Fox News:
President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
It is clear that the "right" has been quietly assembling troops and is now mounting their attack, an attack largely unanticipated by media reformers.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
AM radio is not dying today. It was dying 20 years ago before Rush Limbaugh revived it with a nationwide political talk show. Of course most of Rush's political talk is his own, but we're dying to hear and then reject a lib talk show host with a dynamic delivery and message to sustain a 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, 20+ year program. Sports and conservative political talk sustain AM radio. Libs are more diversified in their media consumption and thus wouldn't mind seeing the demise of the only conservative media stronghold.
Several left-wing congresspersons including Pelosi have expressed an interest in the return of the Fairness Doctrine. So it's not total right-wing paranoia when this assault on the First Amendment looms in the pea-brain of Nancy Pelosi.
wingnuts love to claim that liberals arent on the radio because noone wants to hear them.however,the fact is,the majority of liberals are under 50.and these people are listening to far less terrestrial radio than older people.if there really werent any market for leftwing media,then olberman and maddow would not be successful.or jon stewart.or this site for that matter.AM radio is a dying medium.it seems to me that the lunatics are being isolated intoi mediums which are becoming increasingly irrelevant.sounds good to me.
Oh yeah,... the Wingnuts surely do hate such a doctrine, because they no longer get to play that "us vs. them" card and spew that infamous "...you won't hear this in the 'Liberal Media'..." Total BS.
huh?... I don't get it. The same machine that is utterly defeating his administration's messaging now gets to go unchecked? The doctrine is not censorship - that is another lie out of the mouth of this wasteland we call our media. Giving voice to the voiceless is not censorship. Hannity and Rush would still get to wage their war against the "New Socialist Party," but when they go off the air, another viewpoint can come on. Free market won't give us that. I know, I live in Texas.
Let's do a practical Fairness Doctrine. Boycott advertisers on Wingnut Radio and TV. Let your local merchants know you do not buy from supporter of hate.
Now that's the First Amendment in action!
The Republicans used the Fairness Doctrine as often as the Democrats to express their point of view.
In the end, having the opponents view mandated didn't do any good, and the smaller non mainstream parties were usually excluded, because how far down do you go?
Besides, pragmatically, how can you ever have an open exchange of viewpoints when one side is populated by a group of snarling, drooling, fact distorting ravers?
Alternate viewpoint media is the way to go. I thank MSNBC every day for the clarity and candor of Keith "he's evil" :-) Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. And I purposefully have Fox News channel not programmed into my television listings.
Once again, Obama gets it right. The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is a blatant violation of the First Anmendment - government-mandated political speech.
Nonsense
Whether misinformed or lying... doesn't matter. You are wrong.
The US Supreme Court held, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC:
"The right of access to the media under 312 (a) (7), as defined by the FCC and applied here, does not violate the First Amendment rights of broadcasters by unduly circumscribing their editorial discretion, but instead properly balances the First Amendment rights of federal candidates, the public, and broadcasters."
[Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367 (1981) ]
No serious First Amendment scholar views Red Lion as good law 28 years later, given the plethora of media broadcasting. We no longer have 13 channels available, but hundreds of channels, as well as unrestricted web content. The justification for government dictation of speech content -- limited media channels -- no longer exists. The situation is no different from Torinello v. Miamai Herald, which struck down laws that required newspapers to give space to candidates they didn't endorse in the name of balance.
It's nice to have a President who taught constitutional law.
It's interesting that the Fairness Doctrine has always specifically indicted talk-radio and stayed away from Internet (talk radio is predominantly conservative and the internet is predominantly liberal), and the Republicans dislike it and Democrats dream about it.
You did see the part where he had no plans to bring back the Fairness Doctrine right?
And you have noticed that no one but your team ever talks about bringing it back right?
You should just move on to your team's next phony issue to be outraged about.....
The Fairness Doctrine "stayed away from the Internet" in the same way -- and for the same reason -- that the Founding Fathers stayed away from the Internet. The commercial Internet did not exist during the Fairness Doctrine's reign.
The Fairness Doctrine was killed by Reagan's FCC in 1987 (so as to facilitate the Radical Right's takeover of broadcasting), but would not have been applicable anyway. There is no comparable scarcity of available internet websites as there is of broadcast frequencies.
All the Fairness Doctrine used to do was allow a TV or Radio station (usually local, not national) to "editorialize" an opinion favoring or opposing a politician or legislation. These spots played maybe once a week, for 2 minutes. Playing by that rule they only had to offer 2 minutes time for anyone to rebutt their opinion. Other than that there was always a politician- asking for equal time whenever an interview was held by another politician. It got so complicated, sometimes going to arbitration that the whole thing became silly.
Now, the biggest problem arises during election season, when debates are held, that many debates block lower tier candidates from participation. This is UNFAIR and has caused the number of options for voters to dwindle down to two choices. Bringing back the LoWV into the debate scene would solve these problems but Republicans and Democrats have conspired to thwart honest debate. They should be called on their monopolistic behavior- they alone don't own this country
Here's an idea....If you want rating on the radio, put on a interesting, entertaining show and promote it well. The fairness doctrine is a HORRIBLE idea.That is all.
You've just proved the point. Progressive programming is number one in markets where the station turns over its format to something that ends up coming in last in the ratings. This is another example of corporate America's "free market" where everything is rigged to support neocon priorities.
We need an environment where market forces are allowed to work. That market is not "free." it's one where access is provided to everyone and consolidation is regulated.
Where is your supporting data? Please provide the ratings showing the before and after numbers.
The Fairness Doctrine would be fun. Think of the hundreds of government jobs it would create at the FCC. Official media watchers would have to calibrate the content of countless radio and TV broadcasts. Websites could be closely scrutinized for balance of political opinion. I'm afraid that might even include the Huffington Post. The failing print media could be subsidized to ensure that all viewpoints would reach the public. Law suits would run rampant - a boon to the lawyer class. The Fairness Doctrine would be its own little stimulus package. Chaos in order to attain fairness is never too great a price to pay.
Republican.
Its takes diligent daily paractice to become so good at being so witlessly dense.
Websites on the WWW are not "broadcast" on a finite frequency spectrum. Terrestrial television and radio are. Only ONE entity in any given locale may broadcast on any given frequency at one time.
Since there are many, many more citizens seeking to broadcast than there are frequencies available to allocate, frequencies and broadcasting practice have historically been regulated to enforce broadcasting "in the public interest." One purpose among many was to prevent capture of the broadcast spectrum by one narrow ideological group -- as Hitler's Nazis had so infamously done in Germany -- and use it to deliberately misinform and disinform a largely ill-educated, unsophisticated and uncritical public and manipulate them to gain political power.
This continued until the Reagan-era wholesale frequency theft -- presided over by FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, the communications industry lobbyist turned fox-in-the-henhouse 'regulator' -- a wholesale frequency theft by a cabal of uber-wealthy conservative ideologues, religious broadcasters, and broadcasting corporations intent on scrapping the high cost of serving the "public interest" part of "broadcasting in the public interest" that were all-too-thrilled to scuttle their expensive news-gathering operations just as soon as the law permitted.
Restoration of "public interest" broadcasting merely undoes the illegitimate capture of the broadcast spectrum by one narrow ideological group. That's all.
The same effect could likely be obtained by banning the intentional broadcast of known
falsehoods for political purposes.
The fact that Republicans have gone so crazy about the idea of its return should tell you it's a good thing that should be reinstated.
I don't have enough time to list the several reasons why this a horrible idea.
So that's it? "Republicans hate it so it must be good." Boy, so much for standing on any sort of principles.
The Fairness Doctrine is, quite simply, about putting the government in charge of who can speak for how long on what subject on the radio. How is that not a direct assault on the First Amendment?
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org
The argument against the Fairness Doctrine is asinine. "Well, we have the internet now so why do we need balanced content on the public airwaves?" Answer, there are still millions of more Americans getting their information via the radio on an hourly basis than from the internet. If we were so amazingly wired coast to coast then the transition from analog to digital television signals wouldn't have been postponed.
Another point, Rush didn't get a 400 million dollar contract because he is a quaint novelty ... he received it because he is a potent propaganda weapon for the Right. There are vast areas of the United States that are only covered by Right Wing radio. A constant drone of Rightest, Corporate propaganda hour after hour after hour.
You know what it is called when a subject is bombarded with a message until they accept it? Social engineering ... brain washing, if you will. There is no difference between the monotone Rightest message pumped into the back waters of America and what the Allies did against the Nazis with Radio Free Europe and the US did against bastions of communism during the Cold War through Voice of America ... Propaganda ... Domestic Psy-Warfare.
You want to flush the Fairness Doctrine? You want to leave the uneven distribution of ideas in America as it stands? Fine ... but don't kid yourself, in a very meaningful way, Rush Wins.
Its freedom of speech.. Get off your high horse.. If people cant stand rush then they dont listen to him.. This isnt Nazi Germany let the man speak..
Human beings are human beings ... if the Nazis could do it Americans could do it. And Propaganda can only be defined as Free Speech from the most warped of perspectives. The marketplace of ideas in America is a corporate monopoly and that is bad for America.
No one is calling for the return of the "fairness doctrine"—that's another right wing hissy fantasy. What people are talking about is access to good signals and breaking up some of the monopolies. In other words, allowing the "free market" to operate.
I am calling for it, as are millions of other Americans. Many Democrats in office would like to see it returned, as well.
The rightwing is having fits over it (that alone should tell you something) because having an informed electorate means the end of them.
Actually, the bill that is being considered, as I understand it, is not the fairness doctrine. I've heard this discussed by progressives. They are not looking for that kind of legislation. They are talking about access and consolidation.
Good call Barry
Kiss his grits, you condescending excreta...
Loading comments…
First Posted: 02-18-09 03:37 PM | Updated: 03-21-09 05:12 AM