Split Thread "Fairness doctrine" broadcasting

[RandFan]

What there is not room for is single-party control of the airwaves.

Hitler had that.

Godwin.


CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, countless independents, AM, FM, XM/Sirius, Internet, Cable, etc, etc.

• I listen to NPR and Air America just about every day.
• I check the news at latimes.com and CNN.com throughout the day, every day.
• I Tivo Rachel Maddoux, Daily Show and the Colbert Report and watch every episode.
• I often watch Keith Olbermann, NewsHour and many other non-conservative sources throughout the week.

I can listen to or watch liberal voices 24 hours a day and I can choose from many different liberal sources. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "what in the sam hell are you talking about?"

 

[Cobalt]

Godwin.

I can listen to or watch liberal voices 24 hours a day and I can choose from many different liberal sources. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "what in the sam hell are you talking about?"

Which is what I was trying to ask in a much more perplexing way earlier in the thread. Your way is better.

 

[RandFan]

Which is what I was trying to ask in a much more perplexing way earlier in the thread. Your way is better.

Granted not all of these sources are free or part of the "public" air waves but it is just silly to suggest that the the right-wing "controls" the air waves. And as Gnome points out above, what good would the "fairness doctrine" do anyway but cause people to change the station? People who live in Democracies (and many who don't) don't like **** shoved down their throats. For crying in the dark, why does anyone think radios have the ability to tune stations or why do they have on off buttons in the first place?

Ok children, everyone put your heads on the desk and listen to the nice speech by Chairman Mao Nancy Pelosi.

Brilliant.

 

[Gazpacho]

I'm not convinced that a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" is anything but a bogeyman that right-wing talk radio gasbags lob at their listeners.

They're not the ones introducing bills in Congress.

[101st] Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1989 (Reported in Senate)[S.577.RS ]
[101st] Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1989 (Reported in House)[H.R.315.RH ]
[102nd] Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1991 (Introduced in Senate)[S.217.IS ]
[102nd] Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1991 (Introduced in House)[H.R.530.IH ]
[103rd] Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993 (Introduced in Senate)[S.333.IS ]
[103rd] Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993 (Introduced in House)[H.R.1985.IH ]
[108th] MEDIA Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.4710.IH ]
[109th] Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.501.IH ]
[110th] Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.1742.IS ]
[110th] Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.2905.IH ]

Most of these bills are introduced just after an election year rather than during one, so they're not just rallying bills. If there's a demographic that is significantly more likely to vote for democrats based on whether they introduced a fairness doctrine bill, I haven't heard of it.

I live in Seattle and there's certainly no need for the fairness doctrine here. We get programming for both sides, because there are sizable audiences on both sides.

 

[Drysdale]

It really just amazes me that the party supposedly more tolerant of free speech is the ones pursuing this.

I also think that old saying "be careful what you wish for" applies here.
It sounds great now that the Dems are in majority if you are democrat, but remember whatever cockamamie standards they set will apply as well if they lose the majority. There will probably be a republican appointed commitee majority however they decide to regulate it to replace the democrat one to ascertain what is fair and what is'nt.

Other than just smacking of facism there is another thing to consider.

There obviously is an audience for conservative views,whether you consider them far right or mainstream America. And chances are they'll migrate to other venues given their success. Possibly TV and competing for audiences against ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX on local channels. What then?

 

[Sefarst]

As Penn and Teller said in their Wal Mart episode, "this country supports competition, just as long as it's the kind of competition where no one actually wins."

If liberal talk radio is full of people like Ben Burch, it's no wonder it's tanking so badly.

 

[applecorped]

And chances are they'll migrate to other venues given their success. Possibly TV and competing for audiences against ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX on local channels. What then?

Change the rules.

 

[Snide]

I must be?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't just being obtuse. Shouldn't I?

 

[applecorped]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't just being obtuse. Shouldn't I?

I'm not obtuse. I'm fairly acute, straight and right person.

 

[Snide]

I'm not obtuse. I'm fairly acute, straight and right person.

Heh heh. Touche'

 

[Beerina]

It's ironic people are using political speech, the most sacred part of freedom of speech, as the argument as to why they should censor it.

If you require stations to put on anything that's not profitable, and liberal whining is not profitable, which is why it has to be breastfed constantly by government on NPR, then stations will get rid of what is now costing them cash -- the conservative shows.


Which is, of course, the real goal.


And to those who are deliberately deluding themselves into thinking it's about "fairness" and "getting an opposing viewpoint on", please. George Will points out the left often deludes themselves on this issue, that if they could only get their message out, they'd do better. Thus neglecting that the message is getting out just fine, and being rejected.

So please.

 

[applecorped]

It wasn't totally rejected.

 

[dudalb]

No, listeners largely have no say in the matter

Yes, they do, It is called "Changing the Station". When the ratings go down and advertisers stop advertising because the stations are not reaching enough people,the stations will get the message.

Ben's Nazi Germany comparasion is perhaps the worst Godwin...(a outrageoously invalid comparasion of something with Nazi Germany) I have seen for a while.
The Irony is, from this and some of his other posts, it's Ben who fantasizes about a One Party Country.

 

[RandFan]

No, listeners largely have no say in the matter

Yes, they do, It is called "Changing the Station". When the ratings go down and advertisers stop advertising because the stations are not reaching enough people,the stations will get the message.

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

 

[Beerina]

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

It's not. One meme wants to kill off another, so to speak. So it induces in the heads of it's individual cells the idea that censorship is an OK thing to do. Of course, the cells believe, because of another part of the meme, that censorship is bad. But the meme has that covered, too! It tells the cells that "fairness" is important, even more important than government not censoring. This assuages the human ego and self-belief that they're a good person, and the meme gains an ally. Thus censorship occurs.


Religions regularly did this; so, too, did politics, as you can see here.

 

[RandFan]

It's not. One meme wants to kill off another, so to speak. So it induces in the heads of it's individual cells the idea that censorship is an OK thing to do. Of course, the cells believe, because of another part of the meme, that censorship is bad. But the meme has that covered, too! It tells the cells that "fairness" is important, even more important than government not censoring. This assuages the human ego and self-belief that they're a good person, and the meme gains an ally. Thus censorship occurs.


Religions regularly did this; so, too, did politics, as you can see here.

Good post.

 

[marksman]

If it's ok for the FCC to fine CBS when Janet Jackson let slip the nip, why isn't it ok to fine stations who don't provide diverse opinions?

Because the first amendment prohibits the federal government (of which the FCC is a part) from denying someone a privilege based on the content of their speech. It does not forbid the federal government from placing reasonable time and manner restrictions on speech as long as they are not content-based.

That is why the FCC can fine people for using obscene speech (or showing nudity) during prime time. They don't care if the obscenity is used for left-wing or right-wing or apolitical purpose. Regulating obscenity is considered a reasonable restriction on the manner on which speech may be broadcast, regardless of the content.

Telling someone that they must broadcast certain content is a regulation based on content and thus has 1st amendment implications.

Of course, there are gray areas. At some point obscenity crosses the line into art, and the government has more restrictions at that point and there is always litigation about where that line should be drawn. But regulating political content is not even close to that line.

At least in the latter case, it's something the station actually has control over.

Control is not one of the criteria that triggers the first amendment. The government can punish people for negligence. The government can punish people for things they didn't anticipate. They can't punish you (or your company) based on the subject matter of your speech. Even when you use the public's airwaves to do it.

The moment you start picking and choosing, you've missed the boat on what "freedom of speech" is all about.

No, freedom of speech is about the content of that speech, not the manner in which that speech is broadcast.

It seems to me your gripe is that the FCC can regulate obscenity at all, not that it fails to police political speech.

 

[marksman]

Moreover, there's no reason -- under a Commons theory -- that the Fairness Doctrine could not be extended to much of print media.

Print media uses public roads to distribute their materials. The government can regulate what is transported on public roads.

Much of print media (specifically, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc.) transport their publications across State lines for sale. The federal government expressly can regulate interstate commerce. For the same reason, the fairness doctrine could be extended to electronic media (such as this forum) because the internet also extends across state lines and is thus a form of interstate commerce (even if no money changes hands).

It is the First Amendment that protects the media from being compelled to carry specific political speech, not the fact that the media doesn't use the airwaves.

 

[Random]

Moreover, there's no reason -- under a Commons theory -- that the Fairness Doctrine could not be extended to much of print media.

Print media uses public roads to distribute their materials. The government can regulate what is transported on public roads.

Much of print media (specifically, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, etc.) transport their publications across State lines for sale. The federal government expressly can regulate interstate commerce. For the same reason, the fairness doctrine could be extended to electronic media (such as this forum) because the internet also extends across state lines and is thus a form of interstate commerce (even if no money changes hands).

It is the First Amendment that protects the media from being compelled to carry specific political speech, not the fact that the media doesn't use the airwaves.

You could make the argument, but it would be based on different principles than the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was based on the physical reality that there can only be a certain number of radio or television stations in a certain area without blocking each others signals and that an idea could be squeezed out of the marketplace if its adherents could not get access to one. There is no such limitation on newspapers, books or the internet (or at least not one that is easily reached).

Besides, a lot of the things you mentioned are already regulated under the idea of the commons. Gas taxes pay for road repair, vehicles have to be regularly submitted for inspections, drivers must maintain licensure, etc. We just don’t have regulation based on driver ideology.

 

[marksman]

You could make the argument, but it would be based on different principles than the Fairness Doctrine.

I was taking issue with the idea that the Fairness Doctrine could be justified based on public ownership of the airwaves. That argument allows for a host of invasive regulations.

The Fairness Doctrine was based on the physical reality that there can only be a certain number of radio or television stations in a certain area without blocking each others signals and that an idea could be squeezed out of the marketplace if its adherents could not get access to one.

Given the advent of satellites and cable, there's no such limitation on television and radio any more. If the Fairness Doctrine is based on the scarcity of radio and television stations, then the Doctrine has become antiquated and archaic.

Besides, a lot of the things you mentioned are already regulated under the idea of the commons. Gas taxes pay for road repair, vehicles have to be regularly submitted for inspections, drivers must maintain licensure, etc. We just don’t have regulation based on driver ideology.

Because that would violate the First Amendment. It's the same reason we don't regulate newspapers. It should also be the same reason we don't regulate the ideology of broadcast networks and radio stations.