Fairness Doctrine (Merged)

[Shepherd 2]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

NO. Although being against fairness is like being against motherhood. I say lets have fairness as best broadcasters can do, and then let us decide and give feedback. The best way to make a point in business is to boycott the sponsors of regularly unfair reporting. Money does seem to speak loudest.

And NO to more bureaucracy out of Washington. More dollars spent, still nothing happens.

 

[smelter]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I was happy to read where 'The Radio Factor', hosted by Bill O'Reilly was dropped by a station in D.C. and replaced by a sports talk show. Its not much but its a start.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070501912.html

 

[jtilden21]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Okay, at the risk of hijacking the thread that I started here --

I started this thread with just a question, w/o offering my opinion to see where you gents stood on this issue.

Synopsis:

1) The majority feel that the FD has merit -- in theory. Though some feel that government involvement would be questionable.

2) Most feel that the news we get, be it from the big three networks, Fox, msnbc, cnn, etc., should be unbiased and should present both sides of all issues.

3) Many argue that talk radio has some issues to resolve.

My question to you all:

How do we resolve this?

My first thought was to ask that commercials be removed from newscasts to strip any bias or influence.

But, last I checked -- advertisers pay a pretty penny to be included in the nightly news.

Second, in this day and age, many of the younger generation do not get the news from the 6 o'clock news. They have the internet, text news, etc. to get their news. That would have to be monitored as well.

Third, who will be the judge of ensuring fair, two-sided coverage? We have already said, on this forum, that the govt should not be the deciding factor. It would have to be an entity outside commerical and/or political influence. That will be hard to find.

Just throwing it out there......

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Okay, at the risk of hijacking the thread that I started here --

I started this thread with just a question, w/o offering my opinion to see where you gents stood on this issue.

Synopsis:

1) The majority feel that the FD has merit -- in theory. Though some feel that government involvement would be questionable.

2) Most feel that the news we get, be it from the big three networks, Fox, msnbc, cnn, etc., should be unbiased and should present both sides of all issues.

3) Many argue that talk radio has some issues to resolve.

Up to this point you've killed your own thread.

My question to you all:

How do we resolve this?

My first thought was to ask that commercials be removed from newscasts to strip any bias or influence.

But, last I checked -- advertisers pay a pretty penny to be included in the nightly news.

Second, in this day and age, many of the younger generation do not get the news from the 6 o'clock news. They have the internet, text news, etc. to get their news. That would have to be monitored as well.

Third, who will be the judge of ensuring fair, two-sided coverage? We have already said, on this forum, that the govt should not be the deciding factor. It would have to be an entity outside commerical and/or political influence. That will be hard to find.

Just throwing it out there......

Well, I honestly don't feel that the Advertisers or those who provide the money by supporting our "buying time" in certain news slots are the problem here. I don't see how the Fairness Doctrine would change the way that Advertisers do business. They're free to pay the market price for time within any given time slot.

As to your second point, I think that if many people truly understand what the Fairness Doctrine is that it would give the major networks a boost in credibility, because they're compelled to present both sides of a story.

The "If it bleeds in Leads" mentality in the news isn't necessarily news. Leading with the most sensationalized story of the day because everyone else is doing it is group think. Not a service to the American Public IMO.

There's nothing "objective" in the news when Paris Hilton leads the evening broadcast when a dozen or so of our Soldiers were killed in Iraq that day. Info-tainment isn't news.

I believe that America has been "dumbed-down" by our Media by giving the American public what they want instead of what they need, in order to stay competitive in the "market" that has become Broadcast News.

To your third point, when the Fairness Doctrine worked, networks didn't just report one side of a story. Many of the news outlets felt compelled to find other views. There were many more investigative journalists working in the medium then than there are now. Now they have what they call in the U.K. "news readers." With the news being fed to them through teleprompters put together from various other sources.

When ABC, CBS, and NBC were forced to compete with the likes of FOX NEWS they had to cut corners, and since those at FOX NEWS were no longer under any journalistic integrity they could hire "air-heads" and "pretty faces" to "read the news" that the likes of Rupert Murdoch felt were important.

It's my position that a return of the Fairness Doctrine would restore the integrity of how American's get their news, and the other's will be forced to compete or be relegated to the fringes of reliable news sources.

Imagine a story from Iraq that only reports the bad news coming from that region (which is all that we're getting now), but this time with equal coverage of some of the good that our military is accomplishing there; rebuilding schools and hospitals, securing areas of the country that are no longer in complete chaos, etc.

We're not seeing that because there's nothing sensational about it. "If it bleeds it leads."

If those stories truly don't exist, then the public needs to be aware of that as well. I believe that the Fairness Doctrine would help to eliminate any propoganda that we be watching and seeing everyday on our "nightly news," and it would force the 100% right, and the 100% left to devote some of their time to covering more "centered" issues.

Your thoughts?

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I agree with that focus of the FD but I think it should somehow be applied to internet sources. Maybe side by side views or a counter point at the end of an article. What needs to be controlled are the yellow journalistic articles that present positively skewed views. But as soon as you mention laws and the nets then the ACLU and the freedom police freak out. There has to be some osrt of compromise.

 

[Andreus]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

ehhh

i did a breif stint with the AP and i can tell you....

news is a big industry that will not tolerate government meddling and its got clear constitutional rights to keep regulators at bay. They will always follow the money and they will always have a solid legal foundation to do as they see fit.

it really isnt any more complex than that....

i would love to put my uber liberal democrat hat back on right now and say that it isnt this way but the truth is there are HUGE VAST summs of money at stake and it all rides on giving the american public what it wants....

when the public was paranoid shortly after 9-11 they played to it and much of the truth of the bush admins lies went unreported even though they knew it was happening.

Now the ticket of the day is global warming, paris hilton and rage against the president due to war weariness

in the end the market will feed the market

ive stood back and watched this arguement unfold and it hasnt interested me because i know it JUST DOESNT matter.

I wish it did, but this is a free market issue and news is a huge product that is governed by the realities of the marketplace, not ethics or government regulations.

Wills is feeding his market with this article as well.... so from the very beginning this thread had a fatal flaw

it assumed that ethics mattered and that something could be done if they did.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Very assuredly cynical.

I was speaking in terms of "what if" land which is what the idea of the FD being reincarnated. Truly not reality.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

The businesses that will have to air unpopular content such as that which was carried on Air America would only naturally argue that they shouldnt have to include that content. They want to make money not have dead air time mandated

 

[texpatriot]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

One would think that a lot of the provisions originally contained within the Fairness Doctrine were ethical common sense.

I understand and respect some of the rational arguments against the FD:

In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply in the face of expanding communications technologies and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). The court's majority decision by William J. Brennan noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech" and said the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

However, that ruling was made more than 20 years ago, and IMO there's no longer a defining pinnacle or principle to any kind of news, short of "money talks and everything else walks."

I think that the pendulim has swung too far into the "other" direction now.

The ethical and common sense approach, to me at least, was abondoned in the year 2000:

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

I recently blasted the shit out of a local elected public official on a matter regarding an ongoing lawsuit. The local paper had the facts of the matter, but couldn't report it because of the ongoing litigation. They felt that my letter to the editor would help them to break the case, and to make the litigation public, but first wanted to allow the elected official to comment.

I agreed to let the paper share my letter of the editor with the elected official, so long as my letter was printed in its entirety, and they got to break the story.

Primarily, because if someone was going to accuse me of the sort of stuff that I could prove, I would want to be able to respond.

Technically, as the Fairness Doctrine stands now, they really didn't have to do any of that.

source: Fairness Doctrine | Wikipedia

I just have a problem that our Media, the same Corporations that utilize public air-waves, are no longer being held accountable by anyone other than "the market" for how we get our news, and what's reported.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

In the 'Buchanan is right thread' I noticed TT brought up MSNBC and different views so it reminded me that I was surprised at CNN Headline news tonight. Usually I listen to headline, CNN, FOX or Bloomberg in the morning depending on who is talking about the news and not doing some human interest variety show bullshit. ANyways, I usually rock out on the way home but today I was deep in thought as I left and drove home. I didnt change the station from this morning. SO I got a dose of Headline News at night. I have never listened in the evening so I have never really heard Glenn Beck. Glen Beck is opposite of AC 360 or Wolf Blister on their flagship station. (depending on the air time right?)

In any event, Has anyone noticed? Beck is decidedly conservative and pro-war. I suppose CNN wants to present the best bit for both sides. I read a bit more about Beck after hearing him tonight.

I put it here because I wonder if CNN isnt getting out ahead of this issue to prove it is necessary. It is obvously trying to be 'Fair and Balanced' but I am sure that phrase is 'fairly dead'.

You know, I also wonder why Murdoch would allow such contraversial issues on Gay Marriage and homosexuality and pedophilia and on and on, when they broadcast things on their Fox entertainment channels. That channel arguably influences more people as indicated by the Comedy Channels 'comic' selection as news of choice for younger folks during the last election. SO why would he have one earth shattering agenda on FNC but be comepletely opposite on the entertainment channel? Hedging his bets both ways?

Just thoughts

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Another strange thought is if Republicans would offer this legislation up as the "Fair and Balanced Act of 2007" then it would crash and burn simply due to brand villification. Then they could kill the issue. LOL

 

[letme]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Well this is a new view that I haven't heard !
And some really funny digs on Algore .

Politics: Was what Al Gore called "the largest global entertainment event in all of human history" also the largest in-kind political contribution? And where's the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?
Considering that here in the U.S. the Peacock Network's three-hour Gore infomercial on global warming lost out in the ratings to "Cops" and "America's Funniest Home Videos," Gore's claim may be open to question. Live Earth, in fact, may have been America's funniest home video. Ever.
But thanks in large part to the 75 hours of free airtime that NBC gave Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance channel, Universal HD and Telemundo, Gore may now be the 800-pound gorilla this political season.
Gore insists he's not running for president. Yet, as we have wondered before, why would a man who insists that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind, bigger than nuclear terror, not want control of the reins of a major world polluter and chief resister to Kyoto?
Dan Harrison, an NBC corporate senior vice president, called the Gore effort "an initiative we believe in" -- the "we" presumably including corporate parent General Electric. (NYSE:GE) Yet he insisted: "I don't think climate change is a political issue."
From the other side of his mouth, Harrison opined: "If it's a political issue, it's whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness."
So he considers it NBC's mission to generate that political will in an election cycle in support of a man who once ran for president.
NBC and GE have other interests in hyping climate change. Let's not forget GE is the parent of NBC and stands to make a wad of cash from selling alternative energy products from wind turbines to solar panels to those compact fluorescent bulbs containing mercury.
So when Gore prances on stage to demand we stop building coal-fired plants, that's music to GE's corporate ears.
NBC's Ann Curry certainly thinks global warming is a political issue. During prime-time coverage, she almost got down on her knees to beg the jolly green giant to run for the White House.
Interviewing Gore from the site of the concert in New Jersey, Curry gushed:
"A lot of people want me to ask you tonight if you're running for president. And I know what you're answer is gonna be, believe me. I gotta ask you though. After fueling this grass-roots movement, if you become convinced that without you there will not be the political will in the White House to fight global warming to the level that is required, because the clock is ticking, would you answer the call? Would you answer the call, yes or no?"
Certainly Gore thinks global warming is a political issue, appearing earlier this year before Democrat-controlled House and Senate committees pleading for action. During his opening statement before the House, he famously said: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."
After Gore's testimony, a better course of action would have been to ask for a second opinion.
When a conservative appears on talk radio, liberals cry for the Fairness Doctrine. Seventy-five free hours for Archbishop Gore's Church of Climate Change? Not a peep.

Ann Curry !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Gore would be gored at the polls. (sorry couldnt help)

I love curry.

random thoughts

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I agree with most of that..I listen to a LOT of radio as I drive all day..

I couldn't possibly stomach more than a few minutes of one of the right wing pigs before I start hurling on my dashboard..

I don't understand the reluctance of the right wing hacks to "let the market decide".They never had a problem letting their greed dictate policy before..

Right wing hosts make up 91% of political talk formats, and in many cities there is No other point of view offered as an alternative to the republican spin and and deceit spewed over the airwaves..

In other cities right wingers and Christian militia types have bought stations that
briefly provided listeners a dissenting point of view from the lies and sordid agenda of America hating republican loyalists.

Now that the tide has finally begun to turn,they are afraid that the true scope of their crimes against the world and the American people might be made available to a wider and willing audience..

It seems like it is THEY who wish to silence opposing viewpoints..

Kenny, I believe you're right.

Mark my words, the instant that anyone in Congress submits any peice of legislation related to codifying the Fairness Doctrine, we're going to get a shit storm of lies, half-truths, and distortions on this topic from those on the right.

I'll bet the first round of drinks on it!

 

[Jory]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Just think about one thing for those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to shut down right wing talk radio. You will also be shuting down Air America at the same time.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

Just think about one thing for those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to shut down right wing talk radio. You will also be shuting down Air America at the same time.

You mean they're actually still on the air?

One small voice in the cacophony of discourse in this country.

The Fairness Doctrine would level the playing field, and restore the national debate of the issues back toward the center. IMHO.

</IMG>

 

[chance1]

Democrats block amendment to prevent Fairness Doctrine

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER,
AP
Posted: 2007-07-13 18:43:43
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues.

Although no legislation has been offered to bring back the regulation, which was scrapped in 1987, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and other Republicans have been mounting a pre-emptive attack in recent weeks. They argue that a return to the old rule would give the government too much power in regulating content. The House recently passed an amendment banning the rule's return.

When Coleman, R-Minn., tried to bring up his amendment Friday to a defense authorization bill, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, objected. Levin's office said he objected because the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, and because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq.

The subtext of the debate over the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio's perceived dominance by conservative voices.

In a telephone interview, Coleman said his motivation was to preserve the First Amendment. But he added: "I do have a strong objection to folks wanting to cut off talk radio because it's conservative. Let the people be able to make the choice."

Thune agreed.

"Having the bureaucrats dictate the content of the airwaves isn't much different from what we are seeing in places like Iran and Russia where they are rolling back freedom of the press," he said.

Republicans have seized on a comment made last month by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said "it's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine." Durbin's spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, said that Durbin was expressing support for the concept but has no plans to introduce legislation.

"There is no big conspiracy here, there's no secret plan, there's no nothing," he said.

Durbin and Coleman briefly debated the idea on the Senate floor Friday, with Durbin asking Coleman if he believed it serves the interests of an educated electorate if people could hear both sides of the story.

"Absolutely," Coleman responded. "But I believe - strongly believe - that the government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating, 'now here is the other side."' He said with the proliferation of communication options such as the Internet, Americans have plenty of opportunity to get the other side.

"The airwaves belong to the American people," Durbin said. "Those who profit from them do by permission of the people through their government." He said that broadcasters should provide both points of view on an issue.

Ed Schultz, a North Dakota-based liberal-leaning talk show host who has more than 3 million listeners on more than 100 stations, also said the airwaves belong to the public.

He said the Republicans' efforts are overreactions, and said he is traveling to Washington next week to talk to talk to Democrats about the issue.

"The issue is liberal talkers haven't even been given a market opportunity in many markets across the country," he said.

He is frustrated because his show is not airing in such major markets as Boston and Philadelphia, where he says certain companies are keeping progressive shows out.

"I'm just open to hearing these conservative companies explain their thought process," he said.

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday referred to comments made by its chairman, Kevin Martin, in an interview this year with Broadcasting & Cable. Asked if he'd support bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, Martin responded, "No. The commission eliminated the doctrine in 1987. Doing so has made for a lot of opportunities in things like talk radio."

Coleman said in the telephone interview that he also has concerns when the FCC tries to regulate content for sex and violence.

"There are limitations on what the FCC should do," he said. "We need to tread very carefully when regulating content ... The best tool is a good family."



Old story I guess - unbelievable to me really

Govt in the business of regulating ideas???

And who is for the Fairness Doctrine?

Liberal Dems - that's who

how ironic

the monitoring of ideas to determine what can stay what can go

so Sen

Dick Durbin - govt has responsibility to make sure that americans get fair and balanced info

why do people listen to conservative radio? cause they want to - no one is forcing them to do so - no one is forcing advertisers to support it - they support it because it is popular and does ratings

liberal radio should flourish no? so many liberals in america? why is it that liberal radio has not succeeded? is this a liberal radio subsidy concept?

what is the possible rationale for doing this?

pretty obvious

pretty nutty