitution. You crybaby motherfuckers have gotten used to eating right wing chocolate for so long that you seem to think the rest of us don't count. Sorry. Fuck you. Evolve or die, poopypants.
Just ignore Shogun hes obviously a fucked crackhead:eusa_boohoo:....Fairness Doctrine and the Mayflower Doctrine's expensively and costly bad law for all involved and would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple... If you ant got nothing to hide then WTF's the problem?!?!?!?!?!:eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
Just ignore Shogun hes obviously a fucked crackhead:eusa_boohoo:....Fairness Doctrine and the Mayflower Doctrine's expensively and costly bad law for all involved and would be a direct violation of the First Amendment, plain and simple... If you ant got nothing to hide then WTF's the problem?!?!?!?!?!:eusa_whistle:

you are absolutely INCORRECT and the supreme court has ruled such....many times over, regarding this....the Fairness doctrine and it's sister Act were in place for many, many decades...with several SC rulings....

any person leasing to someone else, has the right to put stipulations on that lease....

Broadcast stations LEASE their airwaves from us, the Public (the citizen) who owns them, thru our gvt.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top