General Discussion

still_one

(97,074 posts)

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

Fri Jul 29, 2016, 12:00 PM

Jul 2016

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bring back the fairness doctrine [View all] SheriffBob Jul 2016 OP

I said it before: Ugh, not this again anoNY42 Jul 2016 #1

Yeah, better to let a corporation or billionaire decide what gets heard. seabeckind Jul 2016 #4

Nice comeback anoNY42 Jul 2016 #7

Where are you people getting this nonsense? ZX86 Jul 2016 #115

YOU PEOPLE Skittles Aug 2016 #122

Rachel's show is commentary, not news. mahina Aug 2016 #127

Ok, and what is talk radio? anoNY42 Aug 2016 #130

Were you ms liberty Jul 2016 #6

Then educate me on what effect the "Fairness" doctrine had, old timer! anoNY42 Jul 2016 #8

Emily Litella! independentpiney Jul 2016 #100

My favorite Emily Littela was Yupster Jul 2016 #118

I was melm00se Jul 2016 #15

News at the local level continues to be unremarkable davekriss Jul 2016 #34

Well yeah, but that won't stop a great narrative! Rex Jul 2016 #95

Uniformed answer FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #18

Ironic that you call me "uninformed" anoNY42 Jul 2016 #22

That is actually a gray zone. The FCC is involved in some aspects of Cable regulation still_one Jul 2016 #90

Once again you switch back to broadcasting. anoNY42 Jul 2016 #93

Ironic people who attempt to elude they are True Democrats advocate agasinst the Fairness Doctrine FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #108

Proves how insidious and effective the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was. ZX86 Jul 2016 #109

Love those RIGHT WING Talking Points FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #110

it has been happening more and more lately Skittles Aug 2016 #123

Exactly. Some tend to forget that its the publics airwaves. There is a reason why still_one Jul 2016 #82

Nobody told us how long to speak when I was in radio Tsiyu Jul 2016 #23

How about this one anoNY42 Jul 2016 #28

You are entitled to your opinion Tsiyu Jul 2016 #37

You are looking to go back to some imagined golden age anoNY42 Jul 2016 #41

You seem to know nothing about history, check out Hearst vs Pulitzer and get back with us. Rex Jul 2016 #53

Wait anoNY42 Jul 2016 #59

I want an end to embellishing. Rex Jul 2016 #62

Are you fucking kidding me? Tsiyu Jul 2016 #67

Ok anoNY42 Jul 2016 #69

It is some kid at work wasting the bosses dime by screwing with us here on DU. Rex Jul 2016 #72

Indeed Tsiyu Jul 2016 #88

We will be lucky to make it another 100 years with this batch. Rex Jul 2016 #92

Why the generation bashing? Turin_C3PO Jul 2016 #104

The airwaves are owned by the public, and the Fairness Doctrine is to still_one Jul 2016 #73

Ok, so you are talking about broadcast anoNY42 Jul 2016 #78

First of all that isn't quite accurate. There are plenty of people who do not want to pay still_one Jul 2016 #94

Requiring speech that the speaker does not want to make anoNY42 Jul 2016 #96

It does not require having a speaker who does not agree to state that position. They provide time f still_one Jul 2016 #97

That's not really what I mean anoNY42 Jul 2016 #99

Are you kidding me? I would GLADLY put up with conservative news here on DU AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #116

Read the link. The government does not decide. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2016 #128

I posted on the link when he originally posted his "solution" anoNY42 Aug 2016 #129

Mine was an honest question. The fairness doctrine Agnosticsherbet Aug 2016 #135

Perhaps it made sense when there were 4 channels Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #2

There were opinion shows on those 4 channels Warpy Aug 2016 #126

Now that's a progressive idea... ileus Jul 2016 #3

This is a private forum. seabeckind Jul 2016 #5

So is CNN. anoNY42 Jul 2016 #9

Seems public to me MichMan Jul 2016 #10

They already post here. SecularMotion Jul 2016 #11

sure SheriffBob Jul 2016 #13

lulz Rex Jul 2016 #65

Post hoc ergo propter hoc Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #12

It was a lot more problematic than people's selective memories seem to recall right now Recursion Jul 2016 #14

That would solve NOTHING Orangepeel Jul 2016 #16

Yup. As it is they give too much fairness to climate change deniers, as just one example. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #20

If not the Fairness Doctrine, why not the "Accuracy in Reporting" doctrine. Nitram Jul 2016 #17

Much better. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #19

No. Terrible idea. Who decides what is true and what is a lie? Nye Bevan Jul 2016 #25

Yeah that would work too. Just something, anything to hold news reporters responsible Rex Jul 2016 #30

So if the government dislikes your reporting, you can be branded an Official Liar by the State tritsofme Jul 2016 #112

No, evidence that would hold up in court would be required for the government, or concerned Nitram Aug 2016 #120

Your proposal is not compatible with the First Amendment, not even close. tritsofme Aug 2016 #121

Then I guess we're stuck with the right wing media and the... Nitram Aug 2016 #124

Yes, we cannot ban media and speech we dislike. That's part of the deal for living in America. tritsofme Aug 2016 #152

Great idea! GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #131

Gulf, that's an interesting distortion of my suggestion. You might find employment with one of... Nitram Aug 2016 #132

Hyperbole no doubt GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #139

Yes, I'll admit to some hyperbole there. Nitram Aug 2016 #141

Yep GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #143

I tend to employ snark to avoid being angry. Nitram Aug 2016 #145

Once again this foolish call raises its head melm00se Jul 2016 #21

Yeah it really sucked turning on your local radio station Tsiyu Jul 2016 #27

Pffft anoNY42 Jul 2016 #32

"Pushing an abridgement of the first amendment?" Nitram Aug 2016 #134

Um, not quite. The suggestion that there were only a limited number of broadcasters becasue Nitram Aug 2016 #133

I would have zero opposition melm00se Aug 2016 #150

Wow, you are a great deal more powerful than I realized! Nitram Aug 2016 #151

No (nt) bigwillq Jul 2016 #24

If the only way to get news was on 3 over-the-air channels, Nye Bevan Jul 2016 #26

And you don't use a radio so no one uses a radio? Tsiyu Jul 2016 #31

Not this anoNY42 Jul 2016 #33

Abridge what? You have to be joking. Rex Jul 2016 #35

Are you in favor of the "fairness" doctrine, anoNY42 Jul 2016 #39

I am talking about keeping reporters honest, what are you talking about? Rex Jul 2016 #40

If you are not talking about the actual "fairness" doctrine anoNY42 Jul 2016 #44

Why are you trying to censor me? Rex Jul 2016 #50

Cute anoNY42 Jul 2016 #55

No you are just joking around, I get it. Rex Jul 2016 #58

Ok, you may not be a lawyer anoNY42 Jul 2016 #60

Lol another 'expert' sitting at work jacking around on the bosses time. Rex Jul 2016 #63

Once again anoNY42 Jul 2016 #66

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #70

No, anon, I know that's a convenient position for you, but it is false. Nitram Aug 2016 #136

My most convenient position anoNY42 Aug 2016 #138

Stick to that and a reasoned argument and I will enjoy, and perhaps learn from, the discussion. Nitram Aug 2016 #140

The reasons are simple anoNY42 Aug 2016 #142

Good points re the fairness doctrine. Nitram Aug 2016 #144

Lies anoNY42 Aug 2016 #146

Good point. In fact, that's already their favorite tactic (along with "some people say") Nitram Aug 2016 #148

Some kids have no clue Tsiyu Jul 2016 #46

Well I guess we are getting paid back for calling our elders old and out of touch when we were young Rex Jul 2016 #49

No there is not Tsiyu Jul 2016 #77

They grew up with no need for critical thinking, everything was handed to them on a silver platter. Rex Jul 2016 #79

And how would the Fairness Doctine have done that? WillowTree Jul 2016 #102

They are not serious, reading their posts I realize they have no clue or are just joking around. Rex Jul 2016 #47

I see many new monikers Tsiyu Jul 2016 #52

The folly of youth. Rex Jul 2016 #56

Sad to see the younger folks vote no. Rex Jul 2016 #29

Broadcast news anoNY42 Jul 2016 #36

It will keep people like Hannity in check and hold them responsible when they incite violence on air Rex Jul 2016 #38

Hannity already would be accountable anoNY42 Jul 2016 #42

Well he did incite violence and so did Foxnews and nothing happened to them. Rex Jul 2016 #43

When? Why were the police not called? nt anoNY42 Jul 2016 #45

When we had the Bundy standoff. Rex Jul 2016 #48

I found these anoNY42 Jul 2016 #51

He was actually calling for the Bundy family to take action. Rex Jul 2016 #54

I can't find it anoNY42 Jul 2016 #57

Shouldn't you be working? Rex Jul 2016 #61

You cannot find anything where Hannity actually calls for violence, can you? anoNY42 Jul 2016 #64

No I think you should get back to work and stop stealing from your company. Rex Jul 2016 #68

Good god anoNY42 Jul 2016 #71

No you are here just wasting time on your bosses dime. Rex Jul 2016 #74

I give up anoNY42 Jul 2016 #75

Sure ya would, get back to work kid. Rex Jul 2016 #76

Waaaa! anoNY42 Jul 2016 #80

And you are immoral for stealing from the company you work for. Rex Jul 2016 #81

Back up your argument with some links. nt anoNY42 Jul 2016 #83

Why would I care what some immoral person like you wants? Rex Jul 2016 #84

Childish anoNY42 Jul 2016 #85

Right, nice try. Rex Jul 2016 #86

Just let me know about Hannity when you can anoNY42 Jul 2016 #87

Why? You don't care about the truth. Rex Jul 2016 #89

Hannity's guests often incite racism SheriffBob Jul 2016 #107

And what happens when we run a segment on climate change, or vaccines? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #103

You realize cable TV wouldn't be covered by the "fairness doctrine", right? n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2016 #91

I think it's fairly obvious that most people don't realize that. n/t Captain Stern Jul 2016 #106

Obvious like a flashing neon sign. nt cherokeeprogressive Aug 2016 #147

No thank you. Throd Jul 2016 #98

An abridgment to the first amendment....plain and simple.nt clarice Jul 2016 #101

Fairness a Doctrine didn't require equal time. NYC Liberal Jul 2016 #105

No thanks. I have zero interest in allowing government any input in the editorial decisions of media tritsofme Jul 2016 #111

The Fairness Doctrine did not allow input in editorial decisions. ZX86 Jul 2016 #113

The public airwaves are like a public park. ZX86 Jul 2016 #114

HELL YEAAAA! We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #117

Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #119

I voted "maybe". Perhaps because my media diet is pretty much on a Fairness Doctrine anyway. mwooldri Aug 2016 #125

Me, too, mwooldri, but conservatives have been trying to defund and discredit many of my Nitram Aug 2016 #137

Here's a better approach than the Fariress Doctrine. Nitram Aug 2016 #149