Anybody want to shed some light on what exactly this thing will do? I wasn't around the last time this thing was in play...

Is it just a way to keep...

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Laura Ingraham
Hugh Hewitt
Michael Savage
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
Paul W. Smith
Frank Beckmann

from voicing their opinions...?



First Amendment, anybody?

I want to see Pelosi & Co. try and impose this.

The backlash will be HILARIOUS!

Its such horseshit. Libs don't listen to the radio, so they try to legislate conservatives from doing it.

Bunch of friggin crybabies or something.

PBS and Moyer get tons of our taxpayer dollars. For what? For him to promote his bullshit agenda. But the libs won't stop that, but they'll go after conservatives getting NO taxpayer money, that I know of anyway.

Its a complete travishacatractomony.

We need to squash this shit as soon as it gets momentum again Wil.

What is the fairness doctrine?

It's this thing, where, you wouldn't believe it, that stops some peeps, but not all, from being able to do what they do, cuz other peeps can't get enough ratings to make enough money to support what they say or something, so they get the taxpayers to subsidize, or maybe even pay all of the bills or shut the other guys off.

Its complete bullshit huh?

link?

me. I'm your link to the outside world. Your link to reality.

:)

LOL

In Tahoe We Trust.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.


According to Steve Rendall, the Fairness Doctrine was composed as it follows:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3]




Public opinion

In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement. In the same poll, 57% opposed and 31% favored requiring Internet web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing points of view. By a margin of 71%-20% the respondents agreed that it is "possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media" (including the Internet, newspapers, cable TV and satellite radio), but only half the sample said they had followed recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine closely. (The margin of error had a 95% chance of being within ± 3%.) [26]

A fucking shame that the douches whining the most about this were least likely to provide even the simplest info. Click the link Fool. I will say that i am against it only because of its capability to be severely exploited.

The Fairness Doctrine sometimes appeared in local and state elections. In the early 1970s, George Takei ran for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Takei was well known for his portrayal of Mr. Sulu on the television series Star Trek. His opponent cited the Fairness Doctrine and demanded that Los Angeles television stations either provide him with free advertising, or remove Star Trek from the air.[citation needed]
I believe in it's basic concept from my own moral standpoint, but not in it as a law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Thats a damn shame.

Anybody want to shed some light on what exactly this thing will do? I wasn't around the last time this thing was in play...

Is it just a way to keep...

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Laura Ingraham
Hugh Hewitt
Michael Savage
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
Paul W. Smith
Frank Beckmann

from voicing their opinions...?



First Amendment, anybody?

Your homework assignment is to google the fairness doctrine and read the first amendment. No, you're not allowed to pay anyone to do it for you.

So without doing any research and reading what you guys posted here, a person has to devote some time to give a contrasting viewpoint on his/her show? So basically it makes the zombies that watch these shows actually hear a different opinion.

And you guys are regarding this as an "End of Days" thing?

I think the idea is antiquated, a throwback to 30 or 40 years ago when the public airwaves were dominated by a small number of big tv stations and people still huddled around their radios for news. In those days some sort of "share the road" rules were necessary to keep the discourse from being dominated by one side.

These days, with the internet, satellite radio, eleventy billion cable stations, etc... there's ample outlet in the marketplace for anyone to air any point of view they please without the blunt instrument of a fairness doctrine.

The only reason it's even being discussed now is because the democrats were down and out and grasping at straws. Now that they're back in power this particular desperation ploy will probably fade away.

Right wingnuts can rest easy, the open sewer that is Limbaugh and Hannity will continue to flow directly into the river of public discourse.

From my understanding, part of the reason that this is an issue right now is that with the consolidation of the radio industry, you've only got a handful of companies running all of the radio stations.

There are markets where a corporate broadcaster owns three stations airing Rush Limbaugh at the same time, in the same market, effectively blocking out competition.

Here's a good read, IMO:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/184336/67/982/660070

Another:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/9/35313/1379/100/657901

This is bullshit like being able to control cursing on the airwaves is bullshit. If you don't like it change the fucking channel.

From my understanding, part of the reason that this is an issue right now is that with the consolidation of the radio industry, you've only got a handful of companies running all of the radio stations.

There are markets where a corporate broadcaster owns three stations airing Rush Limbaugh at the same time, in the same market, effectively blocking out competition.

That's true but in the presence of so many venues (internet, satellite, cable, etc) does the consolidation of broadcast radio represent a real problem? ... requiring heavy-handed (and whatever form the fairness doctrine took, it'd be a pretty big, blunt instrument) government intervention?

I would still contend that the push for it doesn't come from a lack of access but fear on the part of democrats at how effective the right wing blowhards are. Even if liberals had equal time, nobody would listen to a "liberal Limbaugh" ... copying pages out of the right's playbook just doesn't work (c.f: Air America Radio).

Another:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/9/35313/1379/100/657901

+10 Motowns.

I agree that a return to this legislation is largely unnecessary, but on the bright side, the increased battle of ideologies on these shows would likely lead to some pretty bitchin' fights/disagreements.

Unless the host just talks over you and won't let you speak, that is.

What I don't get is that it seems unncessary for congress Democrats to try and take measures to stop conservative radio, because they're acting almost as if it was a threat to them.

Well, didn't this past election prove that conservative talk radio has no bearing on the outcome of elections?? The only people who listen are the ones who want too. Kind of like "preaching to the choir", more or less.

IDK, seems to me there are bigger issues in the country that could use the Congress spotlight...

IDK, seems to me there are bigger issues in the country that could use the Congress spotlight...

The key point here is that the issue hasn't actually reached the spotlight in congress... and it probably won't. It just seems like it's in a spotlight because the right is in a tizzy over it.

Its such horseshit. Libs don't listen to the radio, so they try to legislate conservatives from doing it.
That's not what would really happen. Conservatives would just move over to satellite radio. People will pay for unfair and unbalanced. :)


PBS and Moyer get tons of our taxpayer dollars.
Who'd be the moral equivalent of Moyers on the right these days? I never minded seeing taxpayer dollars go to Buckley for Firing Line.

Quit picking a fight with me. How's your transmission doing?

It's not my intent to pick a fight.

I just don't see it going the way many Fairness Doctrine advocates think it would go. It'd just be more push to get "personalities" onto satellite and cable, away from the pussified broadcast shit.

As it turns out, I live in an absolutely horrible area for satellite.

Just let the market dictate what it wants, is my position. Keep the gov't out of it.

Just let the market dictate what it wants, is my position. Keep the gov't out of it.
The thing is that the commercial market for broadcast spectrum has to be defined and regulated by the government. Otherwise, there'd be jamming, overlap, etc. and the broadcast market would be dead.

Unfortunately, governments aren't simply standards and law enforcement bodies. There's inevitable politicization. What's appropriate? Today, it's the left and a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Yesterday, it was Janet Jackson's nipple at the Super Bowl. Tomorrow, I'm sure it'll be some dumbass shit that touches on the Internet in some way -- should guv'mint-subsidized wireless hotspots filter porn and|or political speech (helll, should they exist at all?).

Of course, the technologies will consistently eclipse the government so folks in the know will be muttering "What's the fucking point?".

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046

The thing is that the commercial market for broadcast spectrum has to be defined and regulated by the government. Otherwise, there'd be jamming, overlap, etc. and the broadcast market would be dead.

Unfortunately, governments aren't simply standards and law enforcement bodies. There's inevitable politicization. What's appropriate? Today, it's the left and a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Yesterday, it was Janet Jackson's nipple at the Super Bowl. Tomorrow, I'm sure it'll be some dumbass shit that touches on the Internet in some way -- should guv'mint-subsidized wireless hotspots filter porn and|or political speech (helll, should they exist at all?).

Of course, the technologies will consistently eclipse the government so folks in the know will be muttering "What's the fucking point?".

I read this long, reall long article about Bush and Ashcroft (?) were getting ready to hit porn hard right after Bush was elected. They were getting ready to really go after the entire industry hard. They were going to start the fall of 01. They were interrupted.

I read this long, reall long article about Bush and Ashcroft (?) were getting ready to hit porn hard right after Bush was elected. They were getting ready to really go after the entire industry hard. They were going to start the fall of 01. They were interrupted.

Phew.

^ agree.

I'd point to Obama using youtube for his weekly address as one more example of why "equal time" on the public airwaves is an obsolete concept when information and messages can flow over/under/around them.

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine itself is obsolete. I just think its place is limited, a function of today's technology. I can expose myself to, say, the Ten Commandments anywhere I want to without much hassle. That doesn't mean I'd want sculptures of 'em in government buildings. I think that similar principles should apply to the public spectrum, to whatever extent that they can be reasonably enforced.

This is bullshit like being able to control cursing on the airwaves is bullshit. If you don't like it change the fucking channel.

Throw in the Hate speech legislation and the 1st amendment is in the same shape as the 4th.

Then they come for the 2nd.


Meet the new boss, finishing the job of the old boss.

Tyranny and Corporatism!
OCP!

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine itself is obsolete. I just think its place is limited, a function of today's technology. I can expose myself to, say, the Ten Commandments anywhere I want to without much hassle. That doesn't mean I'd want sculptures of 'em in government buildings. I think that similar principles should apply to the public spectrum, to whatever extent that they can be reasonably enforced.

I don't see where establishment clause/separation of church and state issues like the commandments really factor into consideration of political expression and the fairness doctrine.

A government entity putting up some sculpture of the Ten Commandments is broadcasting political expression, in religious terms. :) There's not very much distinction between government land and government airwaves.

There's not very much distinction between government land and government airwaves.
Sure there is. In the case, for instance, of a government building displaying the commandments at a courthouse, the government is actually the occupant and end user of the land. There's no private enterprise involved.

In the case of the airwaves, the government is the landlord and the regulator but private enterprise is the occupant/end user of those airwaves. A very different circumstance and very different role for government... which is why a televangelist on the public airwaves doesn't present the same sort of conflict as the commandments in the courthouse.

In my mind, they're both government assets with in-your-face aspects, and their usage shouldn't be unduly skewed to any one particular political view. I have no illusions that it will mean very much in practice, of course.

FWIW, it was a televangelist that led to the Fairness Doctrine being blessed by the Supreme Court. The televangelist went too far in his poltiical attacks, and the other side fought through the courts to get a response.

Debbie Stabenow is making headlines trying to bring "fairness to the airwaves"...

I seriously don't understand why this is even a topic of concern for ppl like Stabenow, Schmuer, Obama....etc.

I mean seriously, you have the Oval Office, majority in the House, majority in the Senate, and majority of the governorships, if ever there was a time where you had 'control of the country', it is right now...

I find it hard to believe that talk radio is keeping them from moving forward.

The hypocricy here has just gone completely over the top.

Stabenow married an Air America mucketymuck:

http://www.freep.com/article/20090205/NEWS03/90205059/1005/news03/Woman+who+traded+sex+with+senator+s+husband+for+mo ney+gets+jail

Note that Obama hasn't been talking Fairness Doctrine. It's some of the Congressional Dems who are leading this silly charge.