The results of removing the Fairness Doctrine?

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

.

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.

Besides all your spewing and blathering you make a point about the open market place. How is the radio market open with Clear Channel owning 1200+ stations.

 

[BlindBoo]

Think about this who started the anti-Farienss Doctrine movement?
Those who had the most to gain? Money and power wise?

I prefer not to be a tool of those seeking money and power.
I want all sides of the argument posted so each person can decide for themselves.

Truth is a 3 edged sword. Your side, my side and the truth.

In other words you want to control what I watch, read, or listen to.

It is all about control. However the Fairness Doctrine was used to expand debate not stiffle it.

 

[loosecannon]

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"..

For the last f-ing time, tard:

I have not even expressed a preference for the fairness doctrine, you ignorantly assume that I have.

And the thread is not about whether or not you favor the fairness doctrine. It doesn't matter to the discussion what your preference is.

The thread is about whether the fairness doctrine reinstated would help tone down rhetoric that is fueling polarization.

Get unstuck from stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You're another one who cannot put down their extremist agenda to engage in a discussion.
You make the conclusion that Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity have "spread propaganda" and "are right wing hate mongers".
No, what they have is a viewpoint you believe should be silenced because they have a voice that is more popular than the voice that suits your political beliefs.
You post is illogical.
Unwilling to admit liberal talk radio is as unpopular as the liberal agenda, you go on the attack. You use words such as "hate", "propaganda" and others not as a means to accurately label but as a weapon meant to silence.
Your side is close minded. You have zero tolerance for any viewpoint other than yours.
It is the Left that invented Political Correctness, Speech codes and is responsible for the hypersensitivity seen in our society.
Your argument has no substance. You use straw man tactics because you hvew no rebuttal. Time and again those on the Left left find themselves without a sound logical rebuttal, turn to attacking their opposition instead of discussing the issue. This way the opposition has to spend time defending your baseless accusations....Well guess what genius....It works no more.
Call us all the names and make all the accusations you wish. We don't care. We know it isn't true and we're not going to waste time defending ourselves vs your empty accusations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

and nobody was listening either. so now what...Federal mandate that all multi station owners divest themselves of all properties except in one market?
HA! That will result in NO radio. DO you have any idea the cost of a license, transmitter, upkeep, etc? There are so few independents because the cost of a radio station is stratospheric.
Listen, back in the days to which you refer, there was NO OPINION.

 

[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.

You're another one who cannot put down their extremist agenda to engage in a discussion.
You make the conclusion that Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity have "spread propaganda" and "are right wing hate mongers".
No, what they have is a viewpoint you believe should be silenced because they have a voice that is more popular than the voice that suits your political beliefs.
You post is illogical.
Unwilling to admit liberal talk radio is as unpopular as the liberal agenda, you go on the attack. You use words such as "hate", "propaganda" and others not as a means to accurately label but as a weapon meant to silence.
Your side is close minded. You have zero tolerance for any viewpoint other than yours.
It is the Left that invented Political Correctness, Speech codes and is responsible for the hypersensitivity seen in our society.
Your argument has no substance. You use straw man tactics because you hvew no rebuttal. Time and again those on the Left left find themselves without a sound logical rebuttal, turn to attacking their opposition instead of discussing the issue. This way the opposition has to spend time defending your baseless accusations....Well guess what genius....It works no more.
Call us all the names and make all the accusations you wish. We don't care. We know it isn't true and we're not going to waste time defending ourselves vs your empty accusations.

Unless you can produce a post by me that says I want Boss Limbaugh (and the others) silienced then I must say you are a liar. You are a prime example of my final sentence. Thanks. Ditto-head is the name ElRushbo calls his faithful followers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

WRONG!!!!! Perhaps you should research THEN post.....
The first paragraph in red describes the requirement. The second "mayflower" describes the virutal shut down of ANY point of view.
The first word in your user name describes you perfectly. "Blind".
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications


FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.

-Val E. Limburg

FURTHER READING

Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest." Journal of Communication (New York), Summer, 1990.

Benjamin, Louise M. "Broadcast Campaign Precedents From the 1924 Presidential Election." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1987.

Brennan, Timothy A. "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Fall, 1989.

Broadcasters and the Fairness Doctrine: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Washington, D.C. U.S. Congressional Documents, 1989.

Cronauer, Adrian. "The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem." (Symposium: The Transformation of Television News). Federal Communications Law Journal (Los Angeles, California), October, 1994.

Donahue, Hugh Carter. "The Fairness Doctrine Is Shackling Broadcasting." Technology Review (Cambridge, Massachusetts), November-December, 1986.

Hazlett, Thomas W. "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment." Public Interest (New York), Summer, 1989.

Krueger, Elizabeth. "Broadcasters' Understanding of Political Broadcast Regulation." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991.

Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longmans, 1984.

Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978.

Streeter, Thomas. "Beyond Freedom of Speech and the Public Interest: The Relevance of Critical Legal Studies to Communications Policy. Journal of Communication (New York), Spring, 1990.



See also Deregulation; Federal Communications Commission; Political Processes and Television








Return to F index

Return to main index

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Sorry, the notion that every thing's gotta be 50/50 is void of reality. Ok, I concede that it's good to allow the "other" party to respond after one party's speech. But that is not what this is about. This is all about the fact that talk radio is predominately conservative. It isn't "wrong", it just is. There obviously isn't that big of a demand for liberal talk radio.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Umm. Those stations are all talk radio?.
It IS the marketplace that permits companies to purchase and own properties which would otherwise be non-existent.
There are tons of radio companies. Infinity, Viacom(CBS), Sinclair, and of course the largest of them all....The US federal government. Yes, NPR, is an arm of the federal government. NPR is as liberal as it gets.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

WRONG!!!!! Perhaps you should research THEN post.....
The first paragraph in red describes the requirement. The second "mayflower" describes the virutal shut down of ANY point of view.
The first word in your user name describes you perfectly. "Blind".
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications


FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as "Ascertainment of Community Needs," and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

I don't think your highlighted paragraphs say what you think they say!

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Umm. Those stations are all talk radio?.
It IS the marketplace that permits companies to purchase and own properties which would otherwise be non-existent.
There are tons of radio companies. Infinity, Viacom(CBS), Sinclair, and of course the largest of them all....The US federal government. Yes, NPR, is an arm of the federal government. NPR is as liberal as it gets.

Um did I say they were all talk format?

But even the music stations have DJ's that talk.

 

[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.

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.....

Once again....If liberal talk radio could get ratings there would be tons of broadcasters clamoring to put liberal hosts on the air.
This is where you miss the point.
Your side's goal is to level the playing field by changing the rules to give your viewpoint an advantage.
Look, when several polls including Gallup release results of ideological self identification with liberals hovering around 20%, how is it you are shocked that conservative talk radio is far more popular than liberal talk?
BTW your link above produces an opinion.
"muzzled"....No one is muzzling anyone. That is precisely the crap that is being spewed in support of this fairness nonsense.
Look, move on to another issue. Because no matter what you do , change is not imminent. Unless of course the liberal ideology becomes more popular.
After the last two years of the far left occupying Capitol Hill and the November mass flushing of liberal democrats to the private sector, I see no possible gain for the Left.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

And that is precisely why the left wants the Fairness Doctrine re-instated. They want to chase the conservative point of view off the public airwaves.
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?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.....

Once again....If liberal talk radio could get ratings there would be tons of broadcasters clamoring to put liberal hosts on the air.
This is where you miss the point.
Your side's goal is to level the playing field by changing the rules to give your viewpoint an advantage.
Look, when several polls including Gallup release results of ideological self identification with liberals hovering around 20%, how is it you are shocked that conservative talk radio is far more popular than liberal talk?
BTW your link above produces an opinion.
"muzzled"....No one is muzzling anyone. That is precisely the crap that is being spewed in support of this fairness nonsense.
Look, move on to another issue. Because no matter what you do , change is not imminent. Unless of course the liberal ideology becomes more popular.
After the last two years of the far left occupying Capitol Hill and the November mass flushing of liberal democrats to the private sector, I see no possible gain for the Left.

The issue is not the profitability of left wing radio. The question was "Can all the hate and vitrol in MSM be tracked directly back to the removal of the Fairness Doctrine? "

My answer to that was no. Then I offered my own thoughts about it's removals consequences and the consequences of the rise of these one side radio-conglomerates.

 

[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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Radio: Ownership

Umm. Those stations are all talk radio?.
It IS the marketplace that permits companies to purchase and own properties which would otherwise be non-existent.
There are tons of radio companies. Infinity, Viacom(CBS), Sinclair, and of course the largest of them all....The US federal government. Yes, NPR, is an arm of the federal government. NPR is as liberal as it gets.

Um did I say they were all talk format?

But even the music stations have DJ's that talk.

So your point of mentioning Clear Channel was what?

 

[Oddball]

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.

Rules, by definition, need to be enforced from without.

Much as you may like to try, you don't get to redefine words.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Rules, by definition, need to be enforced from without.

Much as you may like to try, you don't get to redefine words.

The honor system is an exception to your rule. Pun intended.

You don't get to redefine "honor system" and you don't get to change the fact that the fairness doctrine manages to avoid the ugly need for censorship by simply requiring that competing pov be allowed to present their messages.

 

[BlindBoo]

Umm. Those stations are all talk radio?.
It IS the marketplace that permits companies to purchase and own properties which would otherwise be non-existent.
There are tons of radio companies. Infinity, Viacom(CBS), Sinclair, and of course the largest of them all....The US federal government. Yes, NPR, is an arm of the federal government. NPR is as liberal as it gets.

Um did I say they were all talk format?

But even the music stations have DJ's that talk.

So your point of mentioning Clear Channel was what?

That the radio market is being consolidated and in makets dominated by Clear Channel it is not really a free.