Bring back the fairness doctrine

[SheriffBob]

This country went to hell after the "Fairness Doctrine was abolished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

60 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	yes
	34 (57%)
	no
	26 (43%)
	maybe
	0 (0%)
	i don't know
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[anoNY42]

1. I said it before: Ugh, not this again

The Fairness Doctrine is crap. Allowing the government to decide who speaks and for how long is a terrible idea that will only favor those currently in power.

Imagine forcing Rachel Maddow to host a Neo-Nazi during her segment on illegal immigration and Trump's wall? Hey, the Nazis are a distinct group with distinct views on the subject, they should be given time on Maddows show just like every other side of the issue, amirite SheriffBob?

[seabeckind]

4. Yeah, better to let a corporation or billionaire decide what gets heard.

It is a matter of accountability.

The gov't make rules about how information is presented in order to make the presentations equitable. It is an arbitrator of the rules of the game.

[anoNY42]

7. Nice comeback

If Trump is elected President, then there WILL be a billionaire in charge of what gets heard.

You apparently prefer the Republican Congress and President Trump making the decisions.

"The gov't make rules about how information is presented in order to make the presentations equitable. It is an arbitrator of the rules of the game."

That sounds so simple, and it is. In fact, it is simplistic! Naive even! Will the government rules dictate that every show must have a "republican" and a "democrat" to give the parties positions on each topic? What about other parties? What about foreigners and their viewpoints? What about distinct groups like Jews and Hispanics, whose views may not coincide with the two major parties?

Or if there is a story about some scientific discovery, will we need to have another scientist on the program who disagrees with the discovery? One creationist for every evolutionary biologist? President Ted Cruz might just make that rule!

[ZX86]

115. Where are you people getting this nonsense?

This never happened under the Fairness Doctrine. What's next? Welfare queens in their Cadillacs collecting welfare checks so they and their big Black bucks can live high on the hog?

The right wing framing of this topic on a progressive forum is astounding!

[Skittles]

122. YOU PEOPLE

ALRIGHTY THEN

[mahina]

127. Rachel's show is commentary, not news.

[anoNY42]

130. Ok, and what is talk radio?

[ms liberty]

6. Were you

Alive and old enough to remember the news during the time the Fairness Doctrine was in effect? It certainly doesn't sound like it. I was, and your characterization does not reflect the reality of the news that I remember - and I am old enough to remember it.

[anoNY42]

8. Then educate me on what effect the "Fairness" doctrine had, old timer!

[independentpiney]

100. Emily Litella!

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/emilys-editorial-reply/n8635

I recall most of the fairness doctrine editorial replies on the local NYC channels being from local cranks, usually about local issues.

[Yupster]

118. My favorite Emily Littela was

responding to the editorial about protecting Soviet Jewery.

Emily responded...

What's the matter with these people? Don't they have safe deposit boxes in Russia.

[melm00se]

15. I was

and I worked in the industry back then too.

News reporting (on the local level) was unremarkable.

Controversial topics that might trigger Fairness Doctrine requirements were studiously avoided.

[davekriss]

34. News at the local level continues to be unremarkable

[Rex]

95. Well yeah, but that won't stop a great narrative!

Yeah just imagine if news had to be boring and unremarkable like local news channels? They probably wouldn't get the massive paychecks, for one.

[FreakinDJ]

18. Uniformed answer

The Fairness Doctrine was at the heart of the 1938 FCC act that declared the airwaves belonged to the people

No Wealthy Elite such as Rupert Murdock had the right to turn the airwaves into their own personal disinformation machine and purposely delude the American people

[anoNY42]

22. Ironic that you call me "uninformed"

considering you seem to think Fox News is a broadcast network? Fox News is a cable TV channel and thus would not be covered under the original "Fairness Doctrine". My local Fox broadcast affiliate is no more conservative than my local NBC.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was predicated on the fact that, at the time, broadcast news was the only tv news available. Thus, it made (some little) sense to try to make that news fair, considering the "airwaves" were public property.

However, in the age of the internet and cable news, the "airwaves" are no longer really that important. The existence of a multitude of other options to get all sides of issues undermines the argument for a new "Fairness Doctrine".

[still_one]

90. That is actually a gray zone. The FCC is involved in some aspects of Cable regulation

When the Democrats were trying to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, which was revoked by the FCC's republican majority at the time, the Democrats included Cable.

Of course that didn't go anywhere.

The Sinclair Broadcasting event, of the anti-Kerry swift boating film, to preempt regular broadcasting on the Sinclair stations, just before the election is the perfect example of why the fairness doctrine was necessary

[anoNY42]

93. Once again you switch back to broadcasting.

There is no reason to abridge the first amendment of non-broadcast media due to something that happened with broadcast news.

As for non-broadcast stuff, if you include cable, why not include the whole internet? People get news from DU, why not apply the fairness doctrine here? DU is really no different than a cable channel (both are private services open to subscribers only).

[FreakinDJ]

108. Ironic people who attempt to elude they are True Democrats advocate agasinst the Fairness Doctrine

So Ronald Reagan did the Democrats a favor by executive order canceling the Fairness Doctrine

Funny how we are praising the works of Ronald Reagan now

[ZX86]

109. Proves how insidious and effective the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was.

I remember hardcore, right wing, Republicans (Congressmen and Senators) lining up to apologize to convicted drug addict Rush Limbaugh for not agreeing with every idiotic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, idea that fell from his lips.

Our country's leading opinion maker was an uneducated, drug addict, disc jockey due to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. This is undeniable.

[FreakinDJ]

110. Love those RIGHT WING Talking Points

Only thing missing is the Pictures of George Bush and Ronald Reagan on the mantle of the fire place in the living room

Personally find it disgusting Right Wing Trolls (as the Op) coming to DU to espouse RATpubliCON talking points

[Skittles]

123. it has been happening more and more lately

they are skeered

[still_one]

82. Exactly. Some tend to forget that its the publics airwaves. There is a reason why

Conservatives pushed for the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, and it was for the reason you just stated.

Why would anyone be opposed to requiring a contrasting view be presented regarding a controversial subject?

[Tsiyu]

23. Nobody told us how long to speak when I was in radio

on a 50,000 watt channel when the Fairness Doctrine was in place.

There were no timers, no government officials stopping by to monitor the studios.

But there WAS a spirit of people from all sides having a voice.

THAT was not crap. That was AWESOME.

Sometimes I'd work the conservative's show if he was ill or not able to host. It was fun.

What we have now is CRAP.

Two corporations spew hatred 24/7. There's no rebuttal. There's no other mindset, opinion or viewpoint being given but the "Rush Limbaugh" opinion.


anoNY42: the airwaves the radio stations broadcast on are owned by YOU AND ME. They are not owned by Clear Channel.

The corps that lease those airwaves from the US citizen are supposed to be of a benefit to their LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

They are not supposed to be the SHIT SHOW they are today, blasting out one agenda, but are to be used in a way that enlightens, entertains and educates the BROADER community.

You lose tho, with the Nazi reference. That's just so sad of a comeback, can't you think of anything more clever than that?

[anoNY42]

28. How about this one

"You lose tho, with the Nazi reference. That's just so sad of a comeback, can't you think of anything more clever than that?"

This is more clever: President Trump in charge of the FCC, making the rules for your "Fairness" doctrine. In that case, we all lose.

You mention two corporations that spew hate, but you fail to mention all the other corporations that do not. There are alternatives in this day and age; there are more than 4 broadcast news sources.

And really, who gives a flying **** about the radio stations you mention? Is the "Fairness" doctrine really going to help when only a small percentage actually tune into AM radio? (FM is all music, pretty much).

Finally, there are thousands of news sources beyond broadcast tv and radio. Those sources are not run on public airwaves and thus there really is no justification for abridging their first amendment rights.

[Tsiyu]

37. You are entitled to your opinion

and your lack of concern for the millions of people who do use the radio.

Three aren't any AM alternatives, so please stop insulting those of us who grew up on radio and who mourn its death at the hands of the Neocons. It's all foaming at the mouth liberal-bashing 24/7 on the big stations. No deviation.

I mean no disrespect, but you really have no idea what radio was once like from the wording of your posts.

You have no clue what has been lost, and no idea how much the syndication and monopoly of thought has destroyed so much that was good about radio.

[anoNY42]

41. You are looking to go back to some imagined golden age

where folks only got news and no editorializing. I get that. However, that is not the age we live in. There are certainly alternatives to AM radio, although I really do feel for the 10 or so poor schlubs who cannot get anything but AM.

You are talking like radio was some sort of god or something. It's really weird.

[Rex]

53. You seem to know nothing about history, check out Hearst vs Pulitzer and get back with us.

Editorializing is what ruined real news and it was done long before you know.

[anoNY42]

59. Wait

so you want an end to editorializing, not just a fairness rule?

Do you want this extended to non-broadcast sources?

[Rex]

62. I want an end to embellishing.

Don't you?

[Tsiyu]

67. Are you fucking kidding me?

I had a liberal talk show! No one muzzled me. There was plenty of opinion aired on ALL SIDES of issues. People were not the uninformed drooling masses they are now.


But you are so edgy, so coooooool to say "fuck radio."

I can hear it now: "What do you mean they want to inspect rural hospitals? Everyone lives in cities like me!"

"What do you mean they want to regulate tap water? EVERYBODY gets bottled water delivered these days, silly old people! Anyone can just call up the water company and have their own fresh supply whenever they want it!"

"What do you mean we have mail service in the Alaskan bush? Fuck those people if they don't want to live around the rest of us empathetic and wonderful and humble people!"

[anoNY42]

69. Ok

So now regulating the actual speech on AM radio is the same thing as regulating hospitals, got it.

You put words in my mouth like a Russian/conservative troll!

How about we keep this discussion focused where it needs to be, on the Fairness Doctrine.

[Rex]

72. It is some kid at work wasting the bosses dime by screwing with us here on DU.

Sad ain't it?

[Tsiyu]

88. Indeed

"The commons" will not be salvaged by those sorts, that's for certain.

[Rex]

92. We will be lucky to make it another 100 years with this batch.

IMO. We've gone from the Greatest Generation to Huh What?

[Turin_C3PO]

104. Why the generation bashing?

No generation group is better than the others. My grandparents used to think boomers were the worst thing since the plague. All older generations complain about younger ones, I get it. But remember one thing, according to all polls and studies, these Millennials are less bigoted and more liberal than previous generations.

[still_one]

73. The airwaves are owned by the public, and the Fairness Doctrine is to

provide that a contrasting viewpoint be presented for controversial matters of public interest.

Your argument is stating that it forces networks to present extreme points of view, what's wrong with that?

The example you gave is also not right. Rachel Maddow would not be required to host a Neo-Nazi point of view on her program.

If a network is talking about a Controversial matter, such as the wall, the only thing that network would be required to provide is airtime to a contrasting point of view. There is no requirement that contrasting point of view is presented on a specific show. It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine only required that a contrasting viewpoint be presented.

The removal of the fairness doctrine encouraged Sinclair Broadcasting Group to force its affiliate stations to preempt regularly scheduled programming, and air the anti-Kerry "documentary", titled "Stolen Honor", days before the election.

There is a reason that those that supported the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine were conservative republicans in contrast to progressive and Democrats.

These are public airwaves, and the public deserves to have contrasting views presented on Controversial subjects.

It is even more important since 80 to 90% of talk radio represents a conservative view point

[anoNY42]

78. Ok, so you are talking about broadcast

you realize that broadcast isn't the dominant form of media anymore, right?

Why abridge a constitutional right in order to solve a problem that barely even exists anymore?

[still_one]

94. First of all that isn't quite accurate. There are plenty of people who do not want to pay

the prices for cable or satellite, and get their broadcasts over the air.

I mentioned in a reply down thread, that the Democrats in Congress were trying to get cable and Satellite under FCC jurisdiction at the same time they were trying to bring back the fairness doctrine.

Requiring a Contrasting viewpoint on a controversial issue is not abridging a Constitutional right?

The example I provided regarding Sinclair Broadcasting, is the perfect example of what happens when the fairness doctrine was no longer in place. Sinclair Broadcasting would have had their license taken away, or would have had to pay a large fine for what they did with the swift-boating propaganda

Also, to the degree that Cable and Satellite rebroadcasts local channels, those local channels would have still been covered under the Fairness Doctrine if it was still available.

[anoNY42]

96. Requiring speech that the speaker does not want to make

is certainly an abridgment of the first amendment. It may or may not be constitutional (depends on the Court), but it is certainly an abridgment.

[still_one]

97. It does not require having a speaker who does not agree to state that position. They provide time f

To a speaker who advocates that position

I am talking about public airwaves or retransmission of broadcasts from public airwaves

corporations are really not people. They are using the public airwaves, and have an obligation to serve the public, especially in this age when these corporate entities constitute mini-monopolies where there is no competition in a particular market

I will even go a step further. Cable uses public mechanisms to transport their data. Satellite transmissions use public airwaves to transport their signals. So yes, they should be covered by the fairness doctrine also

[anoNY42]

99. That's not really what I mean

"It does not require having a speaker who does not agree to state that position."

I am not saying they will move Sean Hannity's mouth and make him give Democratic talking points. I am talking about the news network itself being forced into speech.

Corporations do certainly have a first amendment right, if they are part of "the press".

If you are truly serious about cable and satellite, then you must also include websites in general. Thus, in your world, DU would be forced to host Republican commenters and/or link to Fox News stories (since DU itself re-transmits news).

[AgadorSparticus]

116. Are you kidding me? I would GLADLY put up with conservative news here on DU

If that meant the msm is held to task about the fairness of their content. One of our biggest downfalls in society is the fact that the media goes absolutely unchecked and push corporate agenda. So HELL YEAAA! Bring back the Fairness Doctrine!!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

128. Read the link. The government does not decide.

The fairness doctrine was about making sure controversial subjects were covered by different sides. The media organizations decided how that was done and who did it.

Do you oppose seeing complex, controversial issues covered by the media by different sides?

[anoNY42]

129. I posted on the link when he originally posted his "solution"

I still think its an unnecessary idea.

"Do you oppose seeing complex, controversial issues covered by the media by different sides?"

How often do you beat your wife?

[Agnosticsherbet]

135. Mine was an honest question. The fairness doctrine

Encouraged that the news media cover controversial topics in an honest way.

Your answer indicates you have no clue what the fairness doctrine was for and, theerfore, resorted insults and bluster.

[Travis_0004]

2. Perhaps it made sense when there were 4 channels

Also, if it was brought back it would likely not apply to cable and satellite tv. Broadcast tv really doesnt get heavy into politics, so i cant see it having much of an effect.

[Warpy]

126. There were opinion shows on those 4 channels

The Fairness Doctrine kept them a little more honest since any overstatement would be challenged right then and there.

I would also love to see truth in advertising enforced: a show or channel can be labeled "news" only if it is. More than 3 lies in a quarter, they need to change their names to "opinion." Pox with fact checkers and a deep fear of the power of the FCC would be a completely different channel.

[ileus]

3. Now that's a progressive idea...

Should we also let stormfront and freerepublic post here?

[seabeckind]

5. This is a private forum.

Nice hyperbole.

[anoNY42]

9. So is CNN.

Edit: Furthermore, shouldn't private forums be "fair" just like broadcast TV? What is the moral principle that says you can "censor" other viewpoints on DU, but not on CNN?

[MichMan]

10. Seems public to me

Anyone of the public with an internet connection can view DU 24/7

[SecularMotion]

11. They already post here.

It's called the gungeon.

[SheriffBob]

13. sure

They are probably here

now.

let er rip.

[Rex]

65. lulz

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Just because one event followed another does not mean the antecedent caused the consequent. Before women had the right to vote, no atomic bombs were dropped. No one in their right mind would suggest women receiving the right to vote ushered in the nuclear age.

If you want to see the Fairness Doctrine applied today, just look at CNN, where any crackpot can get five minutes to deny global warming or blame vaccines for autism because these issues are "controversial".

[Recursion]

14. It was a lot more problematic than people's selective memories seem to recall right now

It wasn't a very good law and I'm glad it's gone.

[Orangepeel]

16. That would solve NOTHING

All the fairness doctrine did was require holders of broadcast licenses to devote time to presenting "both sides" of controversial issues.

They certainly still spend enough time on "controversial" issues, even manufacturing them. And the problem is not that they don't present "both sides" -- Sometimes they present two sides to something that really only has one side, like climate change. Even Fox will usually have somebody represent the "other side" (although often ineffectually) because controversy drives ratings.

i don't think the country "went to hell" at all -- there are a lot of things about this country that are better than ever, and most of the bad aspects have always been there, but are more exposed than they used to be.

Regardless, what problems would be addressed by bring back the fairness doctrine? Is the idea that if people heard "both sides" of issues on television, they'd be less likely to believe lies? People believed lies before 1987.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Yup. As it is they give too much fairness to climate change deniers, as just one example. . nt

[Nitram]

17. If not the Fairness Doctrine, why not the "Accuracy in Reporting" doctrine.

If statements can be proven to be false, "journalists" spreading lies should be required to apologise and set the record straight to keep their reporting credentials.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Much better. . . nt

[Nye Bevan]

25. No. Terrible idea. Who decides what is true and what is a lie?

There are outright lies, half-truths, and evasions. For example if someone says "we did not find WMDs in Iraq" we all know that is, in essence, true, however it is technically a lie because some old, non-functional chemical weapons dating back to the first Gulf War were indeed found in Iraq. There is an army of commentators, bloggers, and fact-checkers out there to call out reporters and anyone else for deceptive reporting.

[Rex]

30. Yeah that would work too. Just something, anything to hold news reporters responsible

for what they say on air.

[tritsofme]

112. So if the government dislikes your reporting, you can be branded an Official Liar by the State

and you will be forbidden from engaging in journalism?

That's a fucked up authoritarian fantasy if I've ever heard one...

[Nitram]

120. No, evidence that would hold up in court would be required for the government, or concerned

citizens, to make their case. For example, the conclusions of numerous official and taxpayer-funded inquiries into Benghazi could be used to shut down wing nuts who keep repeating the same old lies.

[tritsofme]

121. Your proposal is not compatible with the First Amendment, not even close.

The government should not be in the business of "shutting down" speech, I find that concept deplorable. If government officials or anyone else for that matter disagree with certain speech, or consider it to be a lie, that is all the more reason such speech should be protected.

You would allow the government to impose prior restraint on further speech from an individual until they recant and pledge support for the government's position. Again, maybe that's how speech issues worked in the Soviet Union or some fucked up Orwellian universe, thankfully not here.

[Nitram]

124. Then I guess we're stuck with the right wing media and the...

...bogus right wing reality they've created for the weak-minded.

[tritsofme]

152. Yes, we cannot ban media and speech we dislike. That's part of the deal for living in America.

Go out and win arguments, don't shut them down with the force of government.

[GulfCoast66]

131. Great idea!

And we can make a new department to enforce the law. They can watch every broadcast in America for violations. Or better yet, encourage Americans turn in each other for something they say.

Some kind of a police force. Now we just need a name for them.

[Nitram]

132. Gulf, that's an interesting distortion of my suggestion. You might find employment with one of...

...the broadcasters who specialize in that sort of thing. But I get it. You don't believe in facts and evidence.

[GulfCoast66]

139. Hyperbole no doubt

Suffice to say I respectfully disagree with the proposal.

Would type more but am at work

Have a nice day.

[Nitram]

141. Yes, I'll admit to some hyperbole there.

Have a nice day.

[GulfCoast66]

143. Yep

I try to limit my use of hyperbole as it can come off as snark. And it does not take the place of actual discussion. But as my original post proves, I often post before I think and do exactly what I dislike!

Hope you afternoon is good.

[Nitram]

145. I tend to employ snark to avoid being angry.

Humor instead of rage.

[melm00se]

21. Once again this foolish call raises its head

back in the hey day of the Fairness Doctrine (1960's to early 1980's), the electronic media landscape looked this this:

- The vast majority of television markets were ABC, NBC and CBS (and maybe PBS) only.
- The AM radio spectrum was on the decline due to the superior audio fidelity of FM.
- Despite this, the majority of radio outlets until the 1980's were music oriented which provided non-local network news (if they provided any news at all).
- Most stations discharged their "public service" programming requirement(s) through a series of mind numbing shows on Sunday mornings (most of which were religious in nature).

these factors, essentially, limited the audience to 3 (or 4) TV stations and an extremely limited number of news broadcasts over the radio. So, at this point in time, having Fairness Doctrine requirements made a certain amount of sense but they were not without consequences.

Many stations (mine included which catered to an audience that was later to become a prime all news demographic in later years) studiously avoided any kind of reporting that would trigger Fairness Doctrine requirements as the monitoring and documenting was time consuming and expensive.

Fast forward to today.

The electronic media landscape has never been broader:

Most TV markets have access to at least a dozen news outlets:
CNN
- CNN
- CNN HLN
FOX
MSNBC
RT America
BBC
CNBC
Bloomberg
FBC
ABC
CBS
NBC

Then when you factor in the internet: Traditional media outlets on the web, international (non-broadcast) sources (something the average person had zero access to in the 1980s), streaming services etc etc etc. The breadth of perspectives have made the need of Fairness Doctrine protections an unnecessary set of regulations.

In fact, in today's political environment a reconstituted Fairness Doctrine could have an incredibly chilling effect on free speech. Just watching some of the commentary here, I can quite easily see folks with stop watches, check lists and the FCC's Fairness Doctrine complaint form bookmarked and pre-prepared waiting with baited breath for their most hated media outlet(s) to stray from the Fair Doctrine path triggering an immediate flood of complaints which will then be forwarded to the "offending" outlets who will have to investigate and respond. Those investigations and responses will take time, effort and more importantly money.

It is not unreasonable to assume that these regulations will drive the affected outlets to take the path of least financial impact which, in my experience, would be to avoid controversial topics entirely, avoid opinion pieces and just report the facts with no analysis.

[Tsiyu]

27. Yeah it really sucked turning on your local radio station

and hearing local politicians who WERE NOT BASHING DEMOCRATS 24/7.

When a local storm came through, a local host was on your city's big radio station taking calls, helping people.

Now you'll hear the same "Obama is a Muslim/Hillary is a lizard" shit on every goddamned motherfucking channel, and if there's a storm you'll be lucky to get Michaal Savage complaining about "liberal Columbia lawyuhs and NYU layuhs"

Some guy in India or Des Moines is doing the weather for your town now! How comforting! Storms or wildfires in your area? How about a tape of Alex Jones talking about the illuminati! That'll help!

Radio got privatized by the Neocons just like everything else, but radio during the Fairness Doctrine was pretty godamned amazing.

[anoNY42]

32. Pffft

Don't listen to him, melm00se, he wants us all to go back in time to his AM radio glory days.

Tsiyu: pushing an abridgment of the first amendment merely because some idiots still actually listen to AM radio is really a bad idea. What is the "fairness" doctrine going to do, force the AM station to have someone on who says "No, actually, Hillary is not a lizard person".

As for the whole "storm" scenario, if the turds are listening to Rush Limbaugh, hoping to get the local weather, then frankly they are too stupid for us to attempt to save.

[Nitram]

134. "Pushing an abridgement of the first amendment?"

So you think I should be able to yell Fire! in a crowded theater? Present false information about vaccinations that could lead to epidemics? Start wars based on false information?

[Nitram]

133. Um, not quite. The suggestion that there were only a limited number of broadcasters becasue

of the Fairness doctrine is ludicrous. Or perhaps you never noticed the sweeping changes in technology that multiplied broadcasters exponentially. Look, I get it that the concept would need work to prevent abuse. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

[melm00se]

150. I would have zero opposition

to re-instituting the old ownership rules (7-7-7 or 12-12-12 rules).

That would have far more impact on diversity of opinions than the Fairness Doctrine can of worms.

[Nitram]

151. Wow, you are a great deal more powerful than I realized!

Go for it!

[bigwillq]

24. No (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

26. If the only way to get news was on 3 over-the-air channels,

then maybe there is an argument for something like this. But this is 2016 and anyone can get news from any number of cable channels, internet sites, news feeds, and so on. Why would we need any legal requirement for "balanced" reporting when in two minutes I can visit Breitbart, DU Latest Breaking News, The Guardian online, and Russia Today?

[Tsiyu]

31. And you don't use a radio so no one uses a radio?

Got it. Everyone is just like you.

But hold on. Maybe they're not!

Maybe some older people, impoverished people, people in rural areas and people in places affected by power outages actually use their citizen-owned radio frequencies!

Maybe, just maybe, they still sell radios! THE HORROR!

I ask myself often if it's solipsism or narcissism that has swallowed people's common sense and concern for others, but I can never figure it out.

Maybe you can help me, since you speak for everyone?

[anoNY42]

33. Not this

"Maybe some older people, impoverished people, people in rural areas and people in places affected by power outages actually use their citizen-owned radio frequencies! "

Really? Some folks are forced to use AM radio as their only option to get what, weather reports? This is the shingle upon which are you hanging an abridgment of the first amendment?

Ever heard of weather radio? http://www.academy.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_10051_287901_-1?cm_mmc=pla-_-Electronics+Weather+Stations+Instruments-_-Google-_-Midland+WR120+All+Hazards+Weather+Alert+Radio&sku=020732442&gclid=Cj0KEQjw_eu8BRDC-YLHusmTmMEBEiQArW6c-I0SsuD_nm7rFs0fhvlZ35NGKIEbzmOeRanedHphTXUaAkIJ8P8HAQ

[Rex]

35. Abridge what? You have to be joking.

We just want reporters held responsible for what they say, you don't agree with that?

[anoNY42]

39. Are you in favor of the "fairness" doctrine,

or are you talking about something else?

You seem to be looking for some sort of fact-checking service, try the WAPO.

[Rex]

40. I am talking about keeping reporters honest, what are you talking about?

Pretending it will cause massive disruption in this country is silly, it is needed now more then ever.

[anoNY42]

44. If you are not talking about the actual "fairness" doctrine

then why are you posting on this thread? The OP is about bringing back the "fairness" doctrine.

[Rex]

50. Why are you trying to censor me?

Kidding, I know you are just joking now with your replies none of them are serious.

[anoNY42]

55. Cute

But no, totally serious here. I see the "fairness" doctrine as an abridgment of the first amendment. Yes, even Rush Limbaugh can avail himself of the first amendment (and I don't have to listen to him, thank the gods).

[Rex]

58. No you are just joking around, I get it.

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with the first amendment, nice try but wrong.

[anoNY42]

60. Ok, you may not be a lawyer

so I will go easy on you.

The "fairness" doctrine forces news outlets to speak about certain things from certain viewpoints. New outlets are included under the first amendment as "the press" (this is pretty much by definition).

You know that this was all put before the Supreme Court as a first amendment case. Why would you try to claim this is not about the first amendment?

[Rex]

63. Lol another 'expert' sitting at work jacking around on the bosses time.

This has nothing to do with the 1st, you don't seem to understand the basics.

[anoNY42]

66. Once again

Radio and TV news is considered "the press". "The press" is actually named as such in the first amendment.

That this is news to you is very disheartening...

[Nitram]

136. No, anon, I know that's a convenient position for you, but it is false.

This is a discussion about the fairness doctrine and alternatives to the fairness doctrine. Try to keep up. And please stop trying to abridge our free speech.

[anoNY42]

138. My most convenient position

is that the fairness doctrine and its alternatives are not in our best interests due to the importance we attach to the first amendment.

[Nitram]

140. Stick to that and a reasoned argument and I will enjoy, and perhaps learn from, the discussion.

[anoNY42]

142. The reasons are simple

1.) The first amendment states Congress cannot restrict the free press. The "fairness doctrine" restricts said press by forcing speech that presumably otherwise would not be made in that particular publication or program.

2.) How is it enforced against non-broadcast media? The rationale for the "fairness doctrine" is that the public ultimately owns the airwaves and licenses can be pulled for those who are not in compliance. This would not work for modern media like cable and the internet.

3.) Is it even needed? Broadcast TV generally seems to try to stay neutral. AM radio is a cesspool, but who cares? It's AM radio!

As to alternatives to the fairness doctrine, they would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

[Nitram]

144. Good points re the fairness doctrine.

However, I proposed above an alternative to the fairness doctrine which would restrict speech in the media that can be proved false in a court of law.

Who cares? I do. I am in good company. We are offended by demonstrably false information being spread by means of the media. Any media. We feel it is a threat to democracy, which relies not only on free speech, but on accurate information.

[anoNY42]

146. Lies

They are a threat to everything, sure.

I found the below stories about Canada's law against lying in the news. They claim the law has never actually been used, though.


http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/should-lying-be-illegal-canadas-broadcasters-debate/72866/


However, it seems to me that even if lying were illegal, Fox News would barely have to change. Rather, they would probably just do what Glenn Beck does and start "Just Asking Questions" (tm).

[Nitram]

148. Good point. In fact, that's already their favorite tactic (along with "some people say")

for their more far-fetched conspiracy theories. It does limit their toolbox, though, and waters down their impact.

[Tsiyu]

46. Some kids have no clue

They scoff at the Luddites who don't own phones.

Yeah, there are poor people and people who live in areas (like me) where you can't necessarily get a cellphone signal. However, thanks to Obama and a rural development grant for my area I have fiberoptic, so it's all good now, but many of the people in Appalachia do not have internet, HDTV etc.

Yes, they listen to the radio. But we should throw them to the wolves. Have no oversight over what is being spewed on OUR airwaves. Just let em go to the dogs.

I will bet, however, that our little whippersnappers will be the very first ones to try to find a radio station when the power goes out and their devices haven't worked for hours.

Many people listen to radios when driving and working, too. Everyone is not a hip millennial with an iEVERYGODDAMNEDTHING they stare down at like it's their oxygen source.

Sigh.....we are old and obsolete, but we know what was good once!

[Rex]

49. Well I guess we are getting paid back for calling our elders old and out of touch when we were young

Kidding, their arguments are so silly that I don't believe they are being serious. There is no good argument against holding people accountable for what they say on air.

[Tsiyu]

77. No there is not

and to those trying to compare DU to the public airwaves, that's like comparing the admins' driveways to the interstate.

Even the idea or conceptual awareness of the importance of the 'commons' has disappeared.

[Rex]

79. They grew up with no need for critical thinking, everything was handed to them on a silver platter.

Well the one now in here messing with us is just jacking around on the company dime. How sad is that?

[WillowTree]

102. And how would the Fairness Doctine have done that?

[Rex]

47. They are not serious, reading their posts I realize they have no clue or are just joking around.

I thought they were serious, but it is just a joke to them just read their replies. Evidently not everyone wants to hold journalist responsible for the words that come out of their mouth. Who knew?

[Tsiyu]

52. I see many new monikers

so I assume some younger folks are here.

They have grown up with corruption in everything so they don't demand a higher standard. "Let the lies spew" they say. In a private context, okay.

But the Fairness Doctrine ensured that radio stations were useful to ALL people.

This is like kids saying "who cares about white men being forced to sit in the back of the bus? Who the fuck takes the bus anymore when there's Uber?"


SMHRH

[Rex]

56. The folly of youth.

I get it now.

[Rex]

29. Sad to see the younger folks vote no.

Of course they have no idea what it was like back then, so much better with news being held responsible for what they said on TV.

[anoNY42]

36. Broadcast news

In this day and age, there are thousands of non-broadcast sources of news available. Re-instating the "fairness" doctrine will affect a fraction of a percent of news outlets (the ones that actually use public airwaves).

What exactly do you think that will accomplish?

[Rex]

38. It will keep people like Hannity in check and hold them responsible when they incite violence on air

or are you okay with that?

EDIT - why pretend it has to be written just like it was when we had 3 channels? Just make it hold people accountable for what they say on air. That seems easy enough to understand.

[anoNY42]

42. Hannity already would be accountable

if he actually incited violence. There are laws for that already.

[Rex]

43. Well he did incite violence and so did Foxnews and nothing happened to them.

So no, there are not laws already.

[anoNY42]

45. When? Why were the police not called? nt

[Rex]

48. When we had the Bundy standoff.

It was live on air and nobody did a thing about it, if we had a law in place for it there would have been something done about it.

[anoNY42]

51. I found these

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/10/right-wing-media-are-throwing-gas-on-a-ranchers/198841

http://aattp.org/hannity-fuels-right-wing-terrorists-suggests-feds-may-kill-cliven-bundy-video/

But nothing by Hannity actually inciting the violence. Are you using a non-legal definition of "incite" or do you have a link to him actually calling for violence?

[Rex]

54. He was actually calling for the Bundy family to take action.

Sorry if that doesn't meet your level of scrutiny.

[anoNY42]

57. I can't find it

Do you have a link? I cannot watch video here at work, are the articles I linked not telling the whole story?

[Rex]

61. Shouldn't you be working?

Your links are cute, but Hannity tried to get the Bundy family to take action against the BLM. Sadly nothing happened to him, because we don't have a policy in place it was killed off by the Reagan WH.

[anoNY42]

64. You cannot find anything where Hannity actually calls for violence, can you?

I dislike Hannity intensely, but I would need proof before calling him a criminal.

[Rex]

68. No I think you should get back to work and stop stealing from your company.

This is funny, someone with questionable ethics is here pretending they dislike Hannity. Cute.

[anoNY42]

71. Good god

we are on the same side, politically. You just seem to have never read your Constitution when it comes to the first amendment, is all.

[Rex]

74. No you are here just wasting time on your bosses dime.

How totally unethical of you, doesn't that bother you at all?

[anoNY42]

75. I give up

This OP is about the fairness doctrine. If you wish to continue to address that topic, I am all ears.

Oh, and get me a link to Hannity commiting a crime please. I would love to be able to call him a criminal.

[Rex]

76. Sure ya would, get back to work kid.

How pathetic stealing company money while jacking around making up stuff on the WWW.

[anoNY42]

80. Waaaa!

You have no rejoinder to my arguments, and no links to show Hannity committed a crime. You resort to ad-hominem attacks. You are the one being childish...

[Rex]

81. And you are immoral for stealing from the company you work for.

So anything you say is suspect.

[anoNY42]

83. Back up your argument with some links. nt

[Rex]

84. Why would I care what some immoral person like you wants?

Thieves are scum. No wonder you like Hannity so much.

[anoNY42]

85. Childish

Never heard of lunch break, eh?

[Rex]

86. Right, nice try.

I would rather be childish then a thief. You probably do this all the time.

[anoNY42]

87. Just let me know about Hannity when you can

peace!

[Rex]

89. Why? You don't care about the truth.

Get back to work, try to be moral just one day in your life.

[SheriffBob]

107. Hannity's guests often incite racism

Here's an example of one of his favorite racist bitches.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2013/01/16/ann-coulter-america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-but-a-blacks-and-muslims-problem/

[Act_of_Reparation]

103. And what happens when we run a segment on climate change, or vaccines?

We have to give airtime to cranks and deniers because the topics are "controversial"?

The biggest problem with mainstream media isn't that it doesn't present opposing views. It does, and often disproportionately. The most significant problem is an unwillingness to confront political figures for fear of losing access, and ratings, and ultimately money. A good journalist doesn't give a soapbox to every side of a complicated issue... a good journalist evaluates the positions that make sense in an effort to find where, exactly, the truth may lie.

Today, journalists don't do any of this shit. They're just a bunch of fucking glorified stenographers.

[PoliticAverse]

91. You realize cable TV wouldn't be covered by the "fairness doctrine", right? n/t

[Captain Stern]

106. I think it's fairly obvious that most people don't realize that. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

147. Obvious like a flashing neon sign. nt

[Throd]

98. No thank you.

[clarice]

101. An abridgment to the first amendment....plain and simple.nt

[NYC Liberal]

105. Fairness a Doctrine didn't require equal time.

So CBS could give the right-wing viewpoint 59m 30s of airtime and the opposing viewpoint 30s of airtime.

Also, it only applied to broadcasters. So it would not apply to any cable channels.

[tritsofme]

111. No thanks. I have zero interest in allowing government any input in the editorial decisions of media

It's really very simple.

The "Fairness" Doctrine should stay dead forever.

[ZX86]

113. The Fairness Doctrine did not allow input in editorial decisions.

That's just right wing hogwash. If you have any examples of that happening, now would be a good time to present it.

[ZX86]

114. The public airwaves are like a public park.

It's for public use. All of the public. Not just right wing broadcast corporations. Allowing Clear Channel (or whatever they're calling themselves now days) unfettered use, especially regarding public policy issues is irresponsible.

We allow private vendors in national parks. We don't allow those vendors to do whatever they want. There are no casinos and topless bars at Yosemite. Nobody considers that a violation of free speech.

[AgadorSparticus]

117. HELL YEAAAA! We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

And make the msm culpable again. I hold them responsible for the disaster that was Dubya and every thing else. We desperately need accountability in this country. We need to free the media from corporate shackles.

[mwooldri]

125. I voted "maybe". Perhaps because my media diet is pretty much on a Fairness Doctrine anyway.

But then my media is UK-filled... BBC, itv, Sky News... Even the likes of CNN and Fox News (which can be seen in the UK on free-to-air satellite) have to abide by a "fairness doctrine lite" and Fox News has been censured by OFCOM in the past. I know Murdoch would love the UK regulations to be watered down to allow Sky News to turn into Tory TV... Sky News doesn't make money, when Murdoch tried to purchase Sky outright a few years back Sky News was first on the chopping block... mainly because UK broadcasters (TV and radio) are required to be politically neutral and if you have partisan news you get viewers and politically neutral news does not.

There are exceptions but the reasons for the exception is easily explained. The one that readily comes to mind is Al-Jazeera... they were basically formed from the ashes of BBC Arabic TV ... and as long as the news isn't about Qatar you can expect it to be unbiased and relatively impartial. AJ works because it broadcast to the Arabic speaking world and not just Qatar, and they delivered news impartially in a media market where the state news broadcasters (its main competition) were so slanted in their reporting you might as well be in a sea of Fox Newses. Their station motto is "The opinion and the other opinion."

Would restoring the Fairness Doctrine, or having a 21st Century version work for America? I don't know. However it would fundamentally change Fox News, CNN, MSNBC if such a doctrine were to take effect. Jerry Springer Politics on MSNBC would work I suppose... that would get ratings and could meet the Fairness Doctrine rules.

[Nitram]

137. Me, too, mwooldri, but conservatives have been trying to defund and discredit many of my

sources for balanced information for years, with some success.

[Nitram]

149. Here's a better approach than the Fariress Doctrine.

Teach school children the critical thinking skills they need to identify propaganda and manipulative media.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017395069