The results of removing the Fairness Doctrine?

[thereisnospoon]

And that is precisely why the left wants the Fairness Doctrine re-instated.Yes there most certainly IS a right to broadcast one's point of view. It is up to those on the other side of issues to provide a message that people would be interested in hearing.
You must be kidding yourself here.
At the end of the day government would have to step in and make draconian changes to the rules of the public airwaves which would result in them being public no more.
We would have State Controlled Radio.
Freedom of speech must apply to all or it means nothing.
The opportunity for liberals to get their message on the air is equal to anyone else's.
The issue liberals cannot deal with is that few people desire to listen to the liberal viewpoint.
It is listenership and ratings that decide what content is on the air.
Example....Glen Beck...His ratings are not what WOR-AM( New York City) were looking for. So as of Jan 15th, the Glenn Beck program is off that station.
His place will be taken by a local personality.
The above is a perfect example of the marketplace functioning the way it is designed.
No doctrine needed. Just low ratings and guess what.....OUT....
Now, would you rather the federal government and the requisite bureaucrats be in charge of that decision? Do you really need the safe warm cuddly feeling knowing government is there to take care of your needs?

Funny the only people to ever say "They want to chase the conservative point of view off the public airwaves." are the Pseudo-conned

Not One's( as in a person) POV but broadcasting a single political point of view 24/7.

Untill the Raygun Administrtion ceased enforcing it the SC decided it was Constitutional and was far from being Draconian.

Furthermore the SC also stated that the Fairness doctrine enabled more public debate and enhancde free speech by not allowing a monopolizaion of the public airwave by a single political perspective.

Got a case number that shows that particular SCOTUS opinion?
We pay no attention to what your side says, we watch like a hawk what your side does.
You obviously were not around or simply not paying attention to radio during the "fairness" days.
There WAS NO political debate. No talk radio of any consequence.
Radio station management did not want to deal with the hassles of talk and the land mines of complying with fairness that came with it.
Now, talk radio is the number two format. Meaning, talk radio is second only to urban contemporary(which includes hip hop and rap) as a format.
This fairness thing has a lot of tentacles. It is withing the realm of possibility that certain types of music could be deemed political speech. Depends upon the lyrics.
Suppose for a moment a complaint is filed under "Fairness" that stated a radio station played only one particular type of music that furthered a single type political agenda. That would open another can of worms.
As stated earlier, this is moot. There will be no Fairness Doctrine passed any time soon.
You'll just have to deal with the marketplace as is.
Again. If you want liberal talk, contact as many of your fellow liberals as you may and have them demand liberal talk be put on the air. Then it would be YOUR responsibility to listen and thus keep it on the air. It's that simple.

 

[bodecea]

I dunno, uscitizen. Mebbe we should instead consider outlawing hate speech, as Germany has done.

that sounds a bit more problematic.

I am not saying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, just asking if it's demise has contributed to our current hate and vitrol filled media?

I know the knee jerk reaction of those on the far right everytime the Fairness Doctrine is mentioned though.

I do believe that our society is currently incapable of debating hate and fearmongering in the media without name calling and knee jerk reactions.

Sorry, but there is WAY too much money to be made by allowing the hate and fearmongering on the airways.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Its not right wing news radio, it's right wing lies and distortions that idiots want to believe because it makes them feel the way they want to believe.

The middle 60 percent of Americans are in the same boat where they have little different that they could do to better themselves because they isn't a path that they can just go down. So here comes the agitators who make millions off of trying to get a following, saying anything they can to turn any group against another in order to get a following.

Well I hate to tell you red neck gun toting hypocrites, if you got everything you wanted it would still be the same for you, you would be looking to blame someone for your own inability to get where most of you think you belong, at the top, because the top isn’t/ain't accepting you and they don't want you.

So keep fighting the battle for the ultra rich, and when you finally get to where your heading you will find out two things, your pathetic self will still be there and the people you been fighting against will still be neighbors, and the only difference is the rich in the country will have gone from owing 50% of everything to 68% of everything to day and on to probably 80% by 2020. And they will have done it on the backs of right wing honkies that they used by attracting them with the hate and bitterness they know makes up most of their life’s.

"Right wing honkies"..."red neck gun toting hypocrites".....And there we have it.....
Hey, FUCK YOU. You racist bastard.
People like you are the very reason why we have conservative talk radio as an outlet...
It is because people like you who belong to PC protected classes that get to spew all kinds of filth and untruths about others while you are protected against all criticism.

Your side's code of political correctness has seen to it that I as a conservative cannot express myself in the same manner( not that I would want to anyway) while you are free to spew all kinds of racial and cultural epithets with impunity.

LOL, apparently you too are free to spew.

Please.....We both know exactly to what I refer. So just stop the nonsense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I dunno, uscitizen. Mebbe we should instead consider outlawing hate speech, as Germany has done.

that sounds a bit more problematic.

I am not saying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, just asking if it's demise has contributed to our current hate and vitrol filled media?

I know the knee jerk reaction of those on the far right everytime the Fairness Doctrine is mentioned though.

I do believe that our society is currently incapable of debating hate and fearmongering in the media without name calling and knee jerk reactions.

Sorry, but there is WAY too much money to be made by allowing the hate and fearmongering on the airways.

examples please....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Can all the hate and vitrol in MSM be tracked directly back to the removal of the Fairness Doctrine?

Did they ever actually impliment the "fairness" doctrine?

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

BTW who calls a doctrine that abridges people's freedom of expression in such a way that forces them to talk about values they do not hold considered "fair"

 

[BlindBoo]

And that is precisely why the left wants the Fairness Doctrine re-instated.Yes there most certainly IS a right to broadcast one's point of view. It is up to those on the other side of issues to provide a message that people would be interested in hearing.
You must be kidding yourself here.
At the end of the day government would have to step in and make draconian changes to the rules of the public airwaves which would result in them being public no more.
We would have State Controlled Radio.
Freedom of speech must apply to all or it means nothing.
The opportunity for liberals to get their message on the air is equal to anyone else's.
The issue liberals cannot deal with is that few people desire to listen to the liberal viewpoint.
It is listenership and ratings that decide what content is on the air.
Example....Glen Beck...His ratings are not what WOR-AM( New York City) were looking for. So as of Jan 15th, the Glenn Beck program is off that station.
His place will be taken by a local personality.
The above is a perfect example of the marketplace functioning the way it is designed.
No doctrine needed. Just low ratings and guess what.....OUT....
Now, would you rather the federal government and the requisite bureaucrats be in charge of that decision? Do you really need the safe warm cuddly feeling knowing government is there to take care of your needs?

Funny the only people to ever say "They want to chase the conservative point of view off the public airwaves." are the Pseudo-conned

Not One's( as in a person) POV but broadcasting a single political point of view 24/7.

Untill the Raygun Administrtion ceased enforcing it the SC decided it was Constitutional and was far from being Draconian.

Furthermore the SC also stated that the Fairness doctrine enabled more public debate and enhancde free speech by not allowing a monopolizaion of the public airwave by a single political perspective.

Got a case number that shows that particular SCOTUS opinion?
We pay no attention to what your side says, we watch like a hawk what your side does.
You obviously were not around or simply not paying attention to radio during the "fairness" days.
There WAS NO political debate. No talk radio of any consequence.
Radio station management did not want to deal with the hassles of talk and the land mines of complying with fairness that came with it.
Now, talk radio is the number two format. Meaning, talk radio is second only to urban contemporary(which includes hip hop and rap) as a format.
This fairness thing has a lot of tentacles. It is withing the realm of possibility that certain types of music could be deemed political speech. Depends upon the lyrics.
Suppose for a moment a complaint is filed under "Fairness" that stated a radio station played only one particular type of music that furthered a single type political agenda. That would open another can of worms.
As stated earlier, this is moot. There will be no Fairness Doctrine passed any time soon.
You'll just have to deal with the marketplace as is.
Again. If you want liberal talk, contact as many of your fellow liberals as you may and have them demand liberal talk be put on the air. Then it would be YOUR responsibility to listen and thus keep it on the air. It's that simple.

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.� U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

"Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all"

I do not want a liberal extentions of Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity who are terminally against the Republicans (that would be nearly as sickening). I would like the stations that air such politcal shows to voluntarily allow time for the opposition to air rebutal positions.

Oh and the original Fairness Doctrine was not a law. It was a policy made by the FCC. A policy that if they choose (the President has stated he will not allow them too) they could start to enforce again.

 

[Intense]

No, I think there were plenty of violent assholes while the Fairness Doctrine was being enforced and I don't think it's removal contributes significantly. In other words the fierce rhetoric has alway been there. The printed word (newspapers) was never covered by the doctrine.

I do think that the lack of a Fairness Doctrine has contributed to the number of people who believe blantant propanda and lies spread by the right wing hate mongers like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity. I can't say that I believe that by bringing it back will change anything. I mean the ditto-heads are going to choose to beleive 'Boss Limbaugh' no matter what truth is presented to them.

As opposed to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbereman. XXX Give it a break.

If it were brought back (in it's old form) Maddow and Olbereman would also be required to air rebutals as well.

Speaking of give it a break, how about you try to go one day without posting stupid insults to people whom you don't know?

What I do know is that your statement and claim is both untrue and imbalanced. I judged you by your lack of fairness. It may have been harsh, yet I see your position as an attack on Liberty. I do apologize for the personal attack. I will edit it.