The Fairness Doctrine: Part Deux

A solution which might be a better compromise would simply be to maybe create some federally funded networks which are sort of a cross between PBS and CSPAN which can focus specifically on presenting public affairs in a pretty fair and dry format.
Click to expand...


"All Liberal News..All The Time"...No Dissent Allowed Comrades !!!!
 
Comrade Ogilvy said:
"All Liberal News..All The Time"...No Dissent Allowed Comrades !!!!
Click to expand...

Because we don't live in the Soviet Union, an "obviously biased Federally funded channel" would be very unpopular, and networks which nobody watches are a rather poor propaganda source. Pravda worked because people had little choice but to read Pravda.

My idea is not actually that different from the status quo. We already have PBS and NPR, and they receive funding from the federal government. (Although I think most of their money comes from voluntary donations.) The only difference is that this new network would have a specific mission so as to focus on public affairs programming with an explicit requirement of fairness. Honestly, I think that even if my network was run mostly by Republicans, it would be a pretty neat idea.
 
I'm really shocked that anyone posting on any Internet chatroom or forum could even consider burdening radio again with the fairness doctrine.

I'm surprized the freedom of expression you enjoy online doesn't sensitize you to any attempts to broaden government control over speech in any form.

This is such a unique domain in human history. You can practice commerce with a minimum of government interference and taxation (and don't think government isn't licking its chops at untaxed Internet sales -- an online sales tax isn't far off).

But you also can say just about anything you want to without facing libel charges -- something no other venue of the printed word can boast.

These freedoms are rare and tenuous -- the government giveth and the government taketh away. The best way to keep the Internet free and unregulated is to oppose any government attempt to regulate speech in any way and any form.

The Fairness Doctrine was needed when radio was the dominate electronic source of people's news, entertainment and information. It no longer is.

Talk radio is no threat, it's just irritating.
 
The fairness doctrine doesn't restrict free speech though, it simply trades one restriction for another. You can only express your speech on the broadcast spectrum if you have a license. The existence of FCC licenses themselves is a restriction on free speech, although probably a necessary one because otherwise the spectrum would just be full of noise. At least in theory, the fairness doctrine can actually increase the freeness of speech, since people who would not otherwise be able to have a voice might get on the broadcast spectrum so as to get a fair representation in. (In practice, of course, it can go the other way and have people simply refuse to cover "unfair" people altogether, but my point is that it goes both ways.)

I agree that the fairness doctrine is unnecessary, but I don't see how it can be viewed as a threat to free speech.
 
Harpoon said:
I'm really shocked that anyone posting on any Internet chatroom or forum could even consider burdening radio again with the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to see evidence that it's being sincerely considered by Congress and not just talk by a few liberal partisans and being used by Talk Radio to stir up it's listenership.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I'm still waiting to see evidence that it's being sincerely considered by Congress and not just talk by a few liberal partisans and being used by Talk Radio to stir up it's listenership.
Click to expand...
Well The House just had a vote on it and it was overwhelmingly defeated. The issue is dead.
 
UserGoogol said:
The fairness doctrine doesn't restrict free speech though, it simply trades one restriction for another.
Click to expand...
It dictates radio content. Yes that is a restriction.

You can only express your speech on the broadcast spectrum if you have a license. The existence of FCC licenses themselves is a restriction on free speech, although probably a necessary one because otherwise the spectrum would just be full of noise.
Click to expand...
you express the content by choosing to listen or not to listen. If a general area listens to country and not to dance music, more station will program dance music. The government should not interfere and give each equal time.

At least in theory, the fairness doctrine can actually increase the freeness of speech, since people who would not otherwise be able to have a voice might get on the broadcast spectrum so as to get a fair representation in. (In practice, of course, it can go the other way and have people simply refuse to cover "unfair" people altogether, but my point is that it goes both ways.)
Click to expand...

In a for profit radio station, opinions that don't attract large enough audiences, don't get expressed. If required to give fair time, the radio station will ose money. In theory, they could start losing their profits and disappear. Than no opinions get expressed.

agree that the fairness doctrine is unnecessary, but I don't see how it can be viewed as a threat to free speech.
Click to expand...
You can't say that here. It isn't fair.
 
Texas said:
I should have given the link.

Here it is

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/06/29/cq_2998.html
Click to expand...
my thank god is in the New York times! I am aethist. I should have thought about what I said. Damn that free speech thing.


Yet Pence said the amendment, which was adopted, 309-115, puts the House on record as favoring “freedom on the public airwaves.”
Click to expand...

If this were only true! But you still cant say **** with out get censored. Even here. Its a damn shame!
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
Well The House just had a vote on it and it was overwhelmingly defeated. The issue is dead.
Click to expand...

Actually they didn't have a vote on it. They had a "just in case" vote on an amendment as the article cites:
The House voted Thursday to bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the broadcast “fairness doctrine” even though there are no legislative or regulatory proposals to bring back the rule.
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

And in the center of the story:
In recent days, conservative talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have cited public comments by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Dianne Feinstein of California and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois as evidence that Democrats are trying to bring back the fairness doctrine.

“Make no mistake. This is targeted at talk radio,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who cosponsored the amendment.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., told a Los Angeles radio host last week that he overheard Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in an elevator advocating a “legislative fix” for talk radio attacks. Boxer and Clinton have disputed Inhofe’s account.

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., called the concerns an “effort by right-wing radio to gin up a fight that doesn’t exist.”
Click to expand...

This is a non-issue that Talk Radio is inventing to stir up listeners.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Actually they didn't have a vote on it. They had a "just in case" vote on an amendment as the article cites:

Bold mine.

And in the center of the story:


This is a non-issue that Talk Radio is inventing to stir up listeners.
Click to expand...
Pre-emptive strike. If you think the liberals would not love to take out Limbaugh and company you are not living in the real world.
I don't really blame them as they have failed miserably in the present market environment.
 
firecoins said:
Is there anyone with a sence of humor anymore?


Apparently not.
Click to expand...

If you've been drinking, it's time to log off and go to be before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Texas said:
Pre-emptive strike. If you think the liberals would not love to take out Limbaugh and company you are not living in the real world.
I don't really blame them as they have failed miserably in the present market environment.
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with the mythology that "The Left" hates free speech. I listen to Talk Radio all the time. I also recall calls to "defund 'The Left'" back after the '94 elections, and let's not forget Sam Brownback calling for regulating Satellite Radio because they might say dirty things on there.

But you'll forgive me if I reject "common sense" assertions, like I heard from my co-worker one night (this is a guy who actually flipped off the TV when Rosie O'Donnell appeared on Leno) that, "'The Left' hates {the} Jews."

I was going to ask him if he meant "The Left" which includes Steven Spielberg, columnist Mark Green and Sen. Russ Feingold, or some other "The Left" I was unaware of.

Phantasms and boogiemen are not conducive to mature political discourse. I only start getting worried when I see actual regulation or legislation in the works.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
If you've been drinking, it's time to log off and go to be before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.



I'm quite familiar with the mythology that "The Left" hates free speech. I listen to Talk Radio all the time. I also recall calls to "defund 'The Left'" back after the '94 elections, and let's not forget Sam Brownback calling for regulating Satellite Radio because they might say dirty things on there.

But you'll forgive me if I reject "common sense" assertions, like I heard from my co-worker one night (this is a guy who actually flipped off the TV when Rosie O'Donnell appeared on Leno) that, "'The Left' hates {the} Jews."

I was going to ask him if he meant "The Left" which includes Steven Spielberg, columnist Mark Green and Sen. Russ Feingold, or some other "The Left" I was unaware of.

Phantasms and boogiemen are not conducive to mature political discourse. I only start getting worried when I see actual regulation or legislation in the works.
Click to expand...
I am off to bed but I do want to address your statement about the left and Jews tomorrow. I want to provide whatever links I can back-up my points instead of just my own opinion. With that I will say good night. Thanks for the discussion.
 
Texas said:
I am off to bed but I do want to address your statement about the left and Jews tomorrow. I want to provide whatever links I can back-up my points instead of just my own opinion. With that I will say good night. Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...

I'll be off work the next few days so if I don't reply, feel free to PM me and remind me to do so.
 
firecoins said:
You express the content by choosing to listen or not to listen. If a general area listens to country and not to dance music, more station will program dance music. The government should not interfere and give each equal time.
Click to expand...

But if you didn't do that, the dance musicians would have their free speech restricted. Free speech means you can say whatever the hell you want--speech without restrictions. If you can't get on the radio because nobody wants to listen to you, your free speech has been restricted. Not directly by the government, but indirectly, because the government only allows people to talk on the radio who can pay for a FCC license or who can persuade the people who have said licenses. If the government allows the actual restrictions to be done by the invisible hand instead of by an explicit restriction on content, that is still a restriction on free speech. Probably not in the sense which makes it unconstitutional, (since in that sense, everything restricts speech in some way) but certainly by the literal definition of the words. Free speech means you can say whatever the hell you want and nobody can stop you.

(Of course in this sense, absolute free speech is impossible, since every communication media is in some way rivalrous, in that if one person uses a broadcast antenna or a internet server or a printing press, that limits the degree that another person can use it. Speech itself restricts speech. But increased freedom of speech is still a worthwhile goal.)

But again, I agree that the fairness doctrine is probably not the best way to do assure such free speech is said. But it doesn't seem absolutely terrible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom