Fairness Doctorine: Discussion

[SuBe]

There is a lot of Talk from Democrats to institute the "Fairness Doctorine" back into all politcal discussion on Websites, Radio, and TV. Basically every Pundint, which if this included Websites, would be you and I, would have to have equal time for both sides of the arguement. Or, you would be subject to fines.

From Neal Boortz Blog:

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently stated that the Fairness Doctrine could also apply to the Internet. What's even sadder is the opinion of the American people. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 47% of Americans believe that the government should require all radio and TV stations to offer equal time to both sides. That's almost half of the people in this country want to make sure that I can't flap my gums all day about Barack Obama without being forced by the government to provide equal time to Obama sycophants.

But when it comes to the Internet, 57% of Americans say that the government should not require websites and blogs to be beholden to the Fairness Doctrine. My question is ... what's the difference? These are simply different forms of communication ... why are people more inclined to shut down talk radio than they are their favorite blog or website? That would be because only about 17% of Americans are daily listeners to talk radio .. .while a much higher percentage fool around with the internet from time to time. For those 83% who have no real personal experience with talk radio, they readily buy into the left's description of talk radio as "right wing hate radio" and, consequently, they buy into the government regulation argument.

I keep telling you that the so-called American love of freedom is pretty much a fraud. Perhaps now you're more willing to give that thought some attention.

The Link to the Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Now, is the Fairness Doctorine really Fair. You have a private Radio Station where people call in to talk about Obama or McCain, or Bush or whatever, now you have the Government force that Radio Station to find someone on the other side of the arguement (spending their own resources). Is this the Governments role? Is the Government suppose to watch and keep track and approve of all discussions?

 

[Matt]

The government should never interfere with a free media.

 

[jaguarr]

The government should never interfere with a free media.

I agree. The FCC under Bush has been far, far, far, far too intrusive and dictatorial over the media. I don't want to see anything like it continue and this is a step in that direction.

jag

 

[moraldeficiency]

I have mixed feeling here. While I dispise gov. interference the idea of a "free media" is also laughable. Look at the most watched news and if you go up high enough you'll see most of the news you get is controlled by a handful of people and if you don't think they dictate and influence what gets written you're insane. While I want freedom of expression I don't want to be slammed because of someone's agenda or which politican would favor some laws that would favor that handful of men.

The internet should be free, and the two party system has been a spectacular failure in terms of providing political alternatives, but I don't want to be manipulated by media driven crap either. I don't know a reasonable answer for this, just voicing my concern.

 

[Kelly]

I agree. The FCC under Bush has been far, far, far, far too intrusive and dictatorial over the media. I don't want to see anything like it continue and this is a step in that direction.

jag

Wiretapping, yeah, stepped over the line...

but where has he interfered with TV and Radio....????

 

[Matt]

It doesn't matter if companies with an agenda control the media. We the citizens, have power to stop that. We stop watching, they change or go out of business. We can blog, we can write editorials, we can call in, etc. There are ways to change it. What we do not need is the government saying what is fair and what is not in our free media.

 

[Kelly]

I have mixed feeling here. While I dispise gov. interference the idea of a "free media" is also laughable. Look at the most watched news and if you go up high enough you'll see most of the news you get is controlled by a handful of people and if you don't think they dictate and influence what gets written you're insane. While I want freedom of expression I don't want to be slammed because of someone's agenda or which politican would favor some laws that would favor that handful of men.

The internet should be free, and the two party system has been a spectacular failure in terms of providing political alternatives, but I don't want to be manipulated by media driven crap either. I don't know a reasonable answer for this, just voicing my concern.

If that were the motive of the Democrats, I would say, sure.....I'm all for it. But, its not.........They are upset with talk radio because conservative radio talk shows garner audiences about 4 to 1 over liberal radio....and because radio....IS a moneymaking endeavor, stations are going to go with what brings in listeners for their sponsors. They see that as unfair.

 

[moraldeficiency]

It doesn't matter if companies with an agenda control the media. We the citizens, have power to stop that. We stop watching, they change or go out of business. We can blog, we can write editorials, we can call in, etc. There are ways to change it. What we do not need is the government saying what is fair and what is not in our free media.

With the internet I agree, there are endless possibilities.

But with print and TV news you only have so many options and then when you consider credible (ha!) media that field lowers to a group of rich white guys I can count on one hand. Since this is where most people get their news, I do feel a bit concerned about the lack of coverage or skewing of coverage to best their interests over that of the nation. I remember when some people wanted to tax TV and radio for broadcasting several years back, not one major publication ran anything about it (the issue was blacklisted), but they did run negative ads for the bill or whatever, calling it the "air tax" and stating that the tax would just be put on the average citizen. Then I recall guys like Hearst back in the day, power enough to start wars out of thin air and change laws and practices over a 100 years old. The power of the press, with the exception of the internet, the media hasn't been "free" not really, not ever, IMO.

 

[moraldeficiency]

If that were the motive of the Democrats, I would say, sure.....I'm all for it. But, its not.........They are upset with talk radio because conservative radio talk shows garner audiences about 4 to 1 over liberal radio....and because radio....IS a moneymaking endeavor, stations are going to go with what brings in listeners for their sponsors. They see that as unfair.

I'm not saying one side or the other. The media will favor the interests of it's owners and that can change from republicans to democrats and back again year to year. I'm not saying they'll favor a politcal agenda necessarily (though they could) I'm saying they'll favor paticular politicans they can use for their own ends.

And I'm not saying I favor this idea, it seems stupid, but I have my concerns as well and I certianly don't trust the "free" media to be free in any way.

 

[Kelly]

No you're right, media is already biased.....no argument there, but I do not think that the government running media will change that....

Hell, it may be biased, but at least its entertaining at times......

 

[moraldeficiency]

No you're right, media is already biased.....no argument there, but I do not think that the government running media will change that....

Hell, it may be biased, but at least its entertaining at times......

I completely agree, and I said right from the start I have no reasonable solution nor can I think of possibilities. I'm just thankful the internet grows while MSM shrinks. I'll be happy for the day when the majority of the world doesn't rely on the publications and holdings of a select few as the final word on news and information.

And I find the news depressing and hilarious, typically at the same time.

 

[jaguarr]

Wiretapping, yeah, stepped over the line...

but where has he interfered with TV and Radio....????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40355-2005Mar16.html

There's a good place to start.

jag

 

[Marx]

The government has no place in trying to regulate free speech and media. This is a very bad idea.

If you don't like what you are seeing on tv, hearing on the radio, or reading in the paper or internet...you know what to do! Get your information somewhere else!

 

[Gilpesh]

I agree. The FCC under Bush has been far, far, far, far too intrusive and dictatorial over the media. I don't want to see anything like it continue and this is a step in that direction.

jag

I don't see any mention of the other side of the issue in your post.... Give me a hundred dollars and you can post again.

 

[jaguarr]

I don't see any mention of the other side of the issue in your post.... Give me a hundred dollars and you can post again.

jag

 

[Gilpesh]

jag

t:




EDIT: And actually on topic...
Oh I really hope this doctorine completely fails. Cause everyone knows that it will just be used to silence anyone who disagrees.

 

[moraldeficiency]

t:

Oh I really hope this completely fails. Cause everyone knows that it will just be used to silence anyone who disagrees.

Yeah, jag's a real intimidator, using a smiley like that to put the pressure on. I think that was used, and correct me if I'm wrong, because your "give me a 100 dollars and you can post again" didn't make sense.

But I do fear the day when neutral smiley faces will halt all debate and contention.

 

[jaguarr]

Yeah, jag's a real intimidator, using a smiley like that to put the pressure on. I think that was used, and correct me if I'm wrong, because your "give me a 100 dollars and you can post again" didn't make sense.

But I do fear the day when neutral smiley faces will halt all debate and contention.

Look, don't make me break this smiley out:



jag

 

[moraldeficiency]

Look, don't make me break this smiley out:



jag

I have no retort, I am bullied and destroyed by your use of such devestating tactics and while I have been so wounded my only option is suicide I will report this war crime to the swedes and I just hope my ghost haunts you till your dying day. *begins to chew through wrists in dispair*

 

[Gilpesh]

Yeah, jag's a real intimidator, using a smiley like that to put the pressure on. I think that was used, and correct me if I'm wrong, because your "give me a 100 dollars and you can post again" didn't make sense.

But I do fear the day when neutral smiley faces will halt all debate and contention.

Um... a joke about fines doesn't make sense?

 

[jaguarr]

I have no retort, I am bullied and destroyed by your use of such devestating tactics and while I have been so wounded my only option is suicide I will report this war crime to the swedes and I just hope my ghost haunts you till your dying day. *begins to chew through wrists in dispair*

The Swedes? They'll just throw away your bronze medal!

jag

 

[moraldeficiency]

Um... a joke about fines doesn't make sense?

oh, that's where you were going. A joke you say? We need to work on your comedic timing if that's the case. Lesson one: get really drunk and high, I'm not sure how it helps but all the greats do it.

 

[lazur]

I agree. The FCC under Bush has been far, far, far, far too intrusive and dictatorial over the media. I don't want to see anything like it continue and this is a step in that direction.

jag

I'd like to understand more of what you're pointing out in terms of the FCC being more intrusive under a republican. The reason is because historically it has been democrats who have been eager to 'equalize' the playing field, with particular interest toward radio broadcasting.

I'm not doubting your claim, but I haven't heard much about how the FCC has clamped down *more* under a republican president, but I'd be interested in learning more.

In my opinion, the government has no business regulating free speech in any capacity. The reason why 'conservative' talk shows last and 'liberal' talk shows don't is simply because ... conservative talk shows resonate better with the American people in general. At least that's my two cents.

 

[jaguarr]

I'd like to understand more of what you're pointing out in terms of the FCC being more intrusive under a republican. The reason is because historically it has been democrats who have been eager to 'equalize' the playing field, with particular interest toward radio broadcasting.

I'm not doubting your claim, but I haven't heard much about how the FCC has clamped down *more* under a republican president, but I'd be interested in learning more.

In my opinion, the government has no business regulating free speech in any capacity. The reason why 'conservative' talk shows last and 'liberal' talk shows don't is simply because ... conservative talk shows resonate better with the American people in general. At least that's my two cents.

Read up on Kevin J. Martin, Bush's apointee as FCC Chair. There's a ton out there on the crap he's done or tried to do in his tenure.

jag

 

[Superman4ever]

This is a good article about how the telecoms are funding McBush because of the fairness doctrine:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7493