Thread: Fairness Doctrine

What do you think about the "Fairness Doctrine?"

I'll start!

For the purposes of debate, I'll go with this position for now:

The Fairness Doctrine is a GOOD THING. We should bring back "equal time".

In fact, it's not even ENOUGH. We should go even FARTHER.

Here's what I propose: make ENTIRELY ILLEGAL, any informal meeting between a representative of a corporation, and an elected representative of the US government.

I am ENTIRELY SERIOUS. I want each and every one of those meetings LOGGED, on what date and for what purpose.

And I want it ENTIRELY ILLEGAL for any money to change hands.

And before you start whining about First Amendment rights, keep in mind, that corporations have NO Constitutional Rights. NONE WHATSOEVER!!!

In spite of Santa Clara County vs. SPR, which is CLEARLY a case of some butthole judge "legislating from the bench" - CREATING Rights were none exist!

So, okay, that's a starting point - any takers?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I'll start!

For the purposes of debate, I'll go with this position for now:

The Fairness Doctrine is a GOOD THING. We should bring back "equal time".

In fact, it's not even ENOUGH. We should go even FARTHER.

Here's what I propose: make ENTIRELY ILLEGAL, any informal meeting between a representative of a corporation, and an elected representative of the US government.

I am ENTIRELY SERIOUS. I want each and every one of those meetings LOGGED, on what date and for what purpose.

And I want it ENTIRELY ILLEGAL for any money to change hands.

And before you start whining about First Amendment rights, keep in mind, that corporations have NO Constitutional Rights. NONE WHATSOEVER!!!

In spite of Santa Clara County vs. SPR, which is CLEARLY a case of some butthole judge "legislating from the bench" - CREATING Rights were none exist!

So, okay, that's a starting point - any takers?

I am not sure that is what the fairness doctrine is totaly intended to address. I would come down against it. It is loaded with unintended consequences. What you are addressing could be handled by legislatve rules, as if they carry any weight.
The fairness doctrine is aimed at conservative broadcasters. If you hear objections from the left it is about what conservatives say. They do not complain at all about Air America, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and a myriad of left wing broadcasters. They do complain about Rush and Hannity, O'Reilly, and others who point out the shere stupidity of what leftists stand for.
Fairness doctrine is an attempt at the leftists wanting total control of the air waves, so that all you hear is leftist spin and lies. I like opposing points of view. I do not like propoganda. I do not agree with all that I hear on conservative radio. But when I hear leftist radio I hear hatred. And not much else. That is why I use the term leftists so often, because the left radio uses the term righties.
It is simply an attempt at information control, and is bad news for America, no matter which side of the isle your on.

Originally Posted by Tick

The fairness doctrine is aimed at conservative broadcasters.

Yes, I have heard this view. However, it would apply to leftist talk radio also, wouldn't it?

So, it would force Air America to expose opposing viewpoints, just as it would Fox News.

But um... I "think" (and, I'm certainly not the expert on the "specific" version of the Fairness Doctrine that's being proposed to replace the old one), but I "think" if my understanding is correct, that's it's supposed to draw a boundary between "news" and "opinion".

So, like, remember in the old days, back you know, Walter Cronkite - at the end of those news programs, which were "mostly" factual but with the usual personal and station and government elements of spin - they'd have the station manager or vp or something, get on and do a two minute "editorial". And then, they'd invited "everyone", to come back with opposing viewpoints. And, they'd air 'em. And, sometimes it would be a celebrity or politician giving the response, but sometimes it would just be an ordinary citizen.

So, the principle, is to "identify" in advance, which pieces are opinion, and which pieces are fact.

The trouble in BOTH leftist AND rightist talk radio, is that they mix 'em up. Just as a f'r-instance, you got those two chicks on Faux, Edie and Julie, they like to add their little personal opinions RIGHT INTO THE NEWS STORIES, so like, you'll hear a story about some guy that robbed a McDonald's, and then Julie'll say, "I hope they throw the book at him, the rotten scumbag".... (or you know, some words to that effect) -

And so, they're framing MORE than a news story for you, they're actually trying to tell you how you're supposed to be interpreting it TOO! They're giving you the story AND the model, all in one package. And, I mean, if you're lazy, that works just fine for you, right?

The other thing I see, is that the Fairness Doctrine, puts CONSTRAINTS on the media - tends to make it more RESPONSIBLE to the People, as discinct from being merely for-profit enterprises that depend on ratings and advertising dollars. Those are just FINE, but news organizations are something different. They even got their own Estate, those people, right? That's how important they are -

And I mean, that FUNCTION, of transmitting ACCURATE INFORMATION, is something very VERY different from "opinion" and "spin".

Isn't it?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Yes, I have heard this view. However, it would apply to leftist talk radio also, wouldn't it?

So, it would force Air America to expose opposing viewpoints, just as it would Fox News.

But um... I "think" (and, I'm certainly not the expert on the "specific" version of the Fairness Doctrine that's being proposed to replace the old one), but I "think" if my understanding is correct, that's it's supposed to draw a boundary between "news" and "opinion".

So, like, remember in the old days, back you know, Walter Cronkite - at the end of those news programs, which were "mostly" factual but with the usual personal and station and government elements of spin - they'd have the station manager or vp or something, get on and do a two minute "editorial". And then, they'd invited "everyone", to come back with opposing viewpoints. And, they'd air 'em. And, sometimes it would be a celebrity or politician giving the response, but sometimes it would just be an ordinary citizen.

So, the principle, is to "identify" in advance, which pieces are opinion, and which pieces are fact.

The trouble in BOTH leftist AND rightist talk radio, is that they mix 'em up. Just as a f'r-instance, you got those two chicks on Faux, Edie and Julie, they like to add their little personal opinions RIGHT INTO THE NEWS STORIES, so like, you'll hear a story about some guy that robbed a McDonald's, and then Julie'll say, "I hope they throw the book at him, the rotten scumbag".... (or you know, some words to that effect) -

And so, they're framing MORE than a news story for you, they're actually trying to tell you how you're supposed to be interpreting it TOO! They're giving you the story AND the model, all in one package. And, I mean, if you're lazy, that works just fine for you, right?

The other thing I see, is that the Fairness Doctrine, puts CONSTRAINTS on the media - tends to make it more RESPONSIBLE to the People, as discinct from being merely for-profit enterprises that depend on ratings and advertising dollars. Those are just FINE, but news organizations are something different. They even got their own Estate, those people, right? That's how important they are -

And I mean, that FUNCTION, of transmitting ACCURATE INFORMATION, is something very VERY different from "opinion" and "spin".

Isn't it?

You have got to be kidding. You must be supporting this just for the sake of argument.

Not even considering the First ammendment. If they are going to enforce "fair" broadcasting then they must have someone "judge" what is fair. One mans spin is another mans truth. Controling the press has been a trademark of every dictatorship in history.

Originally Posted by Conservative15

What do you think about the "Fairness Doctrine?"

Forced speech is the same as censorship.

Originally Posted by tagurit

You have got to be kidding. You must be supporting this just for the sake of argument.

Not even considering the First ammendment. If they are going to enforce "fair" broadcasting then they must have someone "judge" what is fair. One mans spin is another mans truth. Controling the press has been a trademark of every dictatorship in history.

First Amendment? You're talkin' Constitution? :laughing:

(sorry, don't know why I find that humorous, but, I'm happy it's a topic of discussion) -

Hm.... yes. I expected this initial response: "it's censorship".

Here is my counter-proposal: restrictions on First Amendment rights, occur when there is "compelling public interest". So, for example, I can not legally yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor can I make a terrorist threat.

I SUBMIT, for your consideration, the concept that there is a COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST in having accurate information trasmitted across the news channels.

Because what happens is, that otherwise, people make VOTING DECISIONS on the basis of INACCURATE information, if they aren't able to distinguish spin from reality.

And, if the newscasters are allowed to freely intermingle the two, then HOW is anyone supposed to know which is which?


I don't think, that the Fairness Doctrine specifies what is "accurate".

What it does, is it forces the broadcasters to state IN ADVANCE which part of their pieces are "fact", and which are "opinion".

And NOT intermingle the two.

It sets a STANDARD of broadcast journalism, which apparently the schlock-kings-and-queens are incapable of imposing on themselves.

Right now, the STANDARD of broadcast journalism, is ratings and advertising dollars.

Um... let me take you back ANOTHER few years - do you remember "public television"? "Public service" stations? Even "public service announcements" on radio and television? When was the last time you saw one of those?

Proposal: the media, is not responsible to the People. They're only responsible to THEMSELVES. So, how about we alter their licensing rules a little, to make SURE, that any station that bills itself as a NEWS station, is in fact broadcasting NEWS, and not opinion.

Here - let me amplify that last post.

How we WANT this to work, is that any station that bills itself as a NEWS station, oughta be RELIABLE.

You (and I) should be able to go to that station, anytime, and get NEWS. Not bullshit. NEWS.

So, like, if we actually had a specific LICENSING CATEGORY that said "news", as distinct from "entertainment", then, it seems to me, that WITHIN that constraint, a free market can operate perfectly fine.

And, it comes with an additional blessing: self-regulation! So, anyone who wants news and turns on a specific channel and ends up hearing bullshit, word's gonna get around. And, people just aren't going to use that station anymore.

As distinct from TODAY, where "news" is a PARTISAN thing, and reds only listen to red stations, and blues only listen to blue stations. THAT, is a problem. Josef Goebbels couldn't have WISHED for lower hanging fruit than that....

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Here - let me amplify that last post.

How we WANT this to work, is that any station that bills itself as a NEWS station, oughta be RELIABLE.

You (and I) should be able to go to that station, anytime, and get NEWS. Not bullshit. NEWS.

So, like, if we actually had a specific LICENSING CATEGORY that said "news", as distinct from "entertainment", then, it seems to me, that WITHIN that constraint, a free market can operate perfectly fine.

And, it comes with an additional blessing: self-regulation! So, anyone who wants news and turns on a specific channel and ends up hearing bullshit, word's gonna get around. And, people just aren't going to use that station anymore.

As distinct from TODAY, where "news" is a PARTISAN thing, and reds only listen to red stations, and blues only listen to blue stations. THAT, is a problem. Josef Goebbels couldn't have WISHED for lower hanging fruit than that....

The good 'ole days yadda, yadda, yadda. The "news" has always been a partisan thing. Walter himself was not without his own adjenda. Even if you mandated news without adverbs, there would be a bias in deciding which "news" to air. Once again, enforcing RULES requires a JUDGE, and there is your bias. Wasn't it Staliin that said " It's not the hand that votes but the hand that counts them." How about our government stay out of it and just do what they were orginally framed to do.

Originally Posted by tagurit

Once again, enforcing RULES requires a JUDGE, and there is your bias. Wasn't it Staliin that said " It's not the hand that votes but the hand that counts them." How about our government stay out of it and just do what they were orginally framed to do.

Nah. You're missin' it. (no offense) -

Look, lemme give you an analogy. The communications infrastrucure in this country, is very much like roads and highways. Think of it that way - the "information super-highway".

So, now, how does the relationship between government and private enterprise play out, when it comes to things like ROADS, and highways, and the building and maintenance thereof?

Well, the GOVERNMENT, "owns" the roads (federal or state, however that works) - and, they have EASEMENTS around all of them, as well as the railroad tracks and that kinda thing - AND, they can use the power of Eminent Doman to sieze private lands for public purposes.

ALSO, the government sets the RULES by which people can make use of those roads. So, they say, you can only drive certain "types" of motor vehicles (those which meet the licensing requirements), and, you can drive IF you can see (the driver's license), AND, you must obey the law, all the stop signs and so on, and, you must pull over whenever a cop flashes his reds.

So, think of the information infrastructure, in this same way.

The government, issues FCC "licenses" to people for use of the "airwave roads", and they say what "kinds" of uses are permissible, and, they set the RULES by which all players must play.

Other than that though, you're still free to choose any kinda brand of car you want, super-nice or a beat-up jallopy - as long as you can show that the thing isn't going to be losing wheels while it's drivin' down the road, you're pretty much okay that way.

I mean, you seem to be suggesting that the government is going to try to get into the business of regulating CONTENT, which would be like saying "you have to drive a Ford". That's not the case, I don't think.

They're only saying, "all cars have to be road-worthy".