The Fairness Doctrine

[GoodGame]

I think the Fairness Doctrine is inappropriate if the venue is less than national. For multi-state venues (i.e. where the broadcast actually covers multi-states, and that'd include anything syndicated)? But if it is done, it has to be done for all forms of media, or it's bunk.

But, the main problem is "who decides 'fairness'"? It easily comes down to some justice or censor arbitrating a thousand polarities of opinion. So pragmatically, I vote against 'fairness', only because it's ultimately a nebulous concept that really is only inviting censorship.

It's no different than any other censorship arguement that results in "if you don't like it, change the channel".

 

[Mr. Dictator]

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.

we've made up our minds on our own and decided what's best for others is best for us also.

 

[Patroklos]

I am sure thos "others" will be glad to let you decide whats besg for them.

 

[Berzerker]

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

good point

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.

It was an 8-0 decision, albeit the rationale was different then - very limited outlets. But I dont see how thats even relevant, either the state "owns" the airwaves and may do with them as 'we' please, or a license conveys ownership (at least temporarily) over a specific frequency and content (within FCC guidelines?).

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

Cleo

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

Ed Schulz and Bill Press on MSNBC were pushing it, and it aint uncommon for policy makers to use media outlets to float trial balloons to gauge public reaction. That conservative bogeyman exists because there are liberals who support the idea.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh gee.. A couple of pundits gab about an idea and all of the sudden it's the policy of a political movement.

Why don't you worry about something that's actually happening instead of what a couple of people, out of the whole world, might have once talked about?

 

[Berzerker]

Oh gee.. A couple of pundits gab about an idea and all of the sudden it's the policy of a political movement.

Why don't you worry about something that's actually happening instead of what a couple of people, out of the whole world, might have once talked about?

It has been policy in the past and it does have its supporters now. And they didn't talk about it once in the past, they just endorsed it on natl TV. If this was 2006 and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity started pushing for a Natl ID card, I'd suspect that policy has backers in their party and the govt. Instead of shooting at me, why dont you take a position on the Fairness Doctrine and defend it? Jesus, this forum is littered with the critiqued comments of right wing talking heads but now pundits are to be ignored?

 

[Cutlass]

It's not going to happen. Therefor it is a strawman. That's my possition on it.

 

[Berzerker]

Strawmen are phony arguments/points a person makes up to argue against rather than debate the arguments of their opponents - like, it aint gonna happen so its a strawman. Ed and Bill are not the imaginary creations of right wingers... Hell, thats what spurred me to post about it - I was surprised to hear them advocate the policy because I had considered it to be a conservative bogeyman. I dont any more...

 

[Shadylookin]

Let grandpa have his am radio. Listening to republicans complaining about the democrats as he takes medicare and social security is all he has left in life. The rest of us have this cool thing call the internets Al Gore invented for us where you can complain about republicans, watch cat videos, and stream pornography at the same time.

 

[Cutlass]

Strawmen are phony arguments/points a person makes up to argue against rather than debate the arguments of their opponents - like, it aint gonna happen so its a strawman. Ed and Bill are not the imaginary creations of right wingers... Hell, thats what spurred me to post about it - I was surprised to hear them advocate the policy because I had considered it to be a conservative bogeyman. I dont any more...

But the policy is not going to happen. Exactly 0% chance of it happening. So for people to whine about this "great threat" is a strawman, because it is not going to happen. Why are people getting worked up over a strawman that is not going to happen? It's like all the whimpering and whining about socialism. That's not going to happen either.

In a country of 300 million people, you get 2 guys mentioning something, that is not something any sane person gets worked up over.

 

[bhsup]

Cutlass, there are a lot of things I thought would "never happen", and sure as , they did.

I thought socialist health care had not a prayer in the USA after HillaryCare got brutalized back in the 90s, but look what just happened. Never say never.

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, there are a lot of things I thought would "never happen", and sure as *, they did.

I thought socialist health care had not a prayer in the USA after HillaryCare got brutalized back in the 90s, but look what just happened. Never say never.

And you still haven't seen socialist health care. And you won't in your lifetime. Which, if you should find yourself with children some day, they will curse you for.

But unlike health care reform, there are Constitutional issues involved here.

 

[bhsup]

Okay, disregard my use of the word "socialist" and acknowledge the point I was addressing. And as far as Constitutional issues go.... you guys laugh at me all the time when I get upset about Congress and the SC blowing off the Constitution and doing what they want. If they want fairness doctrine, they'll get it and the Constitution be damned.

 

[Cutlass]

As far as the way the courts behave, the situations do not even remotely resemble one another. It's night and day.

 

[Perfection]

Us libs don't need radios, we got iPods

(and NPR...)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Trying to get the far-right from listening to, and even participating on, talk radio is like trying to stop them from watching and appearing on Springer.

 

[MobBoss]

And you still haven't seen socialist health care. And you won't in your lifetime. Which, if you should find yourself with children some day, they will curse you for.

I am confident my children wont curse me for not voting for socialist health care, but you are free to dream what you will.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

It was an 8-0 decision, albeit the rationale was different then - very limited outlets. But I dont see how thats even relevant, either the state "owns" the airwaves and may do with them as 'we' please, or a license conveys ownership (at least temporarily) over a specific frequency and content (within FCC guidelines?).

The issue would be that the Fairness Doctrine creates a "content-based restriction" on speech. And the Red Lion Court dealt with the First Amendment in a completely different way than the Roberts Court did in, say, Citizens United. It noted that one of the First Amendment's goals was "creating an informed citizenry capable of conducting its own affairs," and even wrote that "[f]reedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests."

That last line's about as 180 degrees from Citizens United as you can get.

Cleo

 

[Oerdin]

Honestly there are only so many radio or tv stations in each area due to a limited spectrum and all of them are owned by the people collectively. Since there are limited numbers their use should be arranged so that as many different people get to express their view points as possible. That's all the fairness doctrine says and it's good for democracy. It insures everyone gets to have access to a scarce public resource.

 

[Karalysia]

I support anything that helps silence conservatives.