Last time I checked, TV was transmitted over public airwaves. Any attempt at silencing AM radio will be immediately applied to TV which by far the more persuasive medium. No more phony documents dumped at the last minute during an election. No more soft ball interviews favoring candidates because they will be done in tag-team form. No more tax dollars spent on PBS programs like NOW. It will all be under the same rules since radio is no longer a singularly captive medium. Same rules will apply to the internet.
Cable TV does not use public airwaves. Neither does the internet. The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to boadcasters who use the airwaves which are licensed to them for free by the taxpayers with the understanding that they will be usedfor the public good. It would not apply to cable or satellite or to the internet.
And nothing would be “silenced.” Nobody would be prohibited from saying anything.
By the way how would you feel about allowing hardcore pornography on network TV? If you’re not ok with that, then you’re already in favor of government regulation of the public airwaves.
I disagree. Freedom of speech includes the right to not speak. I see no reason a privately owned station should be forced to air something it’s owner does not wish to air–other than emergency broadcasts and such. Also think there’s a potential problem with exposing a broadcaster to penalties for indecent content when he didn’t want to air the program in the first place.
The Jesus Channel has the right to limit their content to religious stuff. Why should they have to air Atheist Hour? The PETA Channel shouldn’t have to air “Fishing with Roland Martin” if they don’t wanna.
I am old enough to remember when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. I liked it. When I was watching a news show they would immediately provide the opposite side an opportunity to speak. Sometimes ,I would think, I see where they are coming from. I do not agree but at least I see it from the other side. I was disappointed when it was removed. The fact that the righties have flourished by presenting one side misses the point. The point is you are exposed to the other side much more than is true now. That is not harmful.
Or, heaven forbid a crime like Janet Jacksons boob. Which caused harm to no one.
The reason is because they’re doing it on a publicly owned airwaves. We license the airwaves to them for free with the agreement that it will be used for the public good. They’re essentially using a public microphone. They don’t have a right to decide for themselves which viewpoints shoud or should not be allowed to be heard by the public over its own airwaves.
This is not a government intrusion into the private sector, it’s government regulation of its OWN sector, and an attempt to open up access to more than one political party or to mercenary corporate interests.
Anyone who wants to pay for their broadcast medium instead of taking it from the taxpayers is free to spew their puke all they want with no opposition. This would not affect Fox News or the internet or anything but broadcast radio and television.
If nothing else, we should at least make them pay for the licensing.
Dio, I’d agree with that if there was a monopoly situation. Today, that argument seems outdated with all of the available media options.
I guess I’m arguing a free market type theory here. If the left had a guy that could draw money the way Limbaugh does, there would be a station willing to air the program.
Note–I think Limbaugh is a horse’s ass, but he’s a horse’s ass that shits golden turds.
Thank you, I really needed that laugh.
The fly in the free market argument is that they’re getting free licensing for the airwaves, though. It’s not really private enterprise if they’re getting a giant boost from the taxpayer.
At least make them pay for the licensing.
I have no objections to making them pay for the licensing. Sounds like a good idea to me.
The revenue couldn’t hurt the economy, that’s for sure.
I specificaly discussed TV over the airwaves and included PBS which, coincidentally stands for Public Broadcasting Service. That’s the discussion. I mentioned the internet because it’s been tried already.
Your “all or nothing” response doesn’t make sense. Following that logic we would already have pornography on TV after the “Fairness Doctrine” ended.
Only one party isn’t allowed to propagandize on them. The left can propagandize on public airways all it wants. And it has tried. The problem is that no one wants to listen when it does.
And thats the reason which is why you guys never win any elections.
There’s no market for left wing radio because liberals don’t need to be told what to think the way righties do, nor do they need to hear the constant, soothing reiteration of their own viewpoints, nor are they pathologically terrified of ever encountering a dissenting opinion or, God forbid, a fact.
Personally, I much prefer hearing actual balanced discussions, debates, even ideological brawls rather than hearing some party mouthpiece reading verbatim talking points memos from the party’s morning dispatch.
Seriously, don’t you guys ever get bored out of your minds listening to that crap? Don’t you ever crave anything objective or balanced? I usually can’t take 20 minutes of Air America, and that doesn’t even have the added racist, homophobic, xenophobic and religionist elements that right wing radio has. Do you think you’re actually learning anything, or that you’re getting the unfiltered truth? What do you guys get out of listening to that crap?
No, liberals don’t need to be told what to think; they want to tell everyone else what to think. And to this end they have the mainstream news and entertainment media; Hollywood and the music industry; and the lion’s share of the country’s college campuses, universities and faculties.
Granted, these sources of the promotion of liberal attitudes are more suble than Fox/Limbaugh (college campuses and MSNBC excepted, of course), but that’s because until the rise of right wing talk radio you guys had the playing field all to yourselves. Still, I might point out that once right wing radio became a significant political factor, liberals were perfectly happy if not eager to prosyletize their message in a similar fashion, and, failing that, are now trying (or at least were, until Obama, to his credit, squelched it) to force feed liberalism to the populace by piggybacking right wing programs.
Further, liberals – being the diverse and disorganized bunch that they are, in which some favor one thing, others something else, and still others something besides that – are disinclined to tune in and listen to programs about issues that are of interest only to a different liberal subgroup.
And then there is the fact that liberals don’t have a decades-long buildup of resentment over the fact that their voice has been suppressed while the other side has been promoted and glorified by virtually all media of every sort.
And finally, right wing radio and now TV is about the only way that negative news about Democrats/liberals ever see the light of day. Remember during the Democratic primary how so many people around here were shocked by Hillary and Bill’s dishonest and underhanded tactics…except for the board’s conservatives? We knew about them all along thanks to right wing radio. Rush Limbaugh was busting Bill Clinton’s chops daily for both lies and womanizing before he was ever elected president, but no one was hearing a word about them from the mainstream media. This is one reason that all during his time in office Clinton was vilified and resented by Republicans in Congress and right wing radio.
No, they need a rallying point and a unifying message exposing the thinking of the left, and, frankly, a source of outrage and passion so as to band together and fight liberal ideology…the opposite of which is pretty much de rigeur for Hollywood celebrites, MSNBC and The Straight Dope Message Board on the left.
So do I.
Indeed we do. Unfortunately, finding anything objective and balanced is virtually impossible these days. For decades I’ve watched programs like Face the Nation, Meet the Press, etc. conduct their programs with liberal hosts and three liberal panelists vs. one conservative panelist, whose message, even if treated respectfully, is made to appear unpopular and marginalized by sheer dint of liberal volume (undoubtedly where Barbara Walters picked up this same tactic for The View). We’ve watched Katie Couric leaning forward in her seat, lopsided grin practically drooling on Hillary’s skirt while Hillary lies about “vast right-wing conspiracies” falsely accusing her husband of philandering; etc., etc., etc…right up to now when TV networks like MSNBC and news magazines like Time and Newsweek are dropping all pretense blatantly stating their liberal bias.
So, the short answer is that yes, we’d love objective and balanced reportage and discussion of issues if only we could find it. But, failing that, conservatives will naturally gravitate toward news and talk that’s biased in their favor rather than the opposite.
Why do you think I don’t listen to those guys and spend so much time here? 
I’m not sure why this particular issue caught fire among the wingnuts, but as best as I can tell, George F. Will is the guy who set the initial spark.
George Will, September 18, 2008:
Bolding mine.
McCain didn’t get elected President. Wonder when Will will admit he’s wrong about the government reinstating the Fairness Doctrine?
About the same time he admits he invented a fake scientific consensus on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, I expect.
It’s hard to tell whether Will, who is a Beltway insider if there ever was one, was guilty of nothing more than a gross misreading of the degree of political support for the Fairness Doctrine, or was deliberately misleading his readers (and alarming the wingnuts among them).
Hell, even “the far left” which supposedly “hold[s] the party’s leash” (if only!) is very much divided about whether the Fairness Doctrine would be a Good Idea, even if it could be reinstated effortlessly. And since pretty much everyone on the left, unlike George Will, is aware that that reinstatement would require a major pitched battle at a time when we’ve got far more important battles to fight, there’s absolutely no push to do anything about the Fairness Doctrine.
Now there’s a real intelligent comment for you.
Screw the cites but Stabenow and a couple others have mentioned it recently. Probably the reason that Honest Obe commented on it.
And does what he said matter? He said Stimulus needed to be timely targeted and temporary and then gave Pelosi free reign to make it pretty much anything they wanted it to be.
It would be a fun fight though… but instead watch for Obama’s FCC to move toward stealth rules to encourage “fairness”.
So, do you intend to continue saying Obama will reinstate the fairness doctrine no matter how often he says he will not? Your honesty is refreshing, I guess.
I don’t think the federal government should be involved in regulating the content of news programs, or for that matter of influencing the content of entertainment, which it’s also done in the past. In any case you can watch dozens of shows on any news networks to get pointless left-right arguments.
Did you hear Republicans in Congress are introducing legislation to specifically exempt NAMBLA from all provisions of the PATRIOT act? I don`t understand why they are doing this; especially after all this time. I wonder if the religious right will fight them on this.