so-called Fairness Doctrine

[Calabrio]

This is a very serious topic.
I'm interested in know who here would support the implementation of the policy?

Nothing said about Obama during the campaign seemed to matter to the 52% of people who voted for him. But if he makes moves right now that telegraph his intention to see the doctrine reapplied to broadcast media, will you voice your outrage or disagreement?

 

[TheDude]

I think it's good on paper, the concept of it, but who would get to ultimately decide when some issue is presented in a balanced/honest fashion and when it isn't?

 

[Titan]

It's the government stepping into an area where they are banned from. It's the next in a series of steps already undertaken to control free speech by those who cannot abide free minds. Only those ignorant of history or in favor of where this is leading to can applaud it.

 

[shagdrum]

I think it's good on paper, the concept of it, but who would get to ultimately decide when some issue is presented in a balanced/honest fashion and when it isn't?

It may look good on paper, but the federal legislature is specifically prohibited from doing anything in this area due to the first amendment.

 

[Calabrio]

It looks good on paper?
What does that mean? I believe what you meant to say is, "it sounds good to a dumbass?

They had the fairness doctrine in place for a long time and it effectively crushed any kind of conservative speech in the media. However liberal voices always seem to get a pass. either by passing it off as "entertainment" (ie. Daily Show, Will & Grace- as in they promote a political viewpoint) or in the case of the news, they simply pretended they were objective and fair... like Dan Rather, Walter Kronkite, or the guys at 60 minutes.

Prior to the election, those of us who were worried that Obama, a man who already has demonstrated a history of limiting, punishing, and stifling the press, would move to enact a fairness doctrine. Some of the Obama apologist said it wasn't likely or even possible.

 

[Calabrio]

Is Obama's New FCC Transition Head Talk Radio's 'Executioner'?
By Tim Graham
November 6, 2008

Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer warns that Barack Obama is signaling his designs on conservative talk radio with the rumored appointment of former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera as the head of his FCC transition team:

Henry Rivera, a longtime radical leftist, lawyer and former FCC commissioner, is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama's tenure in office.

Rivera, who resigned from the FCC nearly a quarter-century ago during the Reagan years, believes in a doctrine of "communications policy as a civil rights issue".

His exit during the Reagan Administration paved the way for the Fairness Doctrine's repeal when the late president appointed Patricia Diaz Dennis in 1986 to fill out the rest of Rivera's term. Had this not occurred, talk radio as we know it today would not exist.

That gives Rivera's new task a great deal of personal urgency: it's a late-career, second chance opportunity to shut down opposition voices that have been allowed to flourish since his depature from the commission.

In particular, Rivera is known for his push for more minority broadcasting ownership, but this issue has largely been rendered obsolete as former commercial broadcasting empires teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

Rivera's first opportunity to eliminate commercial talk radio will occur in June 2009, as the term of Republican Robert McDowell expires and he can be replaced with a pro-Fairness Doctrine Democrat. That will give the commission a three-vote Democratic majority, though the final two seats must remain in Republican hands.

If they can strong-arm one of the three Republicans into leaving early, this can be implemented even sooner.

Keep reading. Brian also reports that executives at Air America radio think of the Fairness Doctrine as a boon for them.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...w-fcc-transition-head-talk-radios-executioner

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I happened to catch Jerry Springer on fox last night, and he had an interesting observation concerning talk radio.
He makes a lot of sense.
He said, "talk radio is dead".
Why would he make a statement like that?
He also offered a reasonable explanation as to why.
First, he said people, especially younger people are not interested in radio at all.
Todays technology dictates computers, cell phones, ipods etc which young people are solidly attracted to.
They have no need for radio.
The younger crowd are the future, and talk radio is a dead issue with them
Take Barack Obama, he is a product of technology.
I doubt he would have been elected had it not been for technology.
Most of his campaign money was donated online.
So Shawn, talk radio is dead, and it will never be again.
Those were not Jerrys exact words, but for the most part it is what he conveyed to Hannity.
I think Jerry is correct so, all this worry about talk radio being hushed by the democrats is a moot issue.
Technology has replaced it just as so many old ways have given way to the new.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

I happened to catch Jerry Springer on fox last night, and he had an interesting observation concerning talk radio.
He makes a lot of sense.
He said, "talk radio is dead".
Why would he make a statement like that?
He also offered a reasonable explanation as to why.
First, he said people, especially younger people are not interested in radio at all.
Todays technology dictates computers, cell phones, ipods etc which young people are solidly attracted to.
They have no need for radio.
The younger crowd are the future, and talk radio is a dead issue with them
Take Barack Obama, he is a product of technology.
I doubt he would have been elected had it not been for technology.
Most of his campaign money was donated online.
So Shawn, talk radio is dead, and it will never be again.
Those were not Jerrys exact words, but for the most part it is what he conveyed to Hannity.
I think Jerry is correct so, all this worry about talk radio being hushed by the democrats is a moot issue.
Technology has replaced it just as so many old ways have given way to the new.
Bob.

Yeah, talk radio is dead. That's why tens of millions listen to Rush Limbaugh alone, not to mention the millions that listen to Hannity, Prager, Medved, Gallagher, Levin, and Boortz.

Jerry's just pissed because Air America, the notorious lefty radio station, FAILED. So you could argue that liberal talk radio is dead.

How is Howard Stern doing these days?

 

[Calabrio]

I happened to catch Jerry Springer on fox last night....He said, "talk radio is dead"......First, he said people, especially younger people are not interested in radio at all.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret... Jerry Springer is an idiot.
No really, this is a man who lost political office because he was paying prostitutes with personal checks.

I used to live near Jerry Springer. I've been to his house (not as a guest, but in the course of my work).

His argument is absolutely ignorant. Using his same logic, CBS would have been "dead" twenty years ago because it appealed to the older demographic.

Even if younger people avoided radio, there's a baby boomer generation that does listen, and so do Generations X and Y.

Additionally, many of us LIKE to listen to talk radio while in the car, and continue to do so despite the MP3s, Satelite radio, DVDs, and IPods we have in our cars.

And I began listening to talk radio when I was a teenager.

I think Jerry is correct so, all this worry about talk radio being hushed by the democrats is a moot issue.
Technology has replaced it just as so many old ways have given way to the new.
Bob.

If it was a "moot issue" then the Democrats wouldn't be concerned with the fairness doctrine. It's as simple as that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm going to let you in on a little secret... Jerry Springer is an idiot.
No really, this is a man who lost political office because he was paying prostitutes with personal checks.

I used to live near Jerry Springer. I've been to his house (not as a guest, but in the course of my work).

His argument is absolutely ignorant. Using his same logic, CBS would have been "dead" twenty years ago because it appealed to the older demographic.

Even if younger people avoided radio, there's a baby boomer generation that does listen, and so do Generations X and Y.

Additionally, many of us LIKE to listen to talk radio while in the car, and continue to do so despite the MP3s, Satelite radio, DVDs, and IPods we have in our cars.

And I began listening to talk radio when I was a teenager.




If it was a "moot issue" then the Democrats wouldn't be concerned with the fairness doctrine. It's as simple as that.

This is a bit off topic, but could you do us conservatives a favor, and change that anoying avatar of Ms Bullsh!tsky.
I for one would appreciate it.
Every time I see one of your post, that ugly face is stairing me in the kisser and it only serves to remind me how terrible our government has become.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

This is a bit off topic, but could you do us conservatives a favor, and change that anoying avatar of Ms Bullsh!tsky.
I for one would appreciate it.
Every time I see one of your post, that ugly face is stairing me in the kisser and it only serves to remind me how terrible our government has become.
Bob.

Yeah, I guess Joey's avatar doesn't bother you though, right?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yeah, I guess Joey's avatar doesn't bother you though, right?

That one I can live with, and feel confident it TOO will be changing before too long, now that the Bush administration is just about behind us.
In the case of Ms Bullsh!tsky, God only knows how long this witch will be in government.
Bob.

 

[Calabrio]

That one I can live with, and feel confident it TOO will be changing before too long, now that the Bush administration is just about behind us.
In the case of Ms Bullsh!tsky, God only knows how long this witch will be in government.
Bob.

Consider it a subtle reminder to make sure she's voted out of her leadership position. I'd say vote her out of office, but she's from a ridiculously safe district.

Good luck accomplishing any of that if the Fairness Doctrine is in place.

 

[TheDude]

It looks good on paper?
What does that mean? I believe what you meant to say is, "it sounds good to a dumbass?

They had the fairness doctrine in place for a long time and it effectively crushed any kind of conservative speech in the media. However liberal voices always seem to get a pass. either by passing it off as "entertainment" (ie. Daily Show, Will & Grace- as in they promote a political viewpoint) or in the case of the news, they simply pretended they were objective and fair... like Dan Rather, Walter Kronkite, or the guys at 60 minutes.

Prior to the election, those of us who were worried that Obama, a man who already has demonstrated a history of limiting, punishing, and stifling the press, would move to enact a fairness doctrine. Some of the Obama apologist said it wasn't likely or even possible.

That the concept of "fairness" is good, yet I do realize it doesn't apply to the real world, as per my question about who would ultimately decide what is fair and what isn't.

 

[foxpaws]

I think that the only part of the fairness doctrine that should be pushed is equal access (mostly to government agencies).

The rest - heck - grow up America - you have created the media in your own image - Talk radio is conservative - so what - I don't care. Nor do I care that broadcast TV is liberal. In this day and age it doesn't make sense to enforce some sort of non-bias standard on the press. The press isn't what it was 230 years ago, and even then - it had bias. Maybe we should look at creating some sort of non denominational entity - but, within the current structure of mass media, no way.

I will be surprised if there is any movement on the fairness doctrine within 12 months - and by then, the whole landscape of the press will probably change again. Media is such a liquid entity, just check on how you got the election results. Did you watch broadcast or alternate TV - or maybe you had your laptop propped up next to you while you scanned through 7 channels on TV. In 2 years that could totally change. If you are over 30 you view media differently than if you are under 30.

With the addition of new media the concept of being 'fair' is pretty much gone. The doctrine was put into place when the media outlets were very limited and had trapped audiences - now, more people get their news online than a newspaper, they watch more cable than broadcast. The idea that you can't find out what is going on, or you don't see/hear both sides of the story is pretty much moot. Too many outlets, too much opportunity for everyone's voice/opinion to be heard.

All that really matters is equal access at this point.

 

[fossten]

I think that the only part of the fairness doctrine that should be pushed is equal access (mostly to government agencies).

The rest - heck - grow up America - you have created the media in your own image - Talk radio is conservative - so what - I don't care. Nor do I care that broadcast TV is liberal.

***

I will be surprised if there is any movement on the fairness doctrine within 12 months

Uh - shouldn't that read "Grow up Democrats in Congress, especially Chuck Schumer, who compared political talk radio to pornography?"

Yeah, that's right. It's YOUR BOYS who are pushing this. So I guess your assumption is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD_-A7pDhw

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

 

[Calabrio]

I think that the only part of the fairness doctrine that should be pushed is equal access (mostly to government agencies).

So then, I guess you think PBS and NPR should start airing SOME conservative programing in the near future.

Talk radio is conservative - so what - I don't care. Nor do I care that broadcast TV is liberal.

but the problem is TV and print don't acknowledge that they are liberal. Conservative talk radio clearly represents itself as such. MSM continues to present itself as being impartial or "just" entertainment.

The press isn't what it was 230 years ago, and even then - it had bias. Maybe we should look at creating some sort of non denominational entity - but, within the current structure of mass media, no way.

The press has always had some bias- but up until the 20th century, they didn't cover that up. So what we ended up with was a century of liberal and communist sympathizers who were presenting themselves as objective and impartial.

Like so many problems, the answer with the media is transparency. Tell us where you're coming from so that the consumer knows and can take it into consideration. Interestingly, conservative outlets have no problems saying what they are, left wing ones are so often engaged in that deception.

I will be surprised if there is any movement on the fairness doctrine within 12 months -

We'll see movement on it before then. It's critical that it's inplace BEFORE the midterm elections in 2010. Odds are that either Obama had it done through the FCC appointments or, if it's not happening, Schumer will try to just bully it through congress.

Media is such a liquid entity....ect....ect.......

And you go on to make the same liberal talking point Bob repeated. Fairness Doctrine ONLY affects talk radio. Whether technology or consumption is changing is irrelevant, talk radio undermines the chances of the Democrat party moving their legislative agenda and they want to undermine it.

It's not about making things genuinely fair. It's about shutting up a source of a specific voice of dissent.

All that really matters is equal access at this point.

Again, let's see if we can get some conservative voices to fill half the time on NPR and PBS.

 

[foxpaws]

Uh - shouldn't that read "Grow up Democrats in Congress, especially Chuck Schumer, who compared political talk radio to pornography?"

Yeah, that's right. It's YOUR BOYS who are pushing this. So I guess your assumption is wrong.

No, I mean "Grow up everybody". Quit crying - just get over the whole media thing. It is a business, it makes money, it currently answers to corporate boards and stockholders and not the "People". I don't really care, and I am a "People".

Get Rupert on it...

And Calabrio - you know - if conservatives would pony up some funds, they would see conservative opinion on NPR and PBS. Heck, senior citizens can get old reruns of Lawrence Welk on PBS because of their contributions. Did you know "The Journal Report" was on PBS before it moved to FOX. It got zero support from the conservatives when on PBS. Very low contribution rates dictated its demise. Maybe conservatives just don't contribute to PBS, even when they have an opportunity to support programming they believe in. So, see they have tried - with no success.

If conservatives had supported it - other conservative programming would have followed. Instead PBS listens to its viewers and puts on bad British comedies and Dr Who. The government only provides 15% of the funds needed to operate PBS, and with that 15% comes a big price tag - no 'standard' commercials. Guess what - PBS follows the contribution money, honey, just like the rest of the media follows advertising money.

Somehow I have deduced that MSM is liberal. I would believe that most people have deduced this fact. Should it be labeled as such - sure. I would love to see 'red' and 'blue' meters for politically charged programming - maybe that is what a 'new media' fairness doctrine should be about. How it is decided where those meters fall might be interesting though...

And why would the fairness doctrine only affect talk radio - I don't get that connection. Wouldn't FOX be affected as well?

 

[97stscaddy]

Everyone, tomorrow when you get in your car or get to work, or wherever it is that you listen to the radio, I want you to all flip over to your local Progessive talk station and find out how you can send them $100. If you can keep them on the air, and at least make them think they have a compareable sized listening audience to that of Conservative talk radio, then you wont have to worry about the Fairness Doctrine. You just have to make them feel successful at something, and then they'll be fat and happy.

That idea courtesy of Neal Boortz btw.

 

[foxpaws]

Yep - send in your $100 to 2 of the top three programs on the radio... Morning Edition and All Things Considered...

NPR will thank you with a lovely 3 CD set of great moments in liberal radio...

 

[Calabrio]

No, he said just PRETEND to want to give them the money...

But more importantly, NPR is an outrage. They serve ZERO service to the community that warrants being tax payer subsidized. If you want liberal radio, it should be done 100% through sponsors and contributions.

 

[foxpaws]

Have you told that to your congressman Calabrio? CPB is funded by the government - tell them you don't like it.

 

[Calabrio]

I have, so have many people.
And everytime we try to get public television and radio funding cut, the PR campaign kicks in and everyone is told that Sesame Street will be kicked off the air by nasty Republicans.

 

[foxpaws]

Oh, I knew there was a reason I didn't like Republicans They are anti Big Bird.... /s/s/s/s/s