The Fairness Doctrine

[Berzerker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

So I'm watching the Ed Show (Ed Schulz?) and Ed has Bill Press (noted liberal) on and they're supporting the Fairness Doctrine to get more "progressives" airtime. The conservatives dominate talk radio (~%92) but according to Ed this is not because the "market" (y'all and me) has spoken - its because conservatives are pushing their ideology onto us. He offered the Washington DC market as proof (Glen Beck's terrible ratings in a city dominated by Democrats). Unfortunately Ed didn't tell us how terrible the ratings are for liberal broadcasters in the same market, but its clear from other markets the conservatives have earned their status.

Anyway, the SCOTUS upheld the Fairness Doctrine 8-0 claiming limited outlets (frequencies) required licensees to share the airwaves.

But if people dont wanna listen to liberals, the govt is imposing a financial loss on the media outlets. That means smaller audiences, less advertising and fewer outlets. I realize this is only a market in who listens, the limitations on outlets aint governed by the market but by who gets permission to broadcast. But the Fairness Doctrine is so anti-market it does more harm than good, if liberals aint listening now, they aint gonna tune into a station forced to have a liberal host. That part of the market has spoken, stop whining about it Ed...

So vote! The court's past reasons for supporting the doctrine was related to the limited number of voices on the air (like we got a bunch now?). Should we have some version of a Fairness Doctrine to diversify the airwaves?

 

[bhsup]

Hell no. Air America....did they finally make it or did they go bankrupt? I really don't know, but they sure don't get Limbaugh or Hannity numbers. That was a concerted effort to get liberal talk radio off the ground and running and it blew. The people have spoken, and they want their talk radio to be righty tighty, not lefty loosey.

 

[Mise]

I don't understand why there is a distinction between "talk radio" and "talk TV" or "write newspapers" or "post blogs". Surely they're all part of the same market? Shouldn't the competition authorities (I'm assuming that's who investigates whether parties get fair representation in competitive media markets) consider all those things together, when determining "market share of political parties"?

 

[bhsup]

Well, I just focused on talk radio because that is what seems to have the lefties in a tizzy. I really don't care what media you're talking about, I see no reason why any particular political party should be able to force 'equal time' on anyone.

And hey, if they DO do it, then I want to see the communist, socialist, constitution, green, and every single other registered political party get totally equal time as well.

 

[Mise]

Well, they're not talking "equal", just "fair", whatever that means. My point though is that Cons might get more time on talk radio, but Libs might get more space on blogs or newspapers. I don't know if that's true, but surely they should take the media market as a whole, rather than just one slice of it? If they're going to start enforcing media time for each party, they should at least do it right...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Liberals trying to mimic conservative talk radio is like conservatives trying to mimic liberal satirical television.

 

[Patroklos]

Clear Channel, the company that broadcasts Rush Limbaugh and the like, actaully tried to run liberal talk shows in its line ups. They figured that if there was a large interest in conservative talk shows and there are just as many liberals out there then there would be a large interest in liberal talk shows too. Purely a buisness decision.

They were wrong, the audience just isn't there. Access is fair, it just that liberals are not attracted to talk radio. If they were, companies like Clear Channel would trip over themselves an the way to the bank to cater to them.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Although the Court did uphold it in 1969, it's not entirely clear to me that they would again. Given the state of First Amendment law, I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional.

Moreover, no one's seriously proposing bringing it back. It's just a conservative boogeyman at this point.

Cleo

 

[Merkinball]

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with getting a liberal voice on the airwaves, and everything to do with getting right wing radio off of the air.

 

[aronnax]

Liberals trying to mimic conservative talk radio is like conservatives trying to mimic liberal satirical television.

I like this the best. Let the conservatives get their talks shows. Libs get humour.

There ain't nothing fair about the forcing people to say things they don't want to say.
While I encourage the idea of getting the media to always put up two sides of the story, telling people what to say isn't the way to do it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Conservatives tend to need to be told what to think whilst liberals can usually make up their own minds.

 

[Cutlass]

Is there any reason to even discuss it? Considering that no one in particular is pushing it, and therefor it's only a strawman?

 

[downtown]

Yeah, I'm with Mise. I don't agree with this idea, and I think it has become pretty clear that the market for talk radio prefers bombastic conservative voices, rather than bombastic liberal ones.

I think that somebody who wanted left-leaning political commentary would just use the internet, or listen to NPR, or use a different media. The conservatives can have 24 hour TV and the radio, and we can have newspapers and the internet.

 

[Masada]

Should we have some version of a Fairness Doctrine to diversify the airwaves?

It is only through the unity of the Communist Party that the unity of the whole class and the whole nation can be achieved, and it is only through the unity of the whole class and the whole nation that the enemy can be defeated and the national and democratic revolution accomplished. In short: no.

rather than bombastic liberal ones.

Does not compute. We shall solidly unite all the forces of our Party on democratic centralist principles of organization and discipline. We shall unite with any comrade if he abides by the Party's Program, Constitution and decisions.

 

[Merkinball]

Conservatives tend to need to be told what to think whilst liberals can usually make up their own minds.

This is the funniest thing that I have ever seen written on the board. A group that forwards dependency and gives people what they want is a group that can think on its own. A group who fosters independence and self responsibility is a group that needs to be told what to do. Got it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I try to entertain!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Conservatives tend to need to be told what to think whilst liberals can usually make up their own minds.

This is the funniest thing that I have ever seen written on the board. A group that forwards dependency and gives people what they want is a group that can think on its own. A group who fosters independence and self responsibility is a group that needs to be told what to do. Got it.

See, it's like I'm watching fox News right now

I kid, I kid.

 

[azzaman333]

Politics sucks, I Listen to Music

 

[bombshoo]

If you look at who has the time to listen to talk radio here it makes sense why it is conservative.

The primary listeners of talk radio are people like truckers, repairmen, painters etc. People that can listen to the radio while they work. These people are also overwhelming conservative, small business owners and the base of the tea party movement.

The market obviously favors conservative talk radio over liberal and thus I see no reason for it to change. If a liberal showed up on the channels these people usually listen to, they'd probably just change the channel anyways so it wouldn't matter. I mean you couldn't force someone to watch 50% Fox News and 50% MSNBC.

I don't listen to music or politics on the radio though. I listen to Coast to Coast (though that is slightly political sometimes).

 

[Lord Gay]

There libs go a gin trying to force things downour throagts. Why are they alwasy so keen on doing that, huh? Don't we have a right in america to listen to what we damn well please? If I don't wanna hear some lib whining about the latest injustice du jour, why should I have to?

It amazes me that libs dont' give a damn about the truth and just want to make themselves feel good by thinking they care about somebody sufereing. It's probably why they want people hooked on welafare.

Turning on the radio so I can hear voices just seems naturla to me. If more people did it, they'd be better oof, and more people would recognize the place god has in our lives.