Say Anything Blog

Consequently, the Fairness Doctrine actually stifled the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, made free speech less free.

Another example of “Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of its stated intent.”

I’ve yet to see that rule violated.

Whatever the reason for its going away, it is gone and should stay gone.

I agree with Rob that this is being done because liberal/leftist ideas don’t go over too well in the realm of talk radio and therefore can’t compete with conservative talk. Alan Colmes used to have an evening talk show, Fox News Live, but I don’t know how that’s doing right now. There used to be a show by Bernie Ward (I think that’s his name), but it’s gone.

Let’s just say that the fairness doctrine came back. Mandating that broadcasters provide equal time doesn’t mean that anyone is going to listen. Let’s say Al Franken is put on for three hours after Rush. Since his show is doing so well, I’m sure the stations would have no trouble selling advertising. In the long run, I think this would wind up costing stations money because they would be required to carry programs that no one listens to and no one wants to advertise on.

With the veritable plethora of media options available to us today (internet, television, radio, satellite television, satellite radio, etc.) what possible purpose would the fairness doctrine serve other than to serve as yet another way for the not-so-tolerant left to silence speech they do not agree with?

The same purpose that is served in the intolerant right’s efforts to regulate cable, etc. as the broadcast TV and radio are.  Let’s just get this straight folks: the right and the left are equally intolerant of viewpoints, words, etc. that offend them, and they will enact those prejudices into law if they can.

Exactly as I stated, Wheezer.

JG said, “Exactly as I stated, Wheezer.”

What the hell is he talking about?  Man..comments are getting weirder and stupider. 

Let me state again for the troll: the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress.  The courts.  THE COURTS. Not Reagan.  The courts.

Reagan vetoed a later bill by Congress while stating that it was, “inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism.”

Pay attention.

Once again, Jadegold-or dipshit troll-has taken extreme liberties with the truth.

In 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

However, before the Commission’s action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto.

Once again, the Cato Institute--or looneytarian central--has taken extreme liberties with the truth.

In reality, the Fairness Doctrine was vetoed by Ronnie Reagan--not because it didn’t work or it discouraged free speech--but because Reagan’s FCC didn’t believe Congress had mandated it.

Fairness doctrine: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Regardless of the history of the Doctrine, the question is pretty simple:

Do you favor a free market approach to the airwaves or that the government dictate what constitutes ‘fair and balanced’?

Regards…

WOOF,

Luckily narrowcasting will take care of the problem.

WOOF,

Of course there is a free market ‘approach’ to the public airwaves.  Within a set of very broad guidelines a station is free to sell broadcast time and advertising in a free market sense.  As long as the station operates within the guidelines, the FCC could give a fuck less…

So, my question still stands.  Do you prefer the current approach or one where the FCC gets (back) into the business of defining what is ‘fair and balanced’?

Regards…

The airwaves are a public resource. Broadcasters HAD a responsibilty to serve the public. There is no free market.

Anyway, I’m not quite sure why you just can’t sell licenses to the highest bidder?

The real problem has been the concentration of media into a few hands,
(radio,TV, newspaper, movies)resulting in economies of scale, homogenization and narrowcasting of the programing that Americans are presented.
Monopoly of media threatens freedom.

The FCC seems concerned with boobs, they used to be concerned that opposing views were heard and that stations served their communities. We need some of that back.

Some sea change in communications may change everything, but you can bet Time Warner , Clear Channel etc will fight it tooth and nail or try to usurp it.

There are more sources, but the main ones are in fewer hands.
The public airways need to be responsible to the public.

WOOF,

There are more media sources today for your average person than has ever been the case of human history.  This is even more true for those of us who have competancy in more than one written language.

WOOF,

And just how do you define the word responsible?