I want to try something here. No links. No youtube posts. No quotes from politicians more interested in spreading crap than in telling truth (on both sides).

This is just me stating and opinion. And I am hoping you will follow up with your own opinion. Not a yes or know, but what you believe about this issue and why.

The Fairness Doctrine.
You can look it up if you like but this is discussion, not look up copy and paste. So the Fairness Doctrine as I understand it was set up to insure that opposing viewpoints of a political topic be presented and that if one side did so, time had to be allotted for the opposing side. Correct?

Sounds simple enough and fair. But this was made begun back in 1949 and times have changed. Where we had, for the most part, a two party system, we now have multiple parties, some tiny. So to be fair by these standards, each would have to be allotted time.

But lets narrow it down. At present, a Democratic congress wants to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine. Why? Because they want to use it to tone down the radio airwaves which offer mostly conservative viewpoints. The trifecta of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck take up 9 hours of airtime a day or 45 hours per week. The Democrats feel that this is an unfair amount of time allotted to just one side of the coin.

In 2004, Air America began. This was an all liberal new talk network. The owners proclaimed that it would rival the audiences of Limbaugh, etc. The only problem was that it never happened and in 2006, Air America went into bankruptcy. In a free market it seemed that not enough people wanted to listen to their programming. The ratings were in the single digits at their highest. What should have been a triumph over conservative talk radio, as those behind Air America thought that the "product" they had to offer was what America really wanted, became instead a joke.

So now we have conservative talk radio. It boasts some of the largest number of listeners of all time for radio. The views they express are gaining much notice. The best way to keep people from hearing these views? The Fairness Doctrine.

Since people were unwilling to listen to the same things that were on Air America when it existed, they now want to force them to listen on the stations that carry conservative viewpoints. A number of stations will cut back on conservative shows because they don't want to lose the money they would during the liberal broadcasts. For proof they would lose money, refer again to Air America. They would also have to spend money taking note of each minute used for one view and allotting the same for the opposite.

Okay I've gotten a little long winded here. LOL. But I guess what bothers me is the fact that we have a group of politicians attempting to silence free speech. And don't say they're only trying to level it out. When did it become the governments job to see to it that both sides of an issue were presented? I know, back in 1949. LOL.

There is one benefit of this. If it is enacted, what will become of television? Because it would spill over into that as well. Would it mean that for every liberal joke that insulted or made fun of a conservative cause there would have to be equal time made? If a show featured a liberal family would it mean that a conservative one would have to be a lead in another series to balance it out? Most striking, if network news took on a definite liberal stance, would they be forced to report news with a conservative one to even things up?

The popular phrase "a slippery slope" comes to mind here. Because if the Fairness Doctrine can be used one direction, the fact is it can be used in just the opposite one as well.

So...what are your views on the FD? Agree? Disagree? Like? Dislike?

I know this has been somewhat oversimplified here in my presentation, but why not keep it simple instead of twisting things about?

Air America is still in business. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC is currently airing a talk radio show as well as her show on MSNBC. You did not get your facts straight. The Fairness Doctrine has never applied to cable or any kind of PPV statio. It was enacted because the the air waves are in the public domain. No one has the right to start up a public broadcast station w/o being licensed by the FCC. There is a limited number of stations allowed in any geographical locale due to the harmonic sidebands of any given frequency which causes interference to other public brodcast stations within the proximity of the range of that broadcast. The higher the wattage, the farther the signal goes. There has to be regulation of stations. Otherwise when one turns one's reciever on there would be nothing but white noise.

I grew up in the time of no ABC...just NBC and CBS..no FM radio, just AM. My opinion is that for over the air brodcasts we need the Fairness Doctrine. As for cable PPV stations I would be against applying it. I pick and choose what stations I am willing buy into as well as what cable company I contract with.

And it should only be applied to political viewpoints concerning which way our government should be ran.
If I were to espouse a certain political argument, there should be an opportunity for an opposing viewpoint to be aired. I think that a time limit of 30 days for anyone to apply for the chance of rebuttel would be reasonable. And...party affiliation would have nothing to do with it. Time would be allotted on a first-come, first-served basis.

You might take note of the blog at the bottom of the ENE web site is trying to be fairly even handed in that Cindy used to have a liberal, moderate, and conservative balance. This is something which I believe she doesn't have to do. But wants to be fair to her readers. When the liberal blogger resigned last year, she asked Enidites if anyone wanted to take her place. Apparently, no one who was qualified wanted to take the position.

This doctrine is unenforceable from a practical standpoint, and its sole purpose for being introduced by Dems is to silence the opposition's speech. Hopefully, such a law will not pass constitutional muster.

The Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck shows are conservative and idea-based, and everyone who listens knows this going in. Thus, it's pretty easy to monitor these types of shows and to make a determination of how many hours of such broadcasts are allocated to different points of view. That being the case, liberal talk shows have not shown to be widely attractive in the free market. The only remedy that makes financial sense would be for stations to reduce conservative talk rather than to offer matching hours of liberal talk that won't generate profits.

However, given the fact that more than 80 percent of the media are liberal, who is going to police their stories to ensure equal time? Right now, late night comedy shows are poking fun of McCain/Palin at a 7-to-1 ratio compared to Obama Biden. Are we going to fix that too?

It should be obvious that a Democracy is only as valid as the information available to its citizenry. This doctrine is designed and will be re-introduced to reduce the flow of information, not increase it. I guess that makes me against it.

Non sequiters are not valid arguments. Nor is accusing the person with whom you are debating of what you are actually a proponent of doing with what you are trying to do.
Isn't the slogan of Fox-"Fair and Balanced"?

The FCC was created to police the communications in the US of A. It may not be perfect,,,but neither are any enforcers of the law perfect.

You may believe that 80% of the media is too liberal for you. It only points out that you are the fringe element if it were true. In my opinion you just pulled that number out of thin air.

And...I guess that the rise in the popularity of so-called "Liberal" talk radio is not to be considered.

A little study of the Fairness Doctrine would show that it was enacted to stimulate the free flow of ideas-not to deprive anyone of the ability of their ideas being equally as valuable as the opponents of their arguments.
A good example of what the Fairness Doctrine enables is the ability of the party which does not control the White House to be able to respond to the President.

Zephyr,

As a proponent of the fairness doctrine, can you show me ONE instance where it was applied to allow third party candidates to bring their voice to the table? How is it fair when it excludes viewpoints?

Most Americans don't go to networks for their news anymore, so even if it were to be enacted, it would be pointless. To my way of thinking, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " means exactly THAT.

quote:

Originally posted by zephyr52:

You may believe that 80% of the media is too liberal for you. It only points out that you are the fringe element if it were true. In my opinion you just pulled that number out of thin air.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

And...I guess that the rise in the popularity of so-called "Liberal" talk radio is not to be considered.

If it's so popular, why does Pelosi have such a woody for the fairness doctrine?

A little study of the Fairness Doctrine would show that it was enacted to stimulate the free flow of ideas-not to deprive anyone of the ability of their ideas being equally as valuable as the opponents of their arguments.
A good example of what the Fairness Doctrine enables is the ability of the party which does not control the White House to be able to respond to the President.

Here's an article written by Lanny Davis, former special counsel for Bill Clinton and Barbara Comstock representing the National Association of Broadcasters

What’s Fair Is Fair
And fair is not the “Fairness Doctrine.”

By Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis

A recent Rasmussen poll reported that nearly half of Americans (47 percent) believe the government should mandate political balance on radio and TV airwaves. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also indicated that she would like to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” While the two of us can usually be found on opposite sides of many political issues, this is one issue where we have found strong agreement: We both strongly oppose reinstatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Historically, opposition to the Fairness Doctrine has been genuinely a bipartisan issue.

To demonstrate — guess which noted newsman had the following to say about how the Fairness Doctrine operated in practice: “I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.”

Dan Rather.

But the same could have been said by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. All of them, like Dan Rather, have opposed the Fairness Doctrine, an outdated government regulation, abolished in the 1980s, that used to require broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues or be threatened with fines or losing their broadcast licenses. The doctrine also resulted in lawsuits such as one in 1978 when NBC aired a show on the Holocaust and was sued by a group demanding air time to argue that the Holocaust was a myth. The network had to defend itself for over three years.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly and bipartisanly passed (309-115) a one year ban on reviving the Fairness Doctrine. This fall they again renewed the ban for another year. However, the First Amendment shouldn’t have an expiration date. The ban on reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine should be permanent and that is why we both support having a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

The Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan wisely eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s after determining the rule actually discouraged broadcasters from covering controversial issues. Demonstrating the bipartisan opposition to the Fairness Doctrine existed then as now, President Reagan had an unusual ally in his effort in Governor Mario Cuomo who also opposed the Doctrine pointing out: “Of course there are limits to liberty and lines to be drawn … But curtailing First Amendment rights should be allowed only when the need is so clear and convincing as to overwhelm with reasonableness the arguments in opposition. And the case for government intrusion, for the Fairness Doctrine, is certainly less than compelling at its very best.”

The Fairness Doctrine originally was designed at a time when there were only a few media outlets. But as the Los Angeles Times editorial page highlighted last year in an excellent case against reviving the rule: “No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available today to express it — maybe not a radio or TV station but certainly a website, a video blog, a podcast or an e-mail newsletter. At the same time, the public has unprecedented access to a diverse array of opinions. Just as the government shouldn't decide what you say on the channels you create, nor should it be able to dictate the range of opinions people hear over the air.”

Two decades ago, the Washington Post agreed: “…it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined "balance" of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include. However bad or unfair today's news may seem on occasion, do people really want government to step in as judge? Members of Congress who care about genuinely fair coverage of views should abandon the congressional effort, which is based on an outdated concept of limited airwaves.”

The goal of “fairness and balance” in the media is always going to be in the eye of the beholder but fortunately today we have a multitude of media avenues to get our voices heard. And as for the idea of hearing from “both sides” of an issue — who assumes there are just two sides? If any two or three people could disagree as to how many sides of an issue exist — as we are sure we would — can you imagine government bureaucrats deciding first, how many sides of an issue there might be and second, how much “fair and balanced” speech each and every side would be allocated?

Instead we would suggest this well-worn maxim: “The remedy for speech you don’t like is not less speech, it is more speech.” “More speech” is something that today’s 24/7 media environment provides abundantly for all sides.

That is why today the coalition opposing the Fairness Doctrine is broader than ever. Those who cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas have only themselves to blame.

Maintaining our First Amendment freedoms is an American fundamental, one upon which we should be able to reach bipartisan agreement. This will be a contentious election year; but we need more speech, not less, and not government regulated speech. Let our right to free speech remain and pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act.


http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YTlhN2UxNjY0...YjM3NjRjMGZkMmU4N2I=

quote:

Originally posted by zephyr52:
And...I guess that the rise in the popularity of so-called "Liberal" talk radio is not to be considered.

There is a popular "liberal" talk radio program? What is it? Honestly I wasn't aware. And Arbitron ratings show it to be popular or is it just popular among liberals?

Oh and the last thing I read (and I won't post a link because that was one of my guidelines to myself when starting this thread) was that Air America filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on on 10-13-06. It didn't shut down entirely so I was incorrect on that point. My apologies.

KL, you wanted my opinion w/o letting links get in your way. I will not do your research for you.

As for the fairness doctrine, 60 years ago, when broadcast TV was a fledgling industry, it was needed. In the 21st century, broadcasting is almost obsolete. Their is no need for the doctrine since it only applied to broadcasts.

On a side note...the legislation was passed in 1949, and the next president was elected in 1953. Do you remember who he was and what party he represented?

quote:

Originally posted by zephyr52:
KL, you wanted my opinion w/o letting links get in your way. I will not do your research for you.

As for the fairness doctrine, 60 years ago, when broadcast TV was a fledgling industry, it was needed. In the 21st century, broadcasting is almost obsolete. Their is no need for the doctrine since it only applied to broadcasts.


((((You do realize that this statement means we absolutely agree on the topic. The doctrine is outdated and there is no need for it.))))



On a side note...the legislation was passed in 1949, and the next president was elected in 1953. Do you remember who he was and what party he represented?

I honestly don't recall who was President in 1953. This may be because I wasn't born until 1957. LOL. I could look it up but my guess would be Truman? Eisnehower? Too early for Kennedy. You know the answer so rather than do my own research I'll wait.

I think we're going to be hearing a lot more about the Fairness Doctrine, but not from the media.

Kirbylee stated

quote:

There is a popular "liberal" talk radio program? What is it? Honestly I wasn't aware. And Arbitron ratings show it to be popular or is it just popular among liberals?

I don't hink I understand this statement. Do you think Rush is popular with everyone? No, he is popular with folks who love to hate and be angry. I don't understand your litmus test for this.

Yes, I listen to liberal radio from time to time; Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Randi Roades, Stephanie Miller, Young Turks, etc..I have also listened to the opposition, and there is a stark difference in their approach.

quote:

Originally posted by kristi:
Kirbylee stated

quote:

There is a popular "liberal" talk radio program? What is it? Honestly I wasn't aware. And Arbitron ratings show it to be popular or is it just popular among liberals?

I don't hink I understand this statement. Do you think Rush is popular with everyone? No, he is popular with folks who love to hate and be angry. I don't understand your litmus test for this.

Yes, I listen to liberal radio from time to time; Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Randi Roades, Stephanie Miller, Young Turks, etc..I have also listened to the opposition, and there is a stark difference in their approach.

Due to work load and illness I haven't been around. Imagine my surprise to see this thread still going.

To begin with, my post here was tinged with sarcasm. Of course there are liberal talk radio shows. But as stated, if you check Arbitron ratings they are nowhere near the top of the list.

Do I think Limbaugh is popular with everyone? Good Lord no. He has detractors everywhere. At the same time he is the MOST listened to program on talk radio. The numbers are there. If as you claim his listeners are nothing but people who hate than woe is this country. It would mean that the majority of radio listeners were hateful and angry. Sorry, I don't buy that. And as for his listeners being the only angry/hateful ones, they were not the ones hurling death threats and accusing everyone of everything bad with this country non stop. There were those on both sides of the fence.

As for a difference in their approach between liberal and conservative talk show hosts, I see them as fundamentally alike. Both sides preach to the choir, both sides make angry statements, both sides claim to be the right way of thinking and both sides scream and holler. To say that only one side does (of course that side always seems to be the conservative one...since it is the most listened to) is ludicrous.

I've listened to Randi Rhoades and Al Franken both and each time I've listened to them speak down to their audience as if they were enlightened and knew all. Limbaugh does the same but at least with a sense of humor. Franken in particular has a smarmy way of speaking, hurling insults not in a satirical way but more direct. If you were overweight, Al would look at you and call you fattie.

Side note: I've often been puzzled by Al Franken. I never found him funny, even when he was on SNL. And among the many people I've known, no one else has either, liberal or conservative.

The fact is that talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts and the reason why is simple. More people listen to them. Ratings don't lie. And the fact that more people listen to them is what has angered Democrats in politics. A different voice is heard rather than the major media that spreads the word they want. It is this reason that they want to re-invoke the fairness doctrine.

A simple fairness doctrine question: Who is it that decides what is tilted one way or the other? If its the FCC then it becomes the decision of a person beholding to whoever placed him/her in this position of power. Thus one party or the other. Will they be honest? Will each person who tells a joke making fun of say Bush, Limbaugh, Cheney, Reagan or any other notable conservative have to be answered in kind? If a panel of hosts on a Sunday talk show is comprised of 4 liberals and 1 conservative, will that be forced to change to 2 and 2 with 1 leaving? If the host himself leans one way or the other, will a second show featuring the opposition be required?

Go back over the past 8 years. Consider how many jokes were made at the expense of George Bush, even if they were funny or well placed. Look at how many pieces in magazines and news programs looked at him in a poor light. My guess is no matter what he does, good or bad, you won't see the same happen with President elect Obama. I hope to be proven wrong.

Lastly, consider how many shows have liberal views stated over and over. Would this mean that ALL shows would be required to make equal time available for conservative statements?

Why don't we stop trying to legislate what people decide for themselves to listen to and let the market determine it?

Okay I'm going back to my Vics and warm blanket. LOL

quote:

I honestly don't recall who was President in 1953. This may be because I wasn't born until 1957. LOL. I could look it up but my guess would be Truman? Eisnehower? Too early for Kennedy. You know the answer so rather than do my own research I'll wait

You've been waiting since October 23, so I can set you free: Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was sworn in January 1953. He defeated Adlai Stevenson.

quote:

The fact is that talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts and the reason why is simple. More people listen to them. Ratings don't lie. And the fact that more people listen to them is what has angered Democrats in politics. A different voice is heard rather than the major media that spreads the word they want. It is this reason that they want to re-invoke the fairness doctrine.

It is true that conservatives dominate radio, but they are not as successful on TV. Limbaugh's TV show got terrible ratings, and guys like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart do far better even on cable networks. SNL has a decidedly liberal audience, as do most of the daytime talk shows.

The "fairness" doctrine" is a double-edged sword, and one that liberals would be foolish to wield. Let the blowhards like Rush have their radio shows. He does not create opinion--he simply validates what his listeners already believe. Presenting opposing views won't change that. Liberals need to accept that not everyone can be convinced if you just reason with them long enough. That includes foreign dictators...

One needs to remember that the Fairness Doctrine only applies to the airwaves, not cable or anything which one subscribes to as they are not in the Public Domain.