the Fairness Doctrine
-
NY democrats have tried to re-introduce it twice in the last few years. Axelrod has backtracked a bit on it very recently -- originally Obama was "not in support" of it. Now it's "he has more important stuff to work on, but will be talking about it with the FCC".
The 1st amendment is primarily to protect political speech. The fairness doctrine is probably the biggest circumvention of 1st amendment rights possible.
The FCC, an unaccountable, unelected body, would need to ensure that any broadcasting present "both" views on a issue. As if there are only "two" views to begin with, but more bothersome, the FCC gets in the business of defining mainstream and deviant views in the political sphere.
The government shouldn't be in a position where it has to measure political speech. At least McCain Feingold (which sucks) is kind of measurable -- money spent and days before the electoin.
How does the FCC decide what is conservative or not? Or what is liberal or not? Them thinking that is their job is a big problem. How could they possibly do a good job?
Unfortuneately, this isn't about them doing a "good job" at anything. It's about suppression of political speech. When the government gets to be the barometer of government criticism, it's not about keeping things fair, it's about totalitarianism. This is one of the keys that unlocks that door.
There are a few things being considered that seem innocent enough that could really have far-reaching effects. Obama wanting to take the US Census in-house is a stroke of genius. The census is a primary input to the legislative districting process; by manipulating it he can gerrymander on a national scale and ensure a democratic stranglehold for years to come. A re-imposed fairness doctrine would require that anyone with the nerve to say how creepy this is would be required to give airtime to anyone willing to say "you're overreacting, this is a great thing".
He who votes controls nothing. He who counts the votes controls everything.
-- Joseph Stalin -
-
What I think is funny is that this subject never even comes up unless it is brought up by the right wing talk radio hosts. The left is doing fine and doesn't need it, but they get calls every day by people saying stupid shit like "Rush says that you guys are pushing to get this passed..." when it has not even been mentioned in any serious discussion by anyone on the left as far as it's revival (as far as I can tell...and yes, they will talk about it, but usually only when asked about it as far as I can tell...and yes, someone will now post a link to x, y or z senator saying it is needed).
-
Trafik Jamz;260797 wrote:
What I think is funny is that this subject never even comes up unless it is brought up by the right wing talk radio hosts.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC9KnOfO6hM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veF2KNlHW6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nLdk-Kn-gk
There's a video I saw on tv of Obama's press secretary talking about it while on a flight, I can't seem to find it online yet.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Rexwagon;260821 wrote:
fox news= fair and balancedAny station that has to tell you they are...probably isn't...but none of them are.
I'd say that the intent of the fairness doctrine is good, but the market should dictate who/what gets air time. It basically falls back to the rule that stations need to provide equal airtime opportunities to both candidates in an election and that they cannot refuse to air one side or the other.
The argument is that talk radio is 24/7 campaigning for one party or another and thus must be managed the same as any other campaign....the difference is that with campaigns, the parties are paying to be on the air, in talk shows the parties are being paid by advertisers to be on the air....just like any other form of entertainment.
To enforce the fairness doctrine again would be like saying "Yes, you can broadcast the superbowl, but only if you broadcast the world Curling championships on your radio station as well....because, well, lots of people like curling and some people will never be exposed if they aren't forced to".
As to Dave's response, like I said, there are exceptions to my rule...My thought is that every time it gets mentioned...even if it is something asked of the politician and not something they brought up, the right-wing jumps all over it. I highly doubt we'll see it reintroduced and passed during the Obama (or any future) administration.
-
DelSlow;260818 wrote:
Weird, a Fox News clip.Fixed your punctuation for you. :bom:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/hinchey_fairness_doctrine.html
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ixy0Vm2-Clinton-fairness
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1155201977?bctid=10237007001
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Chuck the only reason you see the right wing blaring about this subject is because the left has no desire to continue freedom and liberty, and why would they want to uphold the constitution???? THEY DONT, the right at least knows that the premise of this bill is the beginning of stripping the freedom of speech away, no shit they are gonna bitch about it, at least they care.....
-
-
Grr;260835 wrote:
Chuck the only reason you see the right wing blaring about this subject is because the left has no desire to continue freedom and liberty, and why would they want to uphold the constitution???? THEY DONT, the right at least knows that the premise of this bill is the beginning of stripping the freedom of speech away, no shit they are gonna bitch about it, at least they care.....I think it is working against them honestly. I think by making it an issue they are adding fuel to the fire and putting people on the spot to make a choice. Do I want equal coverage from both sides? Sure...but I don't want it mandated.
The fairness doctrine (which I am not a fan of) was designed to allow a rebuttal to a statement from the opposite side. There was/is nothing requiring equal air time, the radio stations could keep their same programming lineup so long as (for example now) Limbaugh/Schultz made a statement based on half truths or exaggerations, then the opposing side would be able to file for a rebuttal and would have to allow the rebuttal to be played over their airwaves. I'd say that talk radio ALWAYS has that happening already by people calling in and challenging the opinion of the host, others argue that if you have call screeners you never get the full story of the other side as the radio host only takes those calls that he can easily debunk. The one thing I can say about Schultz is that his call screening is as follows: "What is your name and where are you calling from". Limbaugh's is a BITCH to get through...I've tried on multiple occasions, with zero luck, I've been told "not enough time"; "Mr. Limbaugh doesn't want to discuss that matter"; and other "blow-off" lines that I think are in part because he doesn't want someone to have an intelligent counterpoint to him. I still don't want the Fairness Doctrine though.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login