Opinion on Fairness Doctrine

[SSAVL]

Im interested to see what peoples opinion of the Fairness Doctrine may be. Im sure party affiliation will have a fairly large affect on how one answers. From what i have been seeing in the media, this is being pushed from democrats to be instituted. However, if you look into what they are saying, they almost always to a person point to talk radio. Conservative talk radio is very popular and is a healthy business. For whatever reason, liberal talk radio hasnt faired too well. Air America is a perfect example. If liberal talk radio has tried and failed, why would it need to be "placed" on the air? If i open a store and it fails because my competitor across the street is doing better, should i have the government force my failed business back open to be fair?? And why dont the democrats who are pushing this care about the issue when it comes to television and print. Being a conservative the answer is plain to me (liberals dominate print and TV news).....they want to control the last thorn in their side as far as getting factual ifto out to the public. How do you view this and do you think it should or shouldnt be instituted?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Im interested to see what peoples opinion of the Fairness Doctrine may be. Im sure party affiliation will have a fairly large affect on how one answers. From what i have been seeing in the media, this is being pushed from democrats to be instituted. However, if you look into what they are saying, they almost always to a person point to talk radio. Conservative talk radio is very popular and is a healthy business. For whatever reason, liberal talk radio hasnt faired too well. Air America is a perfect example. If liberal talk radio has tried and failed, why would it need to be "placed" on the air? If i open a store and it fails because my competitor across the street is doing better, should i have the government force my failed business back open to be fair?? And why dont the democrats who are pushing this care about the issue when it comes to television and print. Being a conservative the answer is plain to me (liberals dominate print and TV news).....they want to control the last thorn in their side as far as getting factual ifto out to the public. How do you view this and do you think it should or shouldnt be instituted?

Isn't it a contradiction to say the liberal media dominates if the conservative media is so healthy?

 

[SSAVL]

Isn't it a contradiction to say the liberal media dominates if the conservative media is so healthy?

Nope, i am talking about only one specific group of the media. As far as TV, you have Fox for conservatives against ABC, CBS, CNN, CNCB and so on, with print, there are very few right leaning papers. As far as talk radio, the majority of the top rated shows are conservative.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Im interested to see what peoples opinion of the Fairness Doctrine may be. Im sure party affiliation will have a fairly large affect on how one answers. From what i have been seeing in the media, this is being pushed from democrats to be instituted. However, if you look into what they are saying, they almost always to a person point to talk radio. Conservative talk radio is very popular and is a healthy business. For whatever reason, liberal talk radio hasnt faired too well. Air America is a perfect example. If liberal talk radio has tried and failed, why would it need to be "placed" on the air? If i open a store and it fails because my competitor across the street is doing better, should i have the government force my failed business back open to be fair?? And why dont the democrats who are pushing this care about the issue when it comes to television and print. Being a conservative the answer is plain to me (liberals dominate print and TV news).....they want to control the last thorn in their side as far as getting factual ifto out to the public. How do you view this and do you think it should or shouldnt be instituted?

I think when it comes to broadcast media, media companies who buy channels have an obligation to operate in the interests of the public.

 

[Christopher Robin]

I think when it comes to broadcast media, media companies who buy channels have an obligation to operate in the interests of the public.

Do you think it should it be expanded to other broadcast media like ABC TV, CBS TV and NBC TV?

Personally, the Fairness Doctrine should never see the light of day. It is anathema to the First Amendment.

 

[mamarazzo]

Outrage and drama is more interesting to some people than plain ol' news. I can't sit and watch CNN for too long--it can get boring.

I am pro-free speech, but I am anti-slander.

Here is a chart showing that recently, Republicans were given guest spots on cable news outlets more often then democrats. What is surprising to me is that FOX came closest to giving equal time to reps from both parties.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

For whatever reason, conservative programming has been the most successful product in talk radio. I am beyond clueless as to why this is a problem. Isn't this a free country? Can't people listen to whatever they want (within agreed-upon bounds of decency, that is)?

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Fairness Doctrine is stupid.

I cannot even believe it was policy for 40 years.

Why would liberals want to listen to ranting hysteria day in and day out? We don't, we have lives, we are happy. Sure we have opinions about the policies/parties we do not agree with - BUT we are intelligent enough to form our own opinions and do not need a blowhard to tell us how to think and feel.

My time is too precious to waste - I am out having fun and do not have time to listen to two side of every subject. Yuck.

 

[JDinCO]

The way I look at it is the media outlets are businesses that need to make money to operate there fore will seek the sensation from the news to attract veiwership over reporting the truth no matter how boring it is. Also journalists are human beings that do have an opinion on what is being reported and I believe have a professional responsibilty to report the facts.

That coupled with the fact that the people will hear what they want to hear no matter what is being said. There are folks on the left and right who take more pride on thier position than trying to understand the truth.

 

[mamarazzo]

For whatever reason, conservative programming has been the most successful product in talk radio. I am beyond clueless as to why this is a problem. Isn't this a free country? Can't people listen to whatever they want (within agreed-upon bounds of decency, that is)?

I'm a liberal and it's not a problem to me. I think it can be problematic and dangerous for individuals to rely on talk radio as their sole source of news, but it's certainly not my place to tell them what they can and can't do.

 

[Mother Jones]

if the cons don't want the fairness doctrine imposed then here's the solution. we can call it something else. we can can call it the mother jones solution

rush limbaugh can only broadcast for one hour at a time. after his hour is up then you get two hours of the truth. this way the limbaugh brain washing and hate is kept to the minimum

america wins and everyone is much happier

 

[corndog]

I think when it comes to broadcast media, media companies who buy channels have an obligation to operate in the interests of the public.

Yes, Josh, but who will decide what is in the interests of the public? Will the public's interests change depending on who controls Congress?

 

[Disneycrazymom]

What would be the purpose of this?

A quick look on google and here is some information about the original intent. It seems it was dropped when the original purpose - sharing airwaves - was no longer necessary.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
mid page -
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.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I'm a liberal and it's not a problem to me. I think it can be problematic and dangerous for individuals to rely on talk radio as their sole source of news, but it's certainly not my place to tell them what they can and can't do.

Sounds like we're on the same page.

if the cons don't want the fairness doctrine imposed then here's the solution. we can call it something else. we can can call it the mother jones solution

rush limbaugh can only broadcast for one hour at a time. after his hour is up then you get two hours of the truth. this way the limbaugh brain washing and hate is kept to the minimum

america wins and everyone is much happier

Zippa D Doodah thanks you for checking in.

 

[SSAVL]

if the cons don't want the fairness doctrine imposed then here's the solution. we can call it something else. we can can call it the mother jones solution

rush limbaugh can only broadcast for one hour at a time. after his hour is up then you get two hours of the truth. this way the limbaugh brain washing and hate is kept to the minimum

america wins and everyone is much happier

Saying Rush broadcasts hate is only an opinion...whatever happened to " if you dont want to hear it, change the channel"?

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Saying Rush broadcasts hate is only an opinion...whatever happened to " if you dont want to hear it, change the channel"?

That would require "personal responsibility". Say, I think I heard that phrase in a big speech not too long ago.

 

[breezy1077]

For whatever reason, conservative programming has been the most successful product in talk radio. I am beyond clueless as to why this is a problem. Isn't this a free country? Can't people listen to whatever they want (within agreed-upon bounds of decency, that is)?

Although, I would argue that we're seeing the "free country" slip away. The Fairness Doctrine would be one incremental step towards that end IMO.

Yes, Josh, but who will decide what is in the interests of the public? Will the public's interests change depending on who controls Congress?

Exactly. The free market has spoken, some don't like the answer so they want to extinquish the outlet that's proven successful.

It's less about sour grapes and more about extinguishing free speech. Disgusting IMO.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

Why would shutting down free speech be a good thing?

If the left has such great answers to all things then what the other side says shouldn't effect the outcome. If someone doesn't want to listen then they have lots of other choices. When the bill was written there was much more limited access to the airwaves but now that is not a concern. Everyone should have a voice. I would like to know why the libs seem so worried about the free speech of the right. I looks like they are afraid to allow everyone to speak. Why would that be true?

 

[Anewman]

From what i have been seeing in the media, this is being pushed from democrats to be instituted.

I see conservatives saying that Democrats are pushing it...

 

[mamarazzo]

I've seen a few mentions of it on blogs, but nothing beyond paranoid hearsay. Is there a large population of democrats going on the record saying they want it reinstated?

Who exactly is pushing for this? The names I see mentioned are Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Even the acting FCC chairman doesn't want it back.