Fairness doctrine hit from right and left

It's nice to know the Republicans won't be complaining about the "Liberal media" any longer. Right Bruce?

Oh, Tony boy, your Democratic Hugo Chavez wannabe members, are trying to shut up dissenting voices so the left wing mainstream media can have a monopoly again.

"What's wrong with Fairness"

Have you watched "Meet the Press" when both sides are sparring and it sounds like "Ebonics" or the "Hatfields and McCoy's."

So what's wrong with Fairness? Are we afraid that we might have to LISTEN to the QUESTION and possibly have a "DIALOGUE" that two humans can "COMPREHEND" and have
an open "DEBATE" together.

Without it we have nothing but IGNORANCE in SPEECH and a bunch of YADA YADA YADA YADA and no BING BADA BING.

"Fairness doctrine hit from right and left"

According to the story, the National Republican Senatorial Committee apparently represents the right and the Chicago Tribune represents the left.

Thanks for admitting this.

Johnny, how does equal time shut anybody up?

Why would this be needed? I'll admit to being a fairly liberal democrat, but I don't see the point of renewing the "fairness doctrine". Whatever so called "bias" the general media has to liberal causes has more than been made up for by the likes of Limbaugh, O'reilly and Coulter.

The problem is, that over the last decade or so, both parties have beocme increasingly ideological, instead of just political.

Everything has become so partisan. Neither group seems interested in finding common ground any issue.

This country was founded on being able to compromise, so that the values, needs, and general welfare of all the people could be respected and represented.

Our politicinas and pundits need to get back to this principle.

Typical lefty move...try to suppress free speech when you can't compete in the market place.
Airhead America has around 120 daily listeners.
Rush has over 20 Million...

Paulo

No one actually reads Clarence Page anyway, so his opinion weighs the same as a hamster.

Seriously, the best way to address media incompetence is to limit corporate control. The public airwaves below to us, the public. Limit the number of stations owned by one company to say, a maximum of 5, will help ensure local control.

Tony, boy, the aim of the Fairness Doctrine is take radio shows such as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. off the airwaves. You folks tried Air UnAmerica and it was a miserable failure.
I'll tell you what, Tony. If Limbaugh has to have Al Franken as a partner in his radio show, then I propose that one-half of the reporters and editors at all the newspapers must be conservative. Rather than left wing Matt Lauer adn Meredith Viera hosting Today, then Meredith must go and be replaced by Laura Ingraham. Katie Couric must hire Rush Limbaugh as her co-anchor (at least she'll go from dead last in the ratings to the top of the heap), all the network newscasts must have half their reporters conservaive, Keith Olberidiot must have Sean Hannity as his cohost, and so on. If that was to happen, then fine by me!

Paulo, can you spell DUH? We are all so very impressed that you cite Rush (big fat liar, criminal, drug addict, hypocrite, small-minded bigot, loud mouth leader of the Moron Party) Limbaugh as a source of support. Ditto is the lazy, thoughtless way of continuing. 20 million Ditto Heads, you among them apparently, not only CAN be wrong, but ARE wrong. 20 million Americans can't even find the city of Chicago or the state of Montana on a map. Does that make it right? I suppose for you it does.

The right has Rush, Hannity, and a handful of other radio outlets, and the Left would contend that Fox is a mere puppet which I don't buy - but for the sake of the argument I'll give Fox to the right. Then look at the left - almost every newspaper, almost every TV network, almost all college professors, Hollywood, TV producers, the entertainment industry, all of Europe. and on and on.
Yep That's what I call balance!!

It was a huge mistake when Reagan ended the fairness doctrine.

It simply allowed opposing views, not to news, but to opinions.

Now, why would the Hannity's, Rush's etc. of the world object to the FD? Because nothing they utter is 'news'. It's all political balderdash and would be subject to the Fairness Doctrine's provisions.

It's not even 'equal time' for the opposing viewpoint to be heard, just a chance to get the truth in.

BTW it's easy for Clarence Page and others that have opinion columns to think all the good ideas are being represented by the media. It's just not so.

Further, the time allowed would not be 'at the mercy' of a cur like Hannity. I have NEVER seen him conduct what he calls an interview without the following happening;

1. Assuming what the person is going to say without listening to them.
2. Interrupting the person.
3. Never letting the person complete a thought.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is an absolute joke and has no place in any country with a free press. I would hope that everyone who posts here should be able to agree that government has no place in telling private media what political content they should be allowing.

Aside from the obvious infringment on First Amendment rights, which by the way, are at their strongest against government interference with private political speech, there are practical problems. For example, who decides what is "fair"? What about other views that aren't in the mainstream of the two major parties? Do they get equal time? Do they get any time?

Herbie H.

The FD has nothing to do with newspapers, or cable for that matter.

It has to do with over the air broadcasts on the public airwaves. (as in 'owned by the public'.)

Also, there is no infringement of anyones free speech; just the opportunity for opposing views to be heard. (That's why so many powerful entities are against it.)

Also, nowhere does government tell anyone what to say re. political content. Never did.

Who decides what's fair? How did they do it before Reagan killed it? Usually a responsible group or individual would petition a station and gain access to a short rebuttal period. It's all easy to accomplish, unless you want it to fail, of course.

Are you saying we had no freedom of speech when the FD was in effect?

Everything you said is wrong.

[quote]
Typical lefty move...try to suppress free speech when you can't compete in the market place.

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | July 25, 2007 1:59 PM
[/quote]

Paulo, in your spare time, when you're not researching to find PROOF of your Obama "madrassa school" smear, post some proof that the Fairness Doctrine will suppress free speech.

C. Morris, I used the word “press” in the context of how it is written in the First Amendment, which has been interpreted to include air waves - that was the point. I didn’t mean it to imply that the doctrine applied to all types of media. My humble apologies for not making myself clear. In any event, I believe your distinction between air waves and other types of media is trivial, and in my view, completely misses the point.

I don't know how you can say there isn't infringement on free speech with this doctrine. To me, that is a disingenuous statement. The doctrine basically interferes with what a radio station can air when it comes to political content. You call it an "opportunity" for opposing viewpoints. I call it unnecessary and impermissible government interference. Your statement that “nowhere does government tell anyone what to say re. political content. Never did.”, misses the point again. The point is that the government’s snout does not belong anywhere near a private radio station, telling them they are not being politically “fair” in some abstract sense that will no doubt be defined by the one regulating.

As for your comments on what has happened in that past with this idiotic doctrine, it was a mistake then, and in no way explains or justifies making the same mistake again.

As for your enforcement idea, I have absolutely no quarrel with a "responsible group or individual would petition a station and gain access to a short rebuttal period". In fact, I would encourage that type of political discourse, and frankly, wouldn’t listen to a station that completely ignores opposing views. What I would disagree with is the government sticking it’s snout into the situation and making subjective determinations about what is “fair” and what needs to be done about it.

If the fairness doctrine is unacceptable, fine.

Then let's charge the for profit corporations that use the broadcast airwaves for their portion of the broadcast spectrum and for their licenses rather than having the government give them away for free. If the broadcasters are not providing a public service why should they receive the benefit of having a portion of the broadcast spectrum reserved for their use at the public expense?

The free market is always superior to top down government and political actions.

We are very pleased to announce the creation of The Free Market Hall of Fame where members of the Freedom Movement will have the opportunity to initially vote on individuals contributing most to the success and advancement of free markets and free people around the globe during 2007.

Nominations for the Free-Market Hall of Fame are open to the public and can be made by anyone by e-mailing ron@freedomfest.com Individuals can vote for or nominate individuals who they believe should be in the Free Market Hall of Fame. Write-ins are permitted.

The categories will include the following:

1. Academic economists
2. Journalists and writers
3. Business leaders
4. Legislators and government officials
5. Think tanks

A select group of economists and other free-market supporters will make the final decision and vote on upcoming Hall of Fame members.

For more information on the Free Market Hall of Fame go to http://www.freedomfest.com/hofhome.htm

“It’s time we honored all the great teachers, writers, business leaders, legislators, and think tanks that have advanced the cause of liberty," Mark Skousen

Ron Holland, Editor
FreedomFest News http://www.freedomfest.com/news.htm
Author of the online book: “The Swiss Preserve Solution”.

belong, not below. Duh. preview, preview, preview

Herbie says;

"As for your enforcement idea, I have absolutely no quarrel with a "responsible group or individual would petition a station and gain access to a short rebuttal period". In fact, I would encourage that type of political discourse, and frankly, wouldn’t listen to a station that completely ignores opposing views. "

H,
This is what is happening, opposing view ignored, or twisted, with no chance of redress. Hey, the left and right will be held to it.

Also, our gvmt. is an embodiment of the Constitution, thus has it's snout everywhere, like it or not.

For some reason, I felt more 'free' in the 60's and 70's than now, when the FD was in effect.

Tony hits the issue directly in his last post.

Hey Dems why don't you want free speech on AM radio your ACLU forces you to love it. Why not censor newspapers because they love you--the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times etc. Then there is ABC, CBS,NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and NPTV being paid by we the taxpayers at the tune of $400 million a year get the picture then you tried radio you failed because you sold sponsers instead of advertisers-- this opinion by leftist Dems is censorship of radio pure and simple but your icon Dickie Durbin will help you out. He has proposed a tax on TV revenunes from ads to pay for his Senate campaign and all Congress campaigns because he's worried about a boogey man with big bucks running against him in 08. Imagine Dickie could be defeated by a man or woman with big money. Hello Dickie it's freedom of speech he doesn't care if his tax on TV revenues passed then, the TV staitons would have to out source broadcasting to second world countries so you would get your nightly news in different dialects from off shore places you would no longer have home town news prepared in your hometown because every action has an equal and opposite reaction the TV stations would opt for countries outside the US to make this happen. Durbin is tax and spend period and he wants TV staions to pay for his future campaigns what a phoney. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Does this mean that a hip-hop station would have to play a ciountry song?

What if a station plays Neil Young's "Southern Man", does it mean it has to follow it up with Lynard Skynard's "Sweet Home Alabama"?

Where will it end? Who will be the judge?

Tony,

"Equal Time" as you call it, will take a soemone off the radio that has earned their place in the market and place someone else on the radio that the market does not want.

I know, you don't believe in the market.

Snlag,

Nice piece of illogic. Way to show off that public education.

Herbie - well stated.

CM,

With all the forms of media we have today, I don't think anyone's views are being suppressed.

C. Morris, our govt. was created and draws its power from the Constitution, but also its limitations. One of the most important limitations is freedom from govt. interference in private political debate. If you think the truth is being twisted by some talking head, your recourse is to change the station, or if you choose, to expose the person as the fraud you believe they are. I don't believe it needs to be, or should be in some abstract sense, the govt.'s responsibility to keep a level playing field in private political debate, especially when the subject of that debate is the govt. itself.

If Congress were to pass a federal statute implementing this doctrine, what would happen? Since it is federal law, it would be the executive, Bush, who would be responsible for enforcing/executing the law. Would you be comfortable with Bush appointing someone to a post to oversee and ensure that there is fairness on the radio waves? Would you be OK with that? I wouldn't be with any govt. official making subjective determinations of what is "fair" when it comes to political talk. In my humble opinion, it is up to each citizen to decide what is "fair" in the political spectrum, as opposed to the govt. deciding.

Tony's post hits nothing on the head, at least nothing relevant to whether the govt. should have any oversight of political speech on the radio. I could care less if private corporations are taxed, as long as it is not used as a backdoor tool to influence or oversee political speech.

One Loony Lefty asks, "who decides what we hear on the radio?" Here is a revelation for the Loony Lefty: we do!!! Rush Limbaugh has strong ratings, hence he is on the radio. Johnny B gets good ratings, hence he is on the radio. Eric and Kathy get good ratings, hence they are on the radio. Roe Conn gets good ratings, hence he is on the radio. Don and Roma get good ratings, hence they are on the radio.

Air UnAmerica, despite screwing over charities by pilfering money from them to stay afloat and getting millions from George Soros, did not get good ratings, hence they are in bankruptcy and falling apart.
That is how it works in the FREE market!

"Does this mean that a hip-hop station would have to play a country song?
What if a station plays Neil Young's "Southern Man", does it mean it has to follow it up with Lynard Skynard's "Sweet Home Alabama"?

Where will it end? Who will be the judge?"

Terry,
Did this ever happen when the FD was in effect? Of course not.

Herbie,

Where is this 'private' political debate?

All debate is public, that we hear. The 'public' component here are the 'public' airwaves which are supposed to be operated in the public interest.

You are arguing the position that more free speech is less free speech. All the FD ever did was make an opposing view available to the 'public' in a timely manner.

FYI, I have long supported the reinstitution of the FD, not just since Durban told me to.

Re Bush, I don't like the idea of him running anything, but we are stuck with him. I don't think we should stop trying to improve the republic just because the current occupant is a cur.

Gee, and Air Amerika, the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh, was so successful. All three of their listeners would miss them if the fairness doctrine were enacted.

CM,

It's called the fairness doctrine taken to an extreme conclusion.

Where will it end? Who will be the judge?

Herbie,

"In any event, I believe your distinction between air waves and other types of media is trivial, and in my view, completely misses the point."

Hardly. The PUBLIC airwaves (radio and television spectrum, as well as broadband) are owned by the people. This is materially different from a newspaper which prints the news without taking advantage of any government freebie. It used to be that the deal the networks got for receiving their spectrums for little or no charge was that they were providing a "public service" by covering the news and politics and therefore advancing the public debate. It is for this reason that the FCC is able to exercise leverage over the networks. Seems to me like a fair string to pull.

Now I largely agree that the free market should lead the way, however, the networks need to do something to justify the ridiculous handouts they are receiving in broadcast spectrum to at least in part serve the public good.

What Bushies like Bruce seem completely unable to comprehend is that Fox News and Rush & Co. are not simply the other side of the coin vis a vis the other broadcast networks. IF there is a liberal media bias, and in light of the unquestioned support that Mr. Bush received from the media for his war from the very beginning I find this proposition highly dubious, but just for the sake of argument, CNN, MSNBC, etc. don't go out every day to try to create an alternative media impression of every event the way Fox News does.

There may be subconscious bias in the media, for liberal social issues and conservative economic positions, but CNN and MSNBC aren't exactly the mouthpieces for the Democratic Party, as all will see when the Democrats complete their sweep in 2008. Fox News, Limbaugh, Savage etc, however, use the PUBLIC airwaves to create an alternative reality, where everything the GOP does is great and everything anyone else does is ghastly.

The megacorporations that have been given the public airwaves owe the people of this country something for our investment, and that should be at a minimum an attempt to balance the opinions even slightly. And that doesn't mean 4 large, athletic looking "conservative" men ganging up on 1 squirrely looking pencilneck "liberal," as we are all treated to on "Fox and Friends."

Terry,

"It's called the fairness doctrine taken to an extreme conclusion. Where will it end? Who will be the judge?"

C.Mo specifically addressed both of your questions before you even asked them in this thread. Are you simply being obtuse in re-asking them, or are you unable to comprehend the words put before you?

Lib Media,

You mean this:

"Usually a responsible group or individual would petition a station and gain access to a short rebuttal period. It's all easy to accomplish, unless you want it to fail, of course."

I believe talk radio, (let's not kid ourselves - this is what this is all about) especially Rush, Sean, and the other big names will put liberals at the front of the call waiting line. The libs get a chance to speak their views; however, unlike the what CM mentions, they also get their views challenged.

If that is what CM thinks, then on the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN news there s/b a five minute portion for the conservative view point.

"If that is what CM thinks, then on the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN news there s/b a five minute portion for the conservative view point.

Posted by: Terry | July 26, 2007 1:26 PM"

Isn't that the whole point? Of COURSE there should be a place for conservative viewpoints on network news! Honestly -- you guys p&m about how your point of view is being under-represented and then when there's a chance to rectify that, you STILL find a reason to be upset? What are you -- LIBERALS? I'd love to hear how presenting both sides fairly equates to silencing conservatives. Or do you figure that the conservative viewpoint is inherently unfair, so any fair representation would take away your right to speak entirely?

If that is what CM thinks, then on the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN news there s/b a five minute portion for the conservative view point.
Posted by: Terry | July 26, 2007 1:26 PM

Sorry, Terry, but this is where you and your myth of the "liberal media" ilk are too blinded by your own partisanship to see the forest for the trees. Journalists for CNN, MSNBC MAY (simply for the sake of argument) have a subtle bias in their personal views, again, toward social liberalism and economic conservativism, but they are not partisan ideological operations. EVERYTHING on Fox News is shown through the prism of what is good for the Republican Party. You simply cannot make the argument that what emanates from the other MSM is simply unchallenged Democratic talking points. That's simply a laugher.

Just remember, ALL the networks advised their reporters to not ask critical questions that would put America in an unfavorable light post-9/11. Why?? Because war is good for the media business too. If the media really were "liberal," don't you think that insane Iraq War concept would have been questioned ferociously, instead of having been given a total free pass.

Nonetheless, the only problem I have with your suggestion is that it presupposes that, as I already argued, Fox News is simply the flipside of the coin, when in fact it is a propaganda network that consistently gets facts wrong, and those misfacts ALWAYS damage Democrats and lionize Republicans. Just a few recent examples would be THRICE "accidentally" changing Mark Foley's (R) to a (D) and more recently changing Arlen Specter's (R) to a (D). I've never seen them mistake William Jefferson's (D) for an (R), have you?

In the end, If that's what it takes, allow for a 5 minute neo-conservative, conservative rebuttal on CNN, MSNBC and a liberal rebuttal on Fox News. I really don't see the harm in this. It might help Fox improve on its "fairness and balance."

Finally, the popularity of Fox News lays farce to the claim that what people actually want is "fair and balanced" news. If they did, the studiously moderate Jim Lehrer hour would be the top rated news show. Sadly, what most people want is a reenforcement of their views, which is why Fox News is king. On CNN, MSNBC, etc., you are not going to get the equal and opposite endless uncritical cheerleading that is a staple of Murdoch's propaganda network.

Anyone see the irony of a network that achieved its popularity by bringing to air the raciest and most salacious shows on network television, then parlayed that success into a top rated "News" network that decries all the things that the Fox Network stands for?

LM,

So Fox is the only network that shows news thru a "slanted prism". I agree, Fox is slanted to the right, but look at the Sunday news shows and how the decks are stacked to the libs. How the hosts have served under democratic politicians. The Washington media consistantly votes 80% for the dems - don't think that the slant doesn't come thru in their reporting

MSNBC - Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews. I know Scarbourgh in the middle.

If you think the "(R) and (D)", then what about the CNN "X" on Dick Cheney's face?

The reason Fox News is so popular is that they filled a void. The marketplace works, doesn't need the FD.

OP109,

Let the market decide. It's the reason Fox News and Talk Radio have become so popular is that they filled a vacuum.

Terry, John D, et al,

You are hopelessly lost in the 'left/right', liberal/conservative mind set.

On channel 5 in the 50's - 70's many opposing views were presented that had nothing to do with ideology.

For example;
1. The cross town expressway
2. How much water to draw from Lake Michigan

Local news used to present opinion pieces. Remember Len O'Conner? Then regular citizens would respond.

You are simply 'gaslighting' a good thing; free speech.

The fact is Hunnity, Cooter, The Hush, others, don't want to give anyone two uninterrupted minutes to refute their lies and innuendo.

CM,

If the FD isn't brought back, Channel Five isn't allowed to present the regular citizens opinion? If Channel 5 thought it was a good idea, they would do it - because the market would want it.

As much as you like to bash Fox, they do broadcast letters, many of them derogatory, from viewers on O' Reilley, Cavuto, and Gibson. I see this on CNN on some of their shows also, but I miss that on Keith Obermann's show (although I can't watch much of that without screaming at the TV because he is an idiot).

CM,

The Len O'Connor example is good. Where I differ is I don't see this as something that needs gov't intrusion thru the FD. If channel 5 want to have an editorial and a responses from JOe six-pack - so be it. Let them reap the rewards for that decision or pay the price.

As far as Rush, Hannity, etc... they put the differing opinions (the libs) to the front of the line. They want callers that will make them look good and debating the libs definitely does that. Once again, the market can decisde if they like Rush's show, Hannity's show or a show on Air America. If you don't like want you are hearing on WLS 890, go down the dial and turn on Air America.

Oh for the old days, when WLS was the greatest rock station in the Milkyway....

CM,

Along came disco and the Big 89 lost its listners who went to FM.

The talk format is great and has good personalites, probably a bit to the right for your taste. They do have Nate Clay on from 12:00 - 4:00 a.m. on Monday morning - you would like him.

Terry,

I remember driving home to the Chicago area late at night in the early 70's. We were able to pick up WLS in western Nebraska! Listened to it all the way in.

They had a 100,000 watt clear channel license in those days. Others reported hearing them even farther away.

See ya on the front page.