The results of removing the Fairness Doctrine?

[Rozman]

Good God this absolute need and desire to have government as the answer to all our problems just boggles my mind.More,more,more and then more government.

 

[Truthmatters]

You dont like the government our founders left us?

 

[uscitizen]

Good God this absolute need and desire to have government as the answer to all our problems just boggles my mind.More,more,more and then more government.

Yep as the republicans have shown thru the last 3 republicans presidents more government is better?

On expects that from the left but the right claims differently.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

There will always be hate and people who express it. Free Speech & Free Press will always be complicated but it's what our nation is all about. We have to be careful not to over-react to tragic events by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have to decide for yourself what kind of Media you want to access for your information. You don't have to be a part of any Media Outlets which express what you perceive as "Hate." It's all up to you in the end.

Personally i don't watch nearly as much Cable News as i used to. Cable News obsesses over Politics way too much for my taste. I like being presented with News from all over the World. I like to receive News and not so much Politics. We know the Democrats and Republicans hate each other. How much of that do we really need to see on the News? It's not really News is it? So more News and less Politics is what i recommend for Media Outlets. I don't support the Fairness Doctrine though. Hey that's just my take anyway. Thanks for the post.

 

[uscitizen]

So more News and less Politics is what i recommend for Media Outlets.

Yepper.

but as we have seen the people are to stupid to decide for themselves and must be spoon fed by the media. Sensationalism, fear and hate sell.

 

[Truthmatters]

I will never understand why some Americans perfer their news lie to them

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Hate speech.....A matter of opinion.
Racially, religiously, gender, economic etc. are all not banned form the public airwaves. However, these things are unacceptable and as such are de-facto banned.
The American People do not require more invasive government regulations. The airwaves are pretty well self policed.
BY "banning hate speech", we travel down the slippery slope of allowing a small number of people appointed by politicians with a particular agenda. Too often these bureaucrats are unelected and accountable only to those who hold positions of political power.
Suppose the lifetime appointment of speech police bureaucrats do not agree with your particular point of view? Then what will you do? At that point, there is no "time out. Do over"....We're stuck.

Look, once we allow our government to decide what speech is free and what is not, we transition from citizen status to that of "subject".
The best way to eliminate objectionable speech is to boycott those who say the objectionable things and of course make it known to the financial backers of said speech that we will boycott them.

 

[uscitizen]

Again my question is did the removal of the fairness doctrine contribute to the current level of hate and fearmongering of the media?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea wouldn't it be nice to just watch some straight News again? I actually enjoy watching the News. I like getting up to speed on whats going on in the World. Unfortunately most Media Outlets don't give you straight News anymore. They just want to obsess over which Democrat insulted which Republican that day or vice versa. I enjoy Politics too but i don't need it 24/7. Cable News especially isn't really news anymore. It is very difficult to find straight News anymore but there are some out there. You just have to work hard to find these outlets. If you do want straight News,just stay away from Cable News. I know i can only take so much of that political bickering stuff.

 

[thereisnospoon]

i can't believe anyone on the left would be whining about the fairness doctrine...the overall media is probably 90% left

there is so many different forms of media today, the fairness doctrine is no longer relevent. if you read the history of the fairness doctrine you would understand that. further, the fairness doctrine was not about stopping speech, so if anyone wanted to rant and rave, they still could.

With the equal time regulations of the past radio station managers avoided political issues altogether. There was NO talk radio.
Radio was dominated by top 40 music, news and other niche formats. There were also stations that did the news straight from teletypes. There was NO editing of stories for clarity. In those days it was called "rip and read".
If you want to see a return of such boredom, re-intro a fairness doctrine.
You'll also see how quickly radio stations begin to go out of business as advertisers pull out.
Actually, a fairness doctrine would be great for satellite radio. Satellite radio is not subject to the same FCC regulations because of the delivery system.
A fairness doctrine would simply cause talk radio to move from terrestrial to satellite radio.
There would be no silencing of conservative points of view. In fact , terrestrial radio under the thumb of government bureaucrats would be crushed while satellite and internet radio would flourish.
Those on the political left who want their point of view to be rammed down our throats would be in for a great big disappointment as we throw out our AM-FM receivers and subscribe to satellite or internet radio.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

two things:

our society does public debate and compromise a lot better than the online community does. Face to face vs anon.

While the FD may contribute to polarization I sorta doubt it is the main contributor. Our media is largely, well almost exclusively, a reflection of the following news sources: The government, the two parties, the corporate message.

How would you rate the impacts of all the other factors that contributed toward our polarized condition?

 

[loosecannon]

Why does the left need help from the government to balance out anything?..

For three good reasons:

>because left and right are not only not the only pov, they are not the most important pov

>because the media is generally owned by and sponsored by the right via huge corporate megopolies

>because the media is solely in business to make money, content is therefore all about generating audience shares. What makes for great news may not make great entertainment or dinner table conversation

 

[loosecannon]

We have an appetite for outrageous, including violence. In my view, that's the fundamental problem.

That is what happens when media is controlled by the bottom line

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Again my question is did the removal of the fairness doctrine contribute to the current level of hate and fearmongering of the media?

Personally i would say no. There are many other factors that have been much bigger contributors to the current level of hate and fear mongering of the Media. One big factor was when they decided to merge Entertainment with real News. It all went downhill after that. Another big factor was when they decided to make News all about Politics. Straight News is something completely different than Politics. I mean is it really News that Republicans & Democrats hate each other? Personally i get sick of seeing endless reports on Democrats & Republicans hating each other. It's just not News in my opinion. So i don't think we need a Fairness Doctrine. I think we just need News Outlets to get back to reporting on real News from all around the World. They need to cut way back on the Politics. The People are starving for real News again. Ditch the Politics.

 

[goldcatt]

So more News and less Politics is what i recommend for Media Outlets.

Yepper.

but as we have seen the people are to stupid to decide for themselves and must be spoon fed by the media. Sensationalism, fear and hate sell.

That's the problem. Almost all of what we think of as media is for-profit. If it didn't sell, they wouldn't churn it out.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt the Fairness Doctrine has much to do with it. Remember Crossfire on CNN? Both sides were represented, it would have passed FD muster, but in reality it was nothing but a hack screamfest.

 

[California Girl]

The only 'fairness doctrine' we need is for people to fairly take fucking responsibility for their own actions.

 

[loosecannon]

Again my question is did the removal of the fairness doctrine contribute to the current level of hate and fearmongering of the media?

Personally i would say no. There are many other factors that have been much bigger contributors to the current level of hate and fear mongering of the Media. One big factor was when they decided to merge Entertainment with real News. It all went downhill after that. Another big factor was when they decided to make News all about Politics. Straight News is something completely different than Politics. I mean is it really News that Republicans & Democrats hate each other? Personally i get sick of seeing endless reports on Democrats & Republicans hating each other. It's just not News in my opinion. So i don't think we need a Fairness Doctrine. I think we just need News Outlets to get back to reporting on real News from all around the World. They need to cut way back on the Politics. The People are starving for real News again. Ditch the Politics.

 

[loosecannon]

The only 'fairness doctrine' we need is for people to fairly take fucking responsibility for their own actions.

The media isn't "people", it is industry. Should industry essential to our republic and national security be unregulated?

 

[Intense]

balancing speech not restricting it.
You do understand how the fairness doctrine worked don't you?

First off... Who's Balance??? By what measure.

Second... You cannot balance even with the best intentions without restriction and measure. Don't deny the obvious. The Fairness Doctrine was restriction of Free Speech. Censorship should be based on what Principles? There are just Lawful ways to address immediate concerns. What specifically would you change today if you had the power, and how would you justify it. Value for value, what would you do, that if inverted would show the same fairness?

It is not censorship in any way, you must just give equal time to opposing viewpoints.

Say's who? On Who's dime? Where does relevance come onto play? One person can speak for a half hour, saying nothing of importance. A effective rebuttal may be 1 to 3 to 10 sentences. Why does time, and not the space required to make your point dictate? Who are you or I to determine what listeners must be subject to and for how long? What does any of this have to do with justice or fair play? Where does merit fit in? It doesn't. Neither does your need to control what people hear, by controlling access.

 

[Intense]

The only 'fairness doctrine' we need is for people to fairly take fucking responsibility for their own actions.

The media isn't "people", it is industry. Should industry essential to our republic and national security be unregulated?

Regulation by the consent of the Governed, no more and no less. Make your case.