Fairness Doctrine Senate Hearings on the Way?

[Mad Scientist]

It is perfectly constitutional

4 out of 5 Fascists surveyed thought it was perfectly constitutional also.

 

[del]

What sabout the revenue we could collect from it and dont? Billons are made and we get nothing for the use of the airwaves.


I thought you guys hated the media.

Why not charge them for the use?

there's no revenue involved in enforcing the fairness doctrine, stupid.

try to stick to showcasing your ignorance one topic at a time, mmmkay?

 

[KittenKoder]

What about the revenue we could collect from it and dont?


Billons are made and we get nothing for the use of the airwaves.


I thought you guys hated the media.

Why not charge them for the use?

*just eye roll now*

 

[Truthmatters]

So you guys like the idea that msnbc gets to use it for free and make huge profits?

 

[Clay Buster]

First let me qualify my statement with my background. I have been working in the television broadcast industry for more than 15 years and I am extremely familiar with the fairness doctrine and I have participated in and been part of numerous discussions on both sides of the issue.

The first point I would like to make is:

Even if the fairness doctrine was reenacted, it will have little effect on any broadcasting company. The whole "government is going to censure" people is absurd.

Secondly, for those worried about government interference in the broadcast industry, I agree. What do you say we do away with the FCC totally so broadcasters can compete on an even playing field with cable and satellite providers?

If my network could air nudity, extreme profanity, and extreme violence, my ratings would go up. If ratings go up we sell commercial time for a higher rate and we make more money.

So far those of you who don't want the government involved, I hope you mean it.

Or are you OK with SOME government intervention if it fits your purposes?

See how this works?

For one of the better articles I've read on the matter recently, click on this link:

Commentary: Commissioner McDowell’s Mistaken Views on Fairness Doctrine - 2009-02-02 21:08:56 - Broadcasting & Cable

Here's an excerpt.

First, the doctrine never required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. It required that broadcasters afford a reasonable opportunity for contrasting views, and it gave them great discretion in discharging this obligation. Thus, with the exception of political editorializing for or against a candidate or personal attacks, the broadcaster could meet the requirement by announcing that contrasting views are welcome. Rush Limbaugh would have no difficulty because he welcomes calls discussing his points.

Second, Commissioner McDowell does not appear to understand the “spectrum scarcity” basis of the doctrine. The scarcity was never based on the number of broadcast outlets. At the time of the seminal Red Lion case, there were 7000 broadcast radio stations – far more than the number of daily newspapers. The Supreme Court explained that more people wanted to broadcast than there were available frequencies (which is still true today); the Government could have limited the license to broadcast to just a few weeks or months; instead, it chose to award a license (now for eight years) to one entity but with the requirement that it act as a trustee for all those the Government is keeping off the frequency; and at renewal the licensee must show that it acted as a public trustee for its community. The fairness doctrine stemmed from this public trustee scheme.

 

[WillowTree]

What about the revenue we could collect from it and dont?


Billons are made and we get nothing for the use of the airwaves.


I thought you guys hated the media.

Why not charge them for the use?

See! There's yer fundamental difficulty.. thinking!
I stole that from Amanda!

 

[Truthmatters]

It is perfectly constitutional

4 out of 5 Fascists surveyed thought it was perfectly constitutional also.

It was the SCOTUS.

now you hate the SCOTUS too?

 

[WillowTree]

So you guys like the idea that msnbc gets to use it for free and make huge profits?

they aren't making huge profits,, their parent company is GE.. checked their stocks lately?.. hello!

 

[KittenKoder]

First let me qualify my statement with my background. I have been working in the television broadcast industry for more than 15 years and I am extremely familiar with the fairness doctrine and I have participated in and been part of numerous discussions on both sides of the issue.

The first point I would like to make is:

Even if the fairness doctrine was reenacted, it will have little effect on any broadcasting company. The whole "government is going to censure" people is absurd.

Secondly, for those worried about government interference in the broadcast industry, I agree. What do you say we do away with the FCC totally so broadcasters can compete on an even playing field with cable and satellite providers?

If my network could air nudity, extreme profanity, and extreme violence, my ratings would go up. If ratings go up we sell commercial time for a higher rate and we make more money.

So far those of you who don't want the government involved, I hope you mean it.

Or are you OK with SOME government intervention if it fits your purposes?

See how this works?

For one of the better articles I've read on the matter recently, click on this link:

Commentary: Commissioner McDowell’s Mistaken Views on Fairness Doctrine - 2009-02-02 21:08:56 - Broadcasting & Cable

Here's an excerpt.

First, the doctrine never required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. It required that broadcasters afford a reasonable opportunity for contrasting views, and it gave them great discretion in discharging this obligation. Thus, with the exception of political editorializing for or against a candidate or personal attacks, the broadcaster could meet the requirement by announcing that contrasting views are welcome. Rush Limbaugh would have no difficulty because he welcomes calls discussing his points.

Second, Commissioner McDowell does not appear to understand the “spectrum scarcity” basis of the doctrine. The scarcity was never based on the number of broadcast outlets. At the time of the seminal Red Lion case, there were 7000 broadcast radio stations – far more than the number of daily newspapers. The Supreme Court explained that more people wanted to broadcast than there were available frequencies (which is still true today); the Government could have limited the license to broadcast to just a few weeks or months; instead, it chose to award a license (now for eight years) to one entity but with the requirement that it act as a trustee for all those the Government is keeping off the frequency; and at renewal the licensee must show that it acted as a public trustee for its community. The fairness doctrine stemmed from this public trustee scheme.

I hate the FCC and any form of censrship ... does that answer your question?

 

[Truthmatters]

First let me qualify my statement with my background. I have been working in the television broadcast industry for more than 15 years and I am extremely familiar with the fairness doctrine and I have participated in and been part of numerous discussions on both sides of the issue.

The first point I would like to make is:

Even if the fairness doctrine was reenacted, it will have little effect on any broadcasting company. The whole "government is going to censure" people is absurd.

Secondly, for those worried about government interference in the broadcast industry, I agree. What do you say we do away with the FCC totally so broadcasters can compete on an even playing field with cable and satellite providers?

If my network could air nudity, extreme profanity, and extreme violence, my ratings would go up. If ratings go up we sell commercial time for a higher rate and we make more money.

So far those of you who don't want the government involved, I hope you mean it.

Or are you OK with SOME government intervention if it fits your purposes?

See how this works?

For one of the better articles I've read on the matter recently, click on this link:

Commentary: Commissioner McDowell’s Mistaken Views on Fairness Doctrine - 2009-02-02 21:08:56 - Broadcasting & Cable

Here's an excerpt.

First, the doctrine never required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. It required that broadcasters afford a reasonable opportunity for contrasting views, and it gave them great discretion in discharging this obligation. Thus, with the exception of political editorializing for or against a candidate or personal attacks, the broadcaster could meet the requirement by announcing that contrasting views are welcome. Rush Limbaugh would have no difficulty because he welcomes calls discussing his points.

Second, Commissioner McDowell does not appear to understand the “spectrum scarcity” basis of the doctrine. The scarcity was never based on the number of broadcast outlets. At the time of the seminal Red Lion case, there were 7000 broadcast radio stations – far more than the number of daily newspapers. The Supreme Court explained that more people wanted to broadcast than there were available frequencies (which is still true today); the Government could have limited the license to broadcast to just a few weeks or months; instead, it chose to award a license (now for eight years) to one entity but with the requirement that it act as a trustee for all those the Government is keeping off the frequency; and at renewal the licensee must show that it acted as a public trustee for its community. The fairness doctrine stemmed from this public trustee scheme.

Its nice to see someone who knows the facts for a change.

 

[Truthmatters]

First let me qualify my statement with my background. I have been working in the television broadcast industry for more than 15 years and I am extremely familiar with the fairness doctrine and I have participated in and been part of numerous discussions on both sides of the issue.

The first point I would like to make is:

Even if the fairness doctrine was reenacted, it will have little effect on any broadcasting company. The whole "government is going to censure" people is absurd.

Secondly, for those worried about government interference in the broadcast industry, I agree. What do you say we do away with the FCC totally so broadcasters can compete on an even playing field with cable and satellite providers?

If my network could air nudity, extreme profanity, and extreme violence, my ratings would go up. If ratings go up we sell commercial time for a higher rate and we make more money.

So far those of you who don't want the government involved, I hope you mean it.

Or are you OK with SOME government intervention if it fits your purposes?

See how this works?

For one of the better articles I've read on the matter recently, click on this link:

Commentary: Commissioner McDowell’s Mistaken Views on Fairness Doctrine - 2009-02-02 21:08:56 - Broadcasting & Cable

Here's an excerpt.

First, the doctrine never required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. It required that broadcasters afford a reasonable opportunity for contrasting views, and it gave them great discretion in discharging this obligation. Thus, with the exception of political editorializing for or against a candidate or personal attacks, the broadcaster could meet the requirement by announcing that contrasting views are welcome. Rush Limbaugh would have no difficulty because he welcomes calls discussing his points.

Second, Commissioner McDowell does not appear to understand the “spectrum scarcity” basis of the doctrine. The scarcity was never based on the number of broadcast outlets. At the time of the seminal Red Lion case, there were 7000 broadcast radio stations – far more than the number of daily newspapers. The Supreme Court explained that more people wanted to broadcast than there were available frequencies (which is still true today); the Government could have limited the license to broadcast to just a few weeks or months; instead, it chose to award a license (now for eight years) to one entity but with the requirement that it act as a trustee for all those the Government is keeping off the frequency; and at renewal the licensee must show that it acted as a public trustee for its community. The fairness doctrine stemmed from this public trustee scheme.

I hate the FCC and any form of censrship ... does that answer your question?

That would mean porn on all stations

 

[KittenKoder]

Bah! This topic is annoying me for one reason, seems more and more I am siding with those I have been against for so long it actually sickens me. Have liberals and conservatives completely switched places? Really, when I was younger we fought against censorship and the government controlling us and were called liberals ... did I miss the switch or something?

 

[Clay Buster]

I hate the FCC and any form of censrship ... does that answer your question?

You are my favorite new hero!

The FCC has been so intrusive in my business for the past year because of the DTV switch, our company is losing money.

It's sad really. The government comes in and claims they will help, only to screw things up even more.

I shouldn't be surprised, it's always been like this.

And yes, to answer TruthMatters point, there very well may be porn on every channel, but as someone who believes in the free market, shouldn't society dictate what product is provided? If people hate porn, they won't watch it.

Yes, I understand that the airwaves belong to the public, but that model is extremely outdated and now serves as a hinderance to broadcast companies who are trying to keep up with cable companies.

If the business model does not change, the only "over the air" television broadcasts which will be left will be public television which is subsidized by the govt.

Keep an eye on the papers, broadcast companies are laying off people wholesale. These massive layoffs are not taking place in the cable and satellite world.

 

[KittenKoder]

First let me qualify my statement with my background. I have been working in the television broadcast industry for more than 15 years and I am extremely familiar with the fairness doctrine and I have participated in and been part of numerous discussions on both sides of the issue.

The first point I would like to make is:

Even if the fairness doctrine was reenacted, it will have little effect on any broadcasting company. The whole "government is going to censure" people is absurd.

Secondly, for those worried about government interference in the broadcast industry, I agree. What do you say we do away with the FCC totally so broadcasters can compete on an even playing field with cable and satellite providers?

If my network could air nudity, extreme profanity, and extreme violence, my ratings would go up. If ratings go up we sell commercial time for a higher rate and we make more money.

So far those of you who don't want the government involved, I hope you mean it.

Or are you OK with SOME government intervention if it fits your purposes?

See how this works?

For one of the better articles I've read on the matter recently, click on this link:

Commentary: Commissioner McDowell’s Mistaken Views on Fairness Doctrine - 2009-02-02 21:08:56 - Broadcasting & Cable

Here's an excerpt.

I hate the FCC and any form of censrship ... does that answer your question?

That would mean porn on all stations

Not really, there are a lot of things people watch other than porn. Porn makes a ton of money each year yes, but it isn't the only entertainment people like. What it would mean is more realistic scripts of these shows and probably fewer "reality" shows (which are never very real) because people would be able to show those cable shows on the broadcast stations.

 

[007]

I can't stand modern liberal ideals ... so that wouldn't bother me, but giving that much control to the government is always bad, for everyone.

Absolutely true. You'd think the ACLU would be against it too. But then, there'd have to be a voice AGAINST THEM too then, and I'd bet my last dollar they don't want that!

Don't get me started on the idiots in the ACLU now.

I hear ya... those sons a bitches are a whole 'nother topic...

 

[KittenKoder]

I hate the FCC and any form of censrship ... does that answer your question?

You are my favorite new hero!

The FCC has been so intrusive in my business for the past year because of the DTV switch, our company is losing money.

It's sad really. The government comes in and claims they will help, only to screw things up even more.

I shouldn't be surprised, it's always been like this.

And yes, to answer TruthMatters point, there very well may be porn on every channel, but as someone who believes in the free market, shouldn't society dictate what product is provided? If people hate porn, they won't watch it.

Yes, I understand that the airwaves belong to the public, but that model is extremely outdated and now serves as a hinderance to broadcast companies who are trying to keep up with cable companies.

I am guessing they are trying to destroy all broadcast entertainment ... for what reason I don't know, but even if they aren't doing it on purpose it's happening with each new change. With the DTV con (making everyone think they need that stupid box) I foresee broadcast TV just vanishing (sadly) because people will turn to cable, online, or just not bother with TV at all anymore. The FCC has forced a ton of good entertainment from being aired just because someone might "find it offensive" or to "protect the children" ... protect them from what? Hearing the words they use themselves? Really ... it's censorship of any sort is just plain stupid.

 

[Truthmatters]

I hate the FCC and any form of censrship ... does that answer your question?

That would mean porn on all stations

Not really, there are a lot of things people watch other than porn. Porn makes a ton of money each year yes, but it isn't the only entertainment people like. What it would mean is more realistic scripts of these shows and probably fewer "reality" shows (which are never very real) because people would be able to show those cable shows on the broadcast stations.

Porn is addictive , ask the medical field.

It would be the best revenue generator.

 

[KittenKoder]

That would mean porn on all stations

Not really, there are a lot of things people watch other than porn. Porn makes a ton of money each year yes, but it isn't the only entertainment people like. What it would mean is more realistic scripts of these shows and probably fewer "reality" shows (which are never very real) because people would be able to show those cable shows on the broadcast stations.

Porn is addictive , ask the medical field.

It would be the best revenue generator.

*eye roll ... again*

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't believe the "fairness doctrine" has ever been about coercing small enterprises into airing views that they disagree with. Rather, the purpose has always been too prevent the ideological stagnation that occurs when corresponding wealth concentration occurs that permits large corporations to essentially indoctrinate. The fact that major media outlets are owned by large corporations (Walt Disney Co., Time Warner, Viacom, etc.) should make us all wary of the effects of wealth concentration on the media and the ideological commentary that it presents.

 

[Truthmatters]

I don't believe the "fairness doctrine" has ever been about coercing small enterprises into airing views that they disagree with. Rather, the purpose has always been too prevent the ideological stagnation that occurs when corresponding wealth concentration occurs that permits large corporations to essentially indoctrinate. The fact that major media outlets are owned by large corporations (Walt Disney Co., Time Warner, Viacom, etc.) should make us all wary of the effects of wealth concentration on the media and the ideological commentary that it presents.

hear here