The Fairness Doctrine

[Ayatollah So]

The wiki says:

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.[2] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation

Emphasis added. In a market with very few big players, there's a danger that one well-financed voice can buy up all the megaphones. I think a Fairness Doctrine for those markets is slightly better than nothing - but it sustains the illusion that there are 2 sides to every debate. When in reality, it's usually more like a thousand.

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"?

Which of these things just doesn't belong? Hint: blogs.

 

[GenMarshall]

We need something to make the conservative airheads on the radio to shut up. Or at least quit bashing the left.

 

[aneeshm]

I support anything that helps silence conservatives.

Well, at least you're honest.


EDIT: It is a wonderful coincidence that the preceding post so beautifully illustrates the point.

 

[Karalysia]

Well, at least you're honest.


EDIT: It is a wonderful coincidence that the preceding post so beautifully illustrates the point.

No tolerance for reactionary capitalists who oppress the proletariat.

 

[Merkinball]

No tolerance for reactionary capitalists who oppress the proletariat.

Or anybody that thinks differently for that matter.

 

[Karalysia]

Or anybody that thinks differently for that matter.

As a general rule of thumb if you disagree with me you are wrong.

 

[GenMarshall]

As a general rule of thumb if you disagree with me you are wrong.

Hmm, much like if you disagree with MobBoss, you are wrong.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Nah, that would be if you disagree with MobBoss you are probably right.

 

[bhsup]

but it sustains the illusion that there are 2 sides to every debate. When in reality, it's usually more like a thousand.

Which is why if they DO do it, the only remotely acceptable way would to enforce equal time for every single registered political party in the nation. Yep, those raving commies and those raving white supremists (assuming they have a party somewhere) get equal time with dems and gop'ers.

 

[GoodGame]

Yeah if they do it, who decides how many polar viewpoint to include? Like your favorite Glenn Beck hour would be reduced to like 1 minute of Glenn Beck, and 59 other 1 minutes each devoted to any schistic view imaginable (PETA, EPA, Re-elect OBAMA, Scientology, etc...)

 

[Cutlass]

Maybe not MUCH, but there is a shot. You should not be guaranteed success in America. But the conditions exist to allow pretty much anyone to have a chance at success. Apply, apply, apply yourself!

And people will have far, far, more chances to do that if conservatives do not use the government to take those opportunities away.

 

[Patroklos]

It's extremely hard to get a new network off the ground that's the reason it rarely happens and most of the major networks are the same networks which existed 50, 60, or even 70 years ago. If you don't have enough stations then you can't get advertising but you can't get advertising unless you have enough stations so only a really, really wealthy person/group can successfully break into such a market. Air America was under capitalized and never had many stations so they couldn't get the advertising even though they did very well in the markets where they had a station. That's just the truth.

The fact that they had large audiences in the markets they played in shows people are interested in hearing different views where they are offered but with virtually every station in the country already locked in with existing networks in is almost a mission impossible to enough stations in your network to attract the big advertising dollars needed to sustain a healthy network. I'd honestly say your analysis missed the forest for the trees because the market has been demonstrated to be there.

Clear Channel, THE SAME COMPANY THAT BROADCASTS RUSH LIMBAUGH, has itself tried to cash in on this mythical liberal audience you believe in. They played liberal programing right in the middle of their prime time slots sandwiched in amoungst people like Rush. They were not some new channel trying to break in, they were already a radio Goliath leveraging their substantial collection of stations and time slots to make liberal talk radio work as much as possible.

They failed. The market simply is not there.

 

[Lord Gay]

the only remotely acceptable way would to enforce equal time for every single registered political party in the nation.

I seem to recall hearing that in the early days of radio, there were a lot of ham operators. They were the radio version of bloggers, people broadcasting from home, discussing whatever interested them.

Then the gvt came in and said they couldn't do that anymore, and they were all shut down. If we truly wanted to move towards a "freer" radio selection, then the average joe needs to be able to broadcast himself again.

I oppose gvt forcing radio businesses to carry a % of lib and con media. If we're going to cut back gvt interference, then it seems letting people broadcast again would not only resolve the issue of lib and con messages, it would also increase personal freedom, instead of adding more gvt mandates.

 

[Phrossack]

Clear Channel, THE SAME COMPANY THAT BROADCASTS RUSH LIMBAUGH, has itself tried to cash in on this mythical liberal audience you believe in. They played liberal programing right in the middle of their prime time slots sandwiched in amoungst people like Rush. They were not some new channel trying to break in, they were already a radio Goliath leveraging their substantial collection of stations and time slots to make liberal talk radio work as much as possible.

They failed. The market simply is not there.

Hate radio, and blind hatred in general, is not really popular with liberals.

 

[Cutlass]

Hate radio, and blind hatred in general, is not really popular with liberals.

Which is a good point. Liberals have less hate in them, and it markets to them less well as a result.

 

[Kozmos]

Lefties use internets, righties use radio. It's all good.

 

[Azale]

Which is a good point. Liberals have less hate in them, and it markets to them less well as a result.

I don't buy that for one second. You're telling me liberals have no venom for what they see as the unwashed, ignorant rightwing masses? Assuming they're all rednecks, hicks, inbreds, stupid, etc?

There is plenty of hate to go around!

 

[Lord Gay]

Is hating haters hate?

 

[Patroklos]

What about all those commies day dreaming about machine gunning top hatted fat cats with monocles?

 

[Bill3000]

Is hating haters hate?

...yes?