The results of removing the Fairness Doctrine?

[thereisnospoon]

Thanks for demonstrating that I am in no way grasping at straws.

No. You are insisting ( or wishing) that presenting both sides of an issue is one of those requirements.
That is not true.
I posted the basics to indicate your assertion is incorrect.
You may think radio and tv stations have a responsibility to present both sides of an issue, but they do not.
Look, you're not going to get your way unless government either takes control of the airwaves and tightly regulates content. That is not going to happen.
Passage of any kind of fairness doctrine is politically unpalatable. At this time with so many (23 to be exact) vulnerable Senate seats now in the hands of Democrats.
Passage of such an objectionable piece of legislation is a sure fire way for a democrat politician to become an ex-politician.
So your side can whimper and whine about how unfair and miserable the radio world is and that and 50 cents will get you a pay call. Case closed.

flush

way to add to the discussion..

 

[loosecannon]

.

You are insisting ( or wishing) that presenting both sides of an issue is one of those requirements.

way to add to the discussion..

I insisted or wished no such thing.

If you can't even follow a conversation without radically distorting it you get flushed.

The thread is about discussing the merits of the fairness doctrine in unwinding the polarization that led to the shooting of a US congresswoman.

Whether you favor or oppose the fairness doctrine is irrelevant.


If you can't discuss the issue without moving the goal posts you are probably scared shitless of free speech.

 

[Oddball]

and on the other hand granting you, as a radio station owner, special rights to operate over a proprietary airwave commands certain reciprocal obligations. As do all licensing agreements.

Requiring people to offer all sides in a news broadcast is important for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that a lot of people assume that if it is reported as news it is therefore true.

As a news venue it is then reasonable for you post a disclaimer expressly stating that your news isn't true, or to hold yourself to some kind of standard of veracity.

Requiring that all sides be presented is a clever way to achieve a valid goal without imposing standards for veracity. It's a self regulating mechanism.

That's where you're Hegelian presumption falls flat on its face.

All sides don't need to be presented, only on "alternative" viewpoint is necessary....This presumes that POV as the only legitimate "alternative", insofar as the broadcast in question is concerned.

Besides, if it's so "self-regulating" why does it need to be imposed?

It's like the honor system, you have to have a rule before anybody can be expected to abide by it.

And the Hegelian dichotomy isn't mine. I mentioned that several times already.

That doesn't answer the question...If it's so "self regulating" why does it have to be imposed by force...You do know that laws and regulations are defacto force, don't you?

 

[mdn2000]

.

You are insisting ( or wishing) that presenting both sides of an issue is one of those requirements.

way to add to the discussion..

I insisted or wished no such thing.

If you can't even follow a conversation without radically distorting it you get flushed.

The thread is about discussing the merits of the fairness doctrine in unwinding the polarization that led to the shooting of a US congresswoman.

Whether you favor or oppose the fairness doctrine is irrelevant.


If you can't discuss the issue without moving the goal posts you are probably scared shitless of free speech.

Polarization is what led to the shooting, I missed that in the trial.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[Sallow]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

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

I did.

They're were plenty of boring but civil reponses to commentary heard on networks.

It was good however, people without a billion bucks, got to express their opinions, equally as people with a billion bucks.

 

[BlindBoo]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

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

Yes. It silenced people by making it cost prohibited to say anything of value. It was designed to do that.

No it didn't. The stations were given wide laditude in presenting the other side of a story. It was never required stations to give opposing views equal time.

 

[Intense]

.

way to add to the discussion..

I insisted or wished no such thing.

If you can't even follow a conversation without radically distorting it you get flushed.

The thread is about discussing the merits of the fairness doctrine in unwinding the polarization that led to the shooting of a US congresswoman.

Whether you favor or oppose the fairness doctrine is irrelevant.


If you can't discuss the issue without moving the goal posts you are probably scared shitless of free speech.

Polarization is what led to the shooting, I missed that in the trial.

You might as well say having a pulse or heart beat led to the shooting. Maybe The sun rising everyday contributed to the shooting. Whom should we put in charge of the "Thought, Word, and Feeling's" Police? You? If I feel a Thought or Opinion coming on should I raise my hand or PM you to clear it with you?

 

[Intense]

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

Yes. It silenced people by making it cost prohibited to say anything of value. It was designed to do that.

No it didn't. The stations were given wide laditude in presenting the other side of a story. It was never required stations to give opposing views equal time.

True. The Wiki Link breaks it down really well.

 

[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.

 

[BlindBoo]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

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

Oh yeah, great idea. Let's hire a bunch of government bureaucrats at $100,000 per year plus benefits and pension to decide on their own the opinions and points of view permitted on the public airwaves. Let's just chuck the First Amendment.
The main reason why you lefties want such shit as the Fairness Doctrine is because liberal points of view are unpopular with the American people. Lib talk radio cannot compete in an open marketplace, so your side wants conservative points of view silenced. Don't try this nonsense about "balance"...
The bottom line is if there were enough liberals to support liberal talk radio, the format would bring the necessary ratings to attract advertisers which would fund the programming.
The lack of government oversight is not the reason for your whine.
BTW talk radio is but one format. Liberalism still dominates the mains stream media.
Fairness?...Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Sorry but with Clear Channel owning 1200+ stations it's had to say that the it is any open marketplace.

Radio: Ownership

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

Okay, my posting about that idiot sherriff calling this shooting a result of conservatives is moved to the romper room and his stays in politics.

Can this be anymore politically self serving.

Yeah, damn that freedom of speech!

You ever notice that liberals never worry about left wing incitement to violence like the New Black Panthers, Reverend Wright, or Obama telling his followers to punch back twice as hard?

Hypocrites!

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

 

[BlindBoo]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

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?

“The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.”

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

The Fairness Doctrine

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Please feel free to site some (even one) of the "equal time regulations "

"In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views. "

The Fairness Doctrine

I think they should move to satellite radio. That way there is no issue with using public airwave to broadcast a single political perspective all day all night.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Considering the radical left was saying this stuff in the 60s... no.

But if your only solution to fixing problems is restricting speech, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

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

Balancing speech? Seriously? What if in a room of ten people, 6 espouse one point of view and 4 another... do we tell 1 of the six they must adopt the other point of view in order to balance it out?

Absurd.

Your example is not quite right. Now if a loud speaker was anouncing those views to the general public, in fairness, you would present both points of view, not just the view of the 6.

 

[BlindBoo]

You dont like the government our founders left us?

A fairness doctrine is NOT what the founders "left us"....Freedom of speech is just that. Freedom.
Your side's point of view cannot compete in the open marketplace so you want to use the force of government to change the rules of the game for your side's advantage.
Liberal talk has had many opportunities to succeed. For the most part, lib radio stations and networks have failed to produce sustainable numbers. The shows were dropped for other more profitable programming.
Lib talk could not even survive on satellite radio. The failure of Air America demonstrated non-interest in liberal views.
What your side proposes is to have a point of view presented "whether we like it or not".
In the event of this, people would undoubtedly tune out. This would leave radio stations and networks without listeners. No listeners = no ratings. No ratings= no money. No money= no programming. Period...
If a fairness doctrine were to be effective, government would have to essentially wipe out the marketplace for radio and take control of the airwaves.
Is that what you desire?

Freedom of speech is just that. Not the freedom to broadcast a single prospective on public airwaves. If you want a specialize show like that move to satellite.

 

[loosecannon]

That's where you're Hegelian presumption falls flat on its face.

All sides don't need to be presented, only on "alternative" viewpoint is necessary....This presumes that POV as the only legitimate "alternative", insofar as the broadcast in question is concerned.

Besides, if it's so "self-regulating" why does it need to be imposed?

It's like the honor system, you have to have a rule before anybody can be expected to abide by it.

And the Hegelian dichotomy isn't mine. I mentioned that several times already.

That doesn't answer the question...If it's so "self regulating" why does it have to be imposed by force...You do know that laws and regulations are defacto force, don't you?

it does answer the question. The honor system is self regulating. But there has to be a rule in place to adhere to.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

The media doesn't have to be "people" for the First Amendment to apply:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There, you're argument is irrelevant. Glad we've settled that.

The Press (newpapers) were never subject to the Fairness Doctrine. By providing only a single political perspective these stations who broadcast on pulbic air waves, do not promote debate on sensitive issues.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

You are insisting ( or wishing) that presenting both sides of an issue is one of those requirements.

way to add to the discussion..

I insisted or wished no such thing.

If you can't even follow a conversation without radically distorting it you get flushed.

The thread is about discussing the merits of the fairness doctrine in unwinding the polarization that led to the shooting of a US congresswoman.

Whether you favor or oppose the fairness doctrine is irrelevant.


If you can't discuss the issue without moving the goal posts you are probably scared shitless of free speech.

It is YOU and the rest of the political left that fears free speech. Nice try asswiper. Your side wants to place restrictions on content under the guise of "balance"..That's a big stinky pile of bullshit. If you actually were in full support of the right to free speech, your side would not have given this drivel a first thought.
No one has even thought to come to the conclusion that talk radio has led to this tragic shooting incident. YOU stated that all by yourself. You may have people on your side that will want to cling to that nonsense. The shooter has a history of mental instability. Your side wants to use this to suppress the opinions of those who have an opposing viewpoint to yours. Your idea is nothing more than attempt to use the force of government to put a stop to a medium that you cannot defeat in the open marketplace. Tough shit.
Incredible...Then by all means, attempt to make a point and stand by your opinion.
You're all over the place looking for an argument.
Look, it really doesn't matter. Your irrational belief that you can have it both ways will not fly.
Only a weak minded individual would make the great leap from electronic media to a mass shooting of innocent people. It's always the path of least resistance to the lowest common denominator with you people on the Left.
There will be no fairness or any other doctrine. You can bank on that.
So move on to something else that you bother yourself with.