The Fairness Doctrine

[WhiteLion]

you are absolutely INCORRECT and the supreme court has ruled such....many times over, regarding this....the Fairness doctrine and it's sister Act were in place for many, many decades...with several SC rulings....

any person leasing to someone else, has the right to put stipulations on that lease....

Broadcast stations LEASE their airwaves from us, the Public (the citizen) who owns them, thru our gvt.

I dont care Care4all thats your opinion and you ant changing my... You believe what you like thats your right..but im not buying to all that BS sorry......its bad law and a very dam expensive one at that...
http://shop.newsmax.com/shop/index.cfm?page=products&productid=586

 

[Bern80]

you are absolutely INCORRECT and the supreme court has ruled such....many times over, regarding this....the Fairness doctrine and it's sister Act were in place for many, many decades...with several SC rulings....

any person leasing to someone else, has the right to put stipulations on that lease....

Broadcast stations LEASE their airwaves from us, the Public (the citizen) who owns them, thru our gvt.

Then the solution is simple it seems to me (and long overdue). Get rid of the FCC and really open up the airwaves. Were you aware there is a whole spctrum of frequencies they won't issue licenses for at all?

 

[Care4all]

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. 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 Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995).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.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “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.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.


Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

 

[Tech_Esq]

How it worked

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. 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.

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: “There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.” In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “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.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

As a guarantor of balance and inclusion, the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance. But its value, beyond the occasional remedies it provided, was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.


Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Interesting, but still not what I recall from when this was actually the law of the land. Supreme Ct decisions and the text of regulations notwithstanding. It is the actual implementation by everyday people that is the problem. As a practical matter, you subscribe to a show (on many AM stations) and that show requires you to air it in a particular time slot day after day. If you don't, you are in breach of contract.

But, the bottom line is this is an impingement on the exercise of free speech. In my book, there is only one good reason to burden free political speech and that is public safety. The isn't a public safety issue here, so there is no good reason to burden free speech. End of story.

If people think there is a market for something else, either sell it to an operating station or start your own.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If that were the case we'd be calling for a ban on fat white dudes on the radio. but hey, if you need to cry go ahead and get it out of your system now. Or, like I've suggested previously, go get your Ruby Ridge on and show us that you mean business.

OR, go find where you have an individual right to a national resource in the constitution. You crybaby motherfuckers have gotten used to eating right wing chocolate for so long that you seem to think the rest of us don't count. Sorry. **** you. Evolve or die, poopypants.

I'll take take that as an admission.

Have a nice day!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This isn't complicated... The leftist ideology is a joke... it is nothing more than the ideology wherein the stupid find common ground.

As such, non-stupid people are loathe to spend much time listening to them harp... and those who have ever listened to dispAir America know exactly what I'm talking about... it is intellectual AGONY! Those people are IDIOTS and they're helpless to do a damn thing about it.

Now the simple fact is that American are conservative... and they react to conservatism; the success of talk radio proves that conclusively. The problem that the left has with talk radio is IT EXISTS! They aren't interested in equal time... THEY WANT IT GONE! ALL of it... because talk radio discredits every word that comes out of the mouths of every leftist in public life, EVERY DAY!

They can't compete in the market place of ideas, so they do what leftists ALWAYS do, which is to go to work doing their level best to censor the opposition...

Just look through this forum and you'll see one leftist imbecile after the next making all manner of idiotic claims... The NMBLA proponent Shogun herself just within the last week declared that the fascist policies of the New Deal were responsible for the US coming out of the Depression; when it is incontestable that those policies along with the previous 'progressive manipulations of the market were directly responsible for deepening and prolonging the depression.

Another sycophant leftist declared around the same time that the US Government 'nationalized the auto-industry in 1942... DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Conservative pundits OWN the left wherever the loathsome creatures of the left can be cornered into a debate.

Conservative principles are American principles and when they're set before the citizens of the US, they win every single time... and in pre-response to the idiots that will claim that conservatism was rejected in this election... Let the record reflect that Conservatism was not being advanced by anyone, at ANY LEVEL in this election, with the rare exception of one Sarah Palin... who is solely responsible for McCain getting as close as he did.

The left will do everything in its power to enact this idiocy... and it won't slow down Conservative radio in the slightest. I listen to Talk Radio over XM most of the time except in my Z , but I've been going to upgrade the Drag Queen for months and that's all I'll need to get that done.

I haven't watched Network News, CNN, or the other cable comrades in YEARS, unless I'm specifically looking to find out what the communist talking points are on a given issue. I occasionally listen to dispAir America when I'm on the east coast, just to entertain myself with some true hate radio...

There is absolutely NOTHING FAIR about the fairness doctrine... but you can't convince the left of that... they're simply not bright enough.

 

[KGB]

i will ask you TE, how does giving the public MORE information regarding issues of great public interest SUPPRESS speech?

look up some of Chuck Schummer's statements about talk radio & you'll understand what we are saying....

 

[Shogun]

I'll take take that as an admission.

Have a nice day!

you can take it however you need to in order to help the sting of the latest election become less painful over that swelling black eye you are now sporting, champ.

 

[Shogun]

This isn't complicated... The leftist ideology is a joke... it is nothing more than the ideology wherein the stupid find common ground.

As such, non-stupid people are loathe to spend much time listening to them harp... and those who have ever listened to dispAir America know exactly what I'm talking about... it is intellectual AGONY! Those people are IDIOTS and they're helpless to do a damn thing about it.

Now the simple fact is that American are conservative... and they react to conservatism; the success of talk radio proves that conclusively. The problem that the left has with talk radio is IT EXISTS! They aren't interested in equal time... THEY WANT IT GONE! ALL of it... because talk radio discredits every word that comes out of the mouths of every leftist in public life, EVERY DAY!

They can't compete in the market place of ideas, so they do what leftists ALWAYS do, which is to go to work doing their level best to censor the opposition...

Just look through this forum and you'll see one leftist imbecile after the next making all manner of idiotic claims... The NMBLA proponent Shogun herself just within the last week declared that the fascist policies of the New Deal were responsible for the US coming out of the Depression; when it is incontestable that those policies along with the previous 'progressive manipulations of the market were directly responsible for deepening and prolonging the depression.

Another sycophant leftist declared around the same time that the US Government 'nationalized the auto-industry in 1942... DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Conservative pundits OWN the left wherever the loathsome creatures of the left can be cornered into a debate.

Conservative principles are American principles and when they're set before the citizens of the US, they win every single time... and in pre-response to the idiots that will claim that conservatism was rejected in this election... Let the record reflect that Conservatism was not being advanced by anyone, at ANY LEVEL in this election, with the rare exception of one Sarah Palin... who is solely responsible for McCain getting as close as he did.

The left will do everything in its power to enact this idiocy... and it won't slow down Conservative radio in the slightest. I listen to Talk Radio over XM most of the time except in my Z , but I've been going to upgrade the Drag Queen for months and that's all I'll need to get that done.

I haven't watched Network News, CNN, or the other cable comrades in YEARS, unless I'm specifically looking to find out what the communist talking points are on a given issue. I occasionally listen to dispAir America when I'm on the east coast, just to entertain myself with some true hate radio...

There is absolutely NOTHING FAIR about the fairness doctrine... but you can't convince the left of that... they're simply not bright enough.

HA! you lost, buddy... deal with it. Nothing says "conservative" about your losses on Tuesday. Have fun crying for the next 4 years, guy!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

HA! you lost, buddy... deal with it. Nothing says "conservative" about your losses on Tuesday. Have fun crying for the next 4 years, guy!

I lost?

ROFLMNAO... There was no American running for President... As close as it got was one American being appointed as VP for one of the two leftist candidates.

America lost when one fascist and one socialist end up comprising the scope of the Presidential Campaign.

So... what are the odds that NMBLA gets some legislation passed to get that age of consent theshold legally lowered? Do you think that the failure of the Left to secure a fillibuster proof majority, which they've predicted for well over a year now, that the Adult /child sex for whch you advocate will be forced to remain in the shadows of debauchery and hedonism of the ideological left?

 

[Shogun]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a giant ******* baby, dude. Seems to me that the rest of us will accept Obama's citizenship. Does your ***** still ache after Tuesday? enjoy the ride for the next four years, ************.

Oh, and enjoy the application of the fairness doctrine too. Go ahead and get your Ruby Ridge on, son.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a giant ******* baby, dude. Does your ***** still ache after Tuesday? enjoy the ride for the next four years, ************.


Oh, and enjoy the application of the fairness doctrine too. Go ahead and get your Ruby Ridge on, son.

This is a perfect illustration of idiocy... Congrats child ******... ya peaked.

 

[Shogun]

Didn't have a worthwhile retort I take it? figures. You were never much on facts anyway. Next thing you know you'll be insisting that only gays have historically ever married kids.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a giant ******* baby, dude. Does your ***** still ache after Tuesday? enjoy the ride for the next four years, ************.


Oh, and enjoy the application of the fairness doctrine too. Go ahead and get your Ruby Ridge on, son.

This is a perfect illustration of idiocy... Congrats child ******... ya peaked.

Didn't have a worthwhile retort I take it? figures. You were never much on facts anyway. Next thing you know you'll be insisting that only gays have historically ever married kids.

Now the coolest part of this rejoinder is that the imbecile doesn't even recognize her own limitations; she is absolutely incapable of recognizing that her reasoning in just this last few exchanges is fatally flawed...

For instance... In her most recent response she speaks of 'facts;' projecting that her position is factual and that of her opposition is not, when in fact... her position is nothing remotely close to fact, but stands as conjecture and as usual, conjecture of the baseless variety.

You were never much on facts anyway.

Now let's examine the assertions she's made and see if we can find a fact...

#1

You are a giant ******* baby, dude.

I suppose we could cite the definition of 'baby' note the stage of development it indicates and see that this statement is in fact, not fact... but instead represents little more than a flaccid little projection advanced by the limited intellect typical of the ideological left; but such is common knowledge amongst the non-idiots.

So despite her implication that she is the oracle of truth, we find her to be just another clueless socialist numb-skull; a drain on the culture and a pathetic example of a human being across the board.

BUT! Her posts have served as a PERFECT ILLUSTRATION of what stands for HIGH INTELLECT on the ideological left. We can be sure that if Hussein herself were here that she couldn't do any better.

But that is, after all, the nature of idiocy and as such it serves reason perfectly.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

 

[Otter_Creek]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a giant ******* baby, dude. Seems to me that the rest of us will accept Obama's citizenship. Does your ***** still ache after Tuesday? enjoy the ride for the next four years, ************.

Oh, and enjoy the application of the fairness doctrine too. Go ahead and get your Ruby Ridge on, son.

Shogut, I must say, imo, you are the most sick ,angry and disturbed individual I've read in the decade+ I've been on any message board.
If there's ever been a better example of spewing partisan hatred than you, We'd be hard pressed to find one I'm sure.
I know you don't care so I'll just say **** you.

 

[Shogun]

I'm glad you enjoyed my post enough to reply. Too bad no one gives a shit about your posts enough to offer the same, eh? Maybe we can drum up some mental viagra for your forum input..

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm glad you enjoyed my post enough to reply. Too bad no one gives a shit about your posts enough to offer the same, eh? Maybe we can drum up some mental viagra for your forum input..

Here we have yet another example of delusion personified... The member to which this Advocate of Adult / Child sex is responding made no such claim as that which she is deceitfully projecting. They stated quite clearly that this member is an angry little imbecile; yet the member returns to misrepresent the remarks and in doing so props up the ethereal facade that she is something other than an imbecile of the lowest potential.

 

[Shogun]

You know, the longer you remain bitter about that education I gave you on world history the longer you'll continue having your ass handed to you in these forums.. Oh Wait! Toro is working you over like Mike Tyson on Robin as I type!




classic.

 

[Otter_Creek]

There's no need to even try to debate anything with these bigoted assholes spewing their hate at anyone with a differing opinion. From the treatment I received from the sad pieces of shit in the past few years, I just talk about them and seldom to them.
I guess watching them post hate is vindication, as they show how pathetic they truly are.

There's really nothing left to debate, I refuse to be an obamabot and I get hated for it.