The Fairness Doctrine: a good idea?

[Blalron]

[QUOTE=RickJay]

So should cable, which isn’t at all a public good, be regulated? What about podcasts and Internet TV? And who gets airplay? Just the Republicans and the Democrats? I assure you that’s how it will end up.
[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court has upheld the Fairness Doctrine for Public Airwaves (RED LION BROADCASTING CO. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367). Why? Because there’s a limited amount of bandwidth available, and Congress can choose to only give broadcast licenses to those who operate in the public interest.

Cable TV and internet are different because bandwidth is not really an issue.

We can and should bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I firmly believe that Talk Radio is hurting our country. Rational discourse is being drowned out by propaganda. There are plenty of people who don’t subscribe to Cable or surf the Web, whose only exposure to political dialogue is listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way to work. We The People, and not the Corporations, need to bring sensibility back to our public airwaves.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=RickJay]
RTFirefly suggests that media “owned by the people,” like “broadcast TV,” be subjected to the Fairness Doctrine. But most people don’t watch broadcast TV - they watch cable or satellite, which isn’t being broadcast on the public’s airwaves. So should cable, which isn’t at all a public good, be regulated? What about podcasts and Internet TV? And who gets airplay? Just the Republicans and the Democrats? I assure you that’s how it will end up.
[/QUOTE]
The reason we should subject broadcast TV and radio, but not other media, to the Fairness Doctrine, is that the owners of a medium have a right, as owners rather than consumers, to determine how it is to be used.

If a bunch of us shared ownership of a parcel of real estate, we would hopefully endeavor to come up with rules for our use of it that made sure everyone got the opportunity for equal use and benefit of the property, and that some didn’t hog it to the detriment of others. Same deal with the public airwaves.

The F.D. has no place in media where the public lacks an ownership interest, IMHO.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
This sounds great. In theory. In practice, as we have seen, it leads to a complete avoidance of political shows in general, as networks and radio stations do not want to deal with the regulatory scheme involved.

TV used to be a wasteland when it came to political debate - now there are Sunday shows on all of the major broadcast and cable news networks that debate subjects of the day from multiple points of view. In an environment where equal time was rigorously enforced, these freewheeling conversations could not occur.
[/quote]
Maybe you inhabit a different world than I do. In a country where most of the population wants us out of Iraq, I see pro-war or equivocal voices still getting a lot more time than antiwar spokespersons. In a country where for some time, a sizable minority of the population has thought impeachment needed to be discussed, there has been no discussion of it whatsoever on such shows, as best as I can tell. The “freewheeling” political shows of which you speak are, as best as I can tell, subject to constraints that apply to at least one side of the dialogue. Before the most recent elections, it seemed that, with great frequency, the ‘liberal’ side of a debate would be spoken for by…Joe Lieberman. He was the sort of Democrat the producers of these “freewheeling” shows wanted to air, over and over again.

I think what we really ought to look at is barriers to broadcast ownership,

Money. Lots and lots of money.

and investigate ways to make things like neighborhood, low power radio and public-access TV much more viable.

You might investigate why such ideas have been killed in recent years.

Otherwise, let the station owners broadcast what they wish

That would, in part, be me. When do I get to broadcast what I wish?

[gonzomax]

RATUBOLA: Situs Slot Online 303 Jackpot Gacor Mudah Menang 2022 The radio,tv and newspapers are being swallowed up by conglomerates. They have a financial interest in making their opinions win. Near election time some stations(fox) do all they (fox) can to get their people elected. They are even less(fox) a news station than they(fox) pretend to be.
The public is supposed to own the air waves. Stations are supposed to be doing a fair job of presenting both sides of the story. Some(fox) do not even try.

[Plan_B]

I think the Fairness Doctrine is great. As long as I decide what points of view you have to present.

Here’s the right formula: 50% of the time: Libertarian ideas. 50% of the time: Statist ideas.

Or maybe 90% Libertarian…you know, kind of like affirmative action, to make up for past inequalities.

OTOH I’ve really been into Hinduism lately, so I think the Hindu point of view should be at least 50%…

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Blalron]
We can and should bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I firmly believe that Talk Radio is hurting our country. Rational discourse is being drowned out by propaganda.
[/quote]

What is propaganda to you is rational discourse to others. What is “fair” to you may not be “fair” to those in the government in charge of enforcing this doctrine. You really want the FCC deciding what type of political speech should be allowed on the air?

There are plenty of people who don’t subscribe to Cable or surf the Web, whose only exposure to political dialogue is listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way to work.

Actually, the vast majority of Americans subscribe to cable. And so what if a lot of people listen to Limbaugh? That’s what they like. They should not be forced to listen to a different opinion simply because you don’t like what Limbaugh says.

We The People, and not the Corporations, need to bring sensibility back to our public airwaves.

Since Limbaugh has higher ratings than any other talk show (I think), it seems that “We the People” (well, not “we,” since I don’t listen to him) have spoken. The people like Limbaugh. The people like talk radio. While you may not like it, you should not be able to use the government to force these folks to listen to your opinion.

[gonzomax]

Remember the Dixie Chicks. One of them said something unflattering about Bush and their careers suffered. The non existant conservative radio conglomerate came down on them hard. Their air play was taken away in the interest of stifling free speech. They showed absolute control over the stations. The air ways are supposed to belong to the people.

[Renob]

Actually, gonzo, the Dixie Chicks suffered because they alienated a large base of their fans. Their fans turned against them. And so what? That’s free speech at work. You are free to say what you wish and I’m free to refuse to do business with you if I don’t like what you say. It’s not an infringement on free speech if people don’t want to give you money when you disagree with them.

[gonzomax]

The fans who were listening to the conglomerate stations were not given the choice of listening to them. You always scream about liberties yet accept others having theirs taken away with aplomb. The stations screamed and rallied to their listeners to have a real hate fest where one may not have been coming. They were guilty of assassinating the character of the girls. They were shameful.

[Blalron]

[QUOTE=Renob]

Since Limbaugh has higher ratings than any other talk show (I think), it seems that “We the People” (well, not “we,” since I don’t listen to him) have spoken. The people like Limbaugh. The people like talk radio. While you may not like it, you should not be able to use the government to force these folks to listen to your opinion.
[/QUOTE]

It’s like how public schools across the country are starting to wise up and stop allowing junk food to be sold in their cafeterias. Students are free to buy twinkies elsewhere, but the schools are within their rights not to have it sold on their grounds. Talk Radio is junk food for the mind. Big Macs may be more popular than Broccoli, but one is good for you and the other clogs your arteries. The Free Market has it’s uses, but the government has the right to step in and put limits on the free market. If you want to listen to Limbaugh, get satellite radio.

[RickJay]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The fans who were listening to the conglomerate stations were not given the choice of listening to them.
[/QUOTE]

That’s ridiculous. What, NO radio stations anywhere played the Dixie Chicks? You couldn’t buy their CDs and listen to them in your car? You couldn’t download their music? Of course you had the choice to listen to them. How on earth could you apply to “Fairness Doctrine” to MUSIC? Do you have to play exactly the same number of songs by every band in the world? Should country and western stations be forced to play old “Ratt” LPs? Should Top 40 stations have to play South Asian dance hits?

I mean, I agreed with Natalie Maines’s sentiments and I think there’s something to be said for the notion that they were subjected to a lot of unnecessary vitriol, but let’s get real here; they’re still one of the biggest musical acts in the United States. Character attacks may be shameful but there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about saying “I don’t like the Dixie Chicks and neither should you,” and nobody has the right to have their music played on the radio. Besides, their music and videos are everywhere. There was a brief period where they lost some fans and it barely slowed them down. They’re selling albums by the truckload and selling out concerts. I’m very confident you have the choice to listen to them. Pointing to the Dixie Chicks as an example of the power of conservative media influence is a pretty terrible example because the Dixie Chicks are still pumping out big time hits and getting oodles of airplay.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=Blalron]
It’s like how public schools across the country are starting to wise up and stop allowing junk food to be sold in their cafeterias. Students are free to buy twinkies elsewhere, but the schools are within their rights not to have it sold on their grounds. Talk Radio is junk food for the mind. Big Macs may be more popular than Broccoli, but one is good for you and the other clogs your arteries. The Free Market has it’s uses, but the government has the right to step in and put limits on the free market. If you want to listen to Limbaugh, get satellite radio.
[/QUOTE]

Excuse me. I don’t even listen to Limbaugh - haven’t for close to twenty years. And I find the arrogance of this breathtaking.

I fear you think you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas, and are doing your level best to replace that market with a concession.

Try to get decent coffee at a highway rest stop sometime, and see how well those concessions work.

[Chotii]

[QUOTE=Blalron]
Rational discourse is being drowned out by propaganda. There are plenty of people who don’t subscribe to Cable or surf the Web, whose only exposure to political dialogue is listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way to work. We The People, and not the Corporations, need to bring sensibility back to our public airwaves.
[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, because there is nothing else to listen to on any radio station whatsoever between the hours of 9am and noon, EST, either locally or nationally. Poor listeners, stuck on Limbaugh.

I’m sure you DO consider it propaganda. What if I consider whatever YOU think I should listen to, as propaganda? Who’s right? Who decides? Some government bureaucrat coming from his or her own particular set of opinions, biases, and influences, far away and from the safety of anonymity?

Thanks, no. I think I’ll listen to Limbaugh if I feel like it. And to anybody else I can find on any channel I dial across, if I get tired of him or decide I don’t like listening. I prefer my own judgment to yours or some faceless guvvy.

[gonzomax]

[QUOTE=RickJay]
That’s ridiculous. What, NO radio stations anywhere played the Dixie Chicks? You couldn’t buy their CDs and listen to them in your car? You couldn’t download their music? Of course you had the choice to listen to them. How on earth could you apply to “Fairness Doctrine” to MUSIC? Do you have to play exactly the same number of songs by every band in the world? Should country and western stations be forced to play old “Ratt” LPs? Should Top 40 stations have to play South Asian dance hits?

I mean, I agreed with Natalie Maines’s sentiments and I think there’s something to be said for the notion that they were subjected to a lot of unnecessary vitriol, but let’s get real here; they’re still one of the biggest musical acts in the United States. Character attacks may be shameful but there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about saying “I don’t like the Dixie Chicks and neither should you,” and nobody has the right to have their music played on the radio. Besides, their music and videos are everywhere. There was a brief period where they lost some fans and it barely slowed them down. They’re selling albums by the truckload and selling out concerts. I’m very confident you have the choice to listen to them. Pointing to the Dixie Chicks as an example of the power of conservative media influence is a pretty terrible example because the Dixie Chicks are still pumping out big time hits and getting oodles of airplay.
[/QUOTE]

Who said no station. When you say all ,every or none you will nearly always be wrong.

http://www.unknownnews.net/0405-1.html I do maintain it was political as this article says. By the way I do not listen to country ,so I do not know how good or bad they are. They were however successful until politics got involved.

[Sam_Stone]

Yeah, bring on the fairness doctrine! Then you can put Rush Limbaugh on NPR, since it’s not only biased to the left, and on the public airwaves, but partially funded by government. And since the nation’s schools are public institutions are 90% of the professors are Democrats, we can you can have affirmative action for Conservatives until ‘balance’ is restored.

And since there are a host of ‘journalists’ on TV on the public airwaves who in earlier lives worked for Democrat administrations and politicians, I can hardly wait for “This week with Karl Rove.” It promises to be an entertaining show.

While we’re at it, we might as well get a government bureacrat to force the SDMB administration to go trolling at Free Republic for new members, so there can be some ‘balance’ here.

Talk radio is just about the only place where conservatives dominate in the media. So of course Democrats have a problem with it and want to shut it down. But just wait until you get that law passed and you get another George Bush in office - then he’ll use it to his advantage. Ye reap what ye sow.

This issue wouldn’t even be on the table if talk radio was full of bombastic Democrats. Or rather, there would conservatives calling for a ‘fairness doctrine’, and liberals opposing it.

It should be called the, “We’re right and we can’t stand that the other side has a soapbox and people listen to them.” doctrine.

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
…TV used to be a wasteland when it came to political debate - now there are Sunday shows on all of the major broadcast and cable news networks that debate subjects of the day from multiple points of view…
[/QUOTE]
Ya mean like Meet the Press

…Meet the Press made its television debut on November 6, 1947. It is now the longest-running television show in United States broadcasting history…

or Face the Nation

Face the Nation is an American Sunday-morning political interview show which premiered on the CBS television network on November 7, 1954. It is one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television…

Guess CBS and NBC aren’t major broadcast networks.

CMC fnord!

[smiling_bandit]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Update: Murdoch’s News Corp is in negotiations to acquire Dow Jones, which would make it the owner of the Wall Street Journal. The deal might or might not have gone through already, depending on who you listen to.
[/QUOTE]

But the same companies don’t neccessarily own the radios, much less the new Sirius-style broadcast stations. And of course, newpapers and magazines are compeltely different birds, too.

I will grant there’s been a media shakeout. But for the companies it’s all about money. They simply don’t care who yaks what. I’d certainly like to not to see the number of companies go down much more, but I see no danger right now.

In any event, I never quite knew why they’re all so keem on aquisitions. I’ve never been convinced it’s usually a good idea. Media companies seem to think there’s some magic is being big, which has often enough burned them.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Ya mean like Meet the Pressor Face the NationGuess CBS and NBC aren’t major broadcast networks.

CMC fnord!
[/QUOTE]

Right. You do realize that the format of these shows has greatly changed over the years, right? In the beginning, they featured little debate, and were nothing but a press conference with the subject being interviewed.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Blalron]
Talk Radio is junk food for the mind.
[/quote]

Just because you disagree with it does not make it bad for people. I agree that it’s not as rigorously intellectual as some may wish, but talk radio certainly has more intellectual content than, say, top 40 radio. There are a lot more vapid and idiotic things broadcast over “public” airwaves than talk radio. Listen to any song by Britney Spears or Avril Lavigne, for instance. And I seem to recall Everybody Loves Raymond having a long run on broadcast TV. By your paternalistic logic, all this “junk food” should be banned. Or do you only support banning shows based on political content you disagree with?

The Free Market has it’s uses, but the government has the right to step in and put limits on the free market.

So if there is a willing broadcaster and a willing listener, you think the government should step in and prevent the broadcast because you disagree with the political content of it? So only ideas with which you agree should be allowed on the “public” airwaves (I put that in quotes since broadcasters have paid a good amount of money to use these airwaves).

@gonzomax

They were however successful until politics got involved.

Yes, and when they offended a large base of their listeners (you do realize that country music fans tend to be conservative, right?), it should not be a surprise that they suffered financial consequences.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
It should be called the, “We’re right and we can’t stand that the other side has a soapbox and people listen to them.” doctrine.
[/QUOTE]
How about the “right or wrong, I don’t want a corporate oligopoly deciding who gets to use MY airwaves as a soapbox” doctrine?

I’m fine with wingnuts having soapboxes. They’re welcome to FOX’s cable ‘news’ channel, to all the Interweb sites they like, and whatever. My side has a bunch of blogs on the Web, and Keith Olbermann on cable. If we can manage with that, so can they.

[Mr.Moto]

But I could say the same thing, couldn’t I? Wasn’t that one of the reasons conservative talk radio became so popular - because that particular viewpoint wasn’t presented very much on network TV at all?

Corporate oligopolies cut in a bunch of different directions here.

Anyway, this argument sounds like it ought to be waged by guys in leisure suits. The barriers to getting viewpoints into public attention are lower than they have ever been, and collapsing further every day. I don’t see how even if the fairness doctrine were reimposed that it would really matter.

If regulations became too onerous, I think Limbaugh would just do a podcast. And I don’t think he’d lose much influence by doing so.