How about a more fair version of the "Fairness Doctrine"? (take 2)

[Little-Acorn]

Since the other thread on this subject has been hijacked by mfm and will probably be locked soon, I'll take the liberty of opening a similar one here. Mods, can mfm be banned from this thread so that it doesn't suffer a similar fate?

----------------------------------------------------

Some liberal congressman in New Mexico has suggested that we pass the "Fairness Doctrine", a proposed law that requires that conservative and liberal viewpoints be given equal time on the airwaves. But it apparently applies only to talk radio.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78833

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with the "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it earned its name by being evenly applied.

For every negative report on McCain/Palin on network TV, there has to be one of equal length, showing them positively. For every reference to "tax cuts for the rich", there has to be something pointing out that either (a) the not-so-rich are getting tax cuts too, or (b) the "rich" are the ones hiring people and paying them, and that historically such tax cuts have resulted in rising prosperity for ALL income groups. For every reference to the Keating Five (in which John McCain was completely exonerated), there has to be a report of what Barack Obama did or didn't do with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and/or ACORN.

For every report detailing how many American soldiers get killed or wounded in Iraq, there must be a report detailing how much territory has been regained from the terrorists, how many terrorists killed or wounded... and how many schools have been reopened, hospitals rebuilt, stores restarted, roads and bridges rebuilt, and how many neighborhoods now have electricity and water who didn't have them at this time last year, restored for the Iraqi people by those same American soldiers.

For every newspaper story "investigating" Sarah Palin for having a trooper fired who had abused his authority as a cop, abused his wife etc., there has to be one "investigating" how she ran a state government with 29,000 employees, and gave rebate checks to every citizen of her state while still running balanced budgets. And reports giving details on how she took on and defeated the big oil interests in her state, introduced competition in the oil industry where it didn't exist before, rooted out corruption in both political parties, etc.

For every movie depicting corporations a big, impersonal, and evil, there has to be one showing Ford or General Electric or Wal-Mart or Microsoft moving into a neighborhood, opening a big facility, giving jobs to a thousand people, the prosperity of neighborhoods rising, Johnny picking up his prom date in his new car which he couldn't have afforded back when the new plant wasn't there, etc.... something that happens far more often than corporations polluting a stream or blacklisting a whistleblower.

Sure, the "Fairness Doctrine" sounds fine to me... as long as it's truly fair, and in all media. As soon as the liberals start signing onto such a REAL "Fairness Doctrine", they'll get my full support. Should happen any day now, right?

Actually, such a "Doctrine" could have beneficial effects on a lot of TV stations, newpapers, etc. in the country. Especially those that have been experiencing long slides, with their readership/viewership going down and down, having to cut their staffs and lay off entire offices full of people, etc., as ABC, CBS, the NY Times, LA Times etc. have been doing for years now.

Showing actual "fair" respresentations of news as described above, could do a lot toward reversing these stations' deterioration and failures, as it has done for Fox News - the only major station to publish both sides without being forced to by government.

The huge number of slowly-failing liberal outlets around the country, should support an EVENLY applied "Fairness Doctrine"... if only for their own self-preservation.

------------------------------

P.S. On second thought, I don't think I want the government intruding on the publishing and broadcasting industries, making decisions on who will say what, and backing its agenda up with force. So, I've changed my mind. As a conservative, I'll have to oppose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", no matter what form it takes.

[manu1959]

fairness doctrine = government run media


bad idea....

[Yurt]

------------------------------

P.S. On second thought, I don't think I want the government intruding on the publishing and broadcasting industries, making decisions on who will say what, and backing its agenda up with force. So, I've changed my mind. As a conservative, I'll have to oppose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", no matter what form it takes.

that i agree with, however, at times you need to fight fire with fire. we push back with our own fairness agenda and see how they like it...hunch is they will immediately tuck tail between legs and run like the wind

[retiredman]

I think you all would do much better if all opposing viewpoints were banned and you could write post after post congratulating yourselves on your brilliantly constructed verbal decimation of the fairness doctrine and all things liberal.

I'll let you get back to it.:laugh2:

[No1tovote4]

I think you all would do much better if all opposing viewpoints were banned and you could write post after post congratulating yourselves on your brilliantly constructed verbal decimation of the fairness doctrine and all things liberal.

I'll let you get back to it.:laugh2:
The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't liberal. It is an authoritarian attempt to quiet one side of a political argument that is under-represented in the mainstream reporting.

[manu1959]

The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't liberal. It is an authoritarian attempt to quiet one side of a political argument that is under-represented in the mainstream reporting.

be gentle....his self proclaimed three digit IQ has a little dot between the first two numbers.....

[gabosaurus]

So you want total fairness in the media, except for talk radio? That makes sense. For you, anyway.

[Yurt]

So you want total fairness in the media, except for talk radio? That makes sense. For you, anyway.

no one said that...maybe you are confusing media that claims to be unbiased when in fact it is not...talk radio makes no such claim

[retiredman]

no one said that...maybe you are confusing media that claims to be unbiased when in fact it is not...talk radio makes no such claim

so...why should the PUBLIC allow a form of communication which is, admittedly biased to control the content of PUBLIC airwaves?

[Yurt]

so...why should the PUBLIC allow a form of communication which is, admittedly biased to control the content of PUBLIC airwaves?

they do not control all the content of the public airwaves, they control only a fraction of the available channels that are available on those airwaves because they purchased a license to do so...further, they legally contracted purchase said license...you also are wholly ignorant when it comes to understanding what exactly it is meant by public airwaves and the FCC's role

i believe it is not about "ownership", it is about regulating a limited supply of this "resource". i am not at all shocked that you realize the FCC and the government have only a limited role in overseeing what content the stations play on their licensed channel. anything more is a violation of the 1st amendment, being a liberal, i can understand why you don't get this.

[retiredman]

i believe it is not about "ownership", it is about regulating a limited supply of this "resource". i am not at all shocked that you realize the FCC and the government have only a limited role in overseeing what content the stations play on their licensed channel. anything more is a violation of the 1st amendment, being a liberal, i can understand why you don't get this.

the FCC and the government has a role in overseeing the content. I am glad that you admit that. Ergo, their role can be expanded or contracted by the political process. That's politics. Get used to it.

[Yurt]

the FCC and the government has a role in overseeing the content. I am glad that you admit that. Ergo, their role can be expanded or contracted by the political process. That's politics. Get used to it.

you're obtuse

you of coruse ignore the owning part, because you know you wrong, skip over that and EXPAND the idea of the government's role...when the courts and the government clearly state that the role is LIMITED because of the first amendment and that such limitation is usually involves words like f*ck and sexually explicit material, NOT political speech

you should really get some education about this subject as it is clear you have not a clue. appears LA was right, you do not belong in thsi thread

[retiredman]

my answer in #11 stands...and luckily, little acorn and little yurtie do not get to decide who posts in threads. sorry "counselor".

[Yurt]

thanks for proving my point. you don't want to discuss the issues, you want to give an opinion and when shown you are wrong, you just say, thats my opinion, thats it, i'm done

the courts and the government say you are wrong mfm, why is it you believe you are right? did god tell you so

[retiredman]

thanks for proving my point. you don't want to discuss the issues, you want to give an opinion and when shown you are wrong, you just say, thats my opinion, thats it, i'm done

the courts and the government say you are wrong mfm, why is it you believe you are right? did god tell you so

I don't think that the courts have ruled on any new version of the fairness doctrince because it is not written yet.

Why not keep God out of our discussions, ok, "counselor"?

[Kathianne]

So you want total fairness in the media, except for talk radio? That makes sense. For you, anyway.

How about if one media is 'controlled' all should be? Tell you what, let's just say television & radio.

[Gaffer]

How about if one media is 'controlled' all should be? Tell you what, let's just say television & radio.

I'm all for TV shows having to give equal time to both sides. Not just news but regular programing as well. Say sitcoms that show conservatives in a positive light. They might actually be able to come up with something new instead of rehashing the same old story lines.

[retiredman]

I'm all for TV shows having to give equal time to both sides. Not just news but regular programing as well. Say sitcoms that show conservatives in a positive light. They might actually be able to come up with something new instead of rehashing the same old story lines.

I agree wholeheartedly

[Kathianne]

Perhaps we can just program television/radio by committee? I mean who would want something silly like total numbers watching/listening, that determine ad revenue? It's the 'public's airwaves', why should they be able to watch/listen to what they choose? :uhoh:

[Immanuel]

Perhaps we can just program television/radio by committee? I mean who would want something silly like total numbers watching/listening, that determine ad revenue? It's the 'public's airwaves', why should they be able to watch/listen to what they choose? :uhoh:

I think what they want is a 24/7 Obama channel (on all channels) teaching us to march in step with where America is going. Got to be good little Obamites.

Immie

[retiredman]

I think what they want is a 24/7 Obama channel (on all channels) teaching us to march in step with where America is going. Got to be good little Obamites.

Immie

blah blah blah... no one wants such a thing...saying so is merely flatulent - and well worn - rhetoric. ho ---- fucking ---- hum

[Yurt]

I don't think that the courts have ruled on any new version of the fairness doctrince because it is not written yet.

Why not keep God out of our discussions, ok, "counselor"?

try giving an answer big boy

i think the fairness doctrine is wrong because we should not give equal time to your side.

i have said such a few times, but you dance around it....

trust me, as we go out now and dance, you won't even be the dirt on our feet....but enjoy your night

preacher

[retiredman]

try giving an answer big boy

i think the fairness doctrine is wrong because we should not give equal time to your side.

i have said such a few times, but you dance around it....

trust me, as we go out now and dance, you won't even be the dirt on our feet....but enjoy your night

preacher
and I think that both sides should be equally represented on airwaves owned by the public.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, "counselor".


Or, I suppose, you could sue me, as I am sure you are skilled at doing. GO on... give it a shot, "counselor".

[Yurt]

and I think that both sides should be equally represented on airwaves owned by the public.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, "counselor".


Or, I suppose, you could sue me, as I am sure you are skilled at doing. GO on... give it a shot, "counselor".

sans your typical insults...


you are wrong, the fairness doctrine is not about equal time...not about both sides being represented equally on the airwaves owned by the public.

i instructed you to learn about this subject a post or so above, you should have listened to me.

[retiredman]

sans your typical insults...


you are wrong, the fairness doctrine is not about equal time...not about both sides being represented equally on the airwaves owned by the public.
i instructed you to learn about this subject a post or so above, you should have listened to me.

:link:

[Immanuel]

and I think that both sides should be equally represented on airwaves owned by the public.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, "counselor".


Or, I suppose, you could sue me, as I am sure you are skilled at doing. GO on... give it a shot, "counselor".

It seems to me that your idea of "equally represented" is to have the conservative voice relegated to fine print and your voice shouted from the rooftops.

Immie

[Kathianne]

It seems to me that your idea of "equally represented" is to have the conservative voice relegated to fine print and your voice shouted from the rooftops.

Immie

Perhaps, though I really think he would fine any print too large. He just doesn't want the label of fascist attached to the 'coming change of order.'

[retiredman]

It seems to me that your idea of "equally represented" is to have the conservative voice relegated to fine print and your voice shouted from the rooftops.

Immie


that is just bloviating...I have never said anything of the sort.

[Yurt]

:link:

that you don't know this is not surprising, i have previously instructed you on this matter in another thread ...i thought maybe you would have learned.

i shall provide you again with a link because i am not like you:

this is just a quick wiki link, i am sure your internet prowess could find more if you don't like wiki



The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

[retiredman]

that you don't know this is not surprising, i have previously instructed you on this matter in another thread ...i thought maybe you would have learned.

i shall provide you again with a link because i am not like you:

this is just a quick wiki link, i am sure your internet prowess could find more if you don't like wiki


that is the old fairness doctrine. We'll have to wait and see what the new one looks like, won't we?

[Yurt]

that is the old fairness doctrine. We'll have to wait and see what the new one looks like, won't we?

are you actually claiming you did not say that the current fairness doctrine was about equality and that you did not ask for a link to the current fairness doctrine? are you actually suggesting you wanted me to link to the "new" fairness doctrine?

[Immanuel]

that is just bloviating...I have never said anything of the sort.

Really? You defend this piece of crap legislation which has the sole purpose of wiping out the voice of conservative radio. You are hiding behind your words, which mean absolutely nothing while defending the suppression of free speech, while you know exactly what is going on.

That's like James Dobson saying he supports the ban on Partial Birth Abortion but he doesn't believe it will have an affect on abortion.

Immie

[retiredman]

Really? You defend this piece of crap legislation which has the sole purpose of wiping out the voice of conservative radio. You are hiding behind your words, which mean absolutely nothing while defending the suppression of free speech, while you know exactly what is going on.

That's like James Dobson saying he supports the ban on Partial Birth Abortion but he doesn't believe it will have an affect on abortion.

Immie

How can you know what the new fairness doctrine will look like when it hasn't even been written yet? If it passes constitutional muster through the courts, what is your problem with it?

[Yurt]

are you actually claiming you did not say that the current fairness doctrine was about equality and that you did not ask for a link to the current fairness doctrine? are you actually suggesting you wanted me to link to the "new" fairness doctrine?

no surprise mfm skips this post

[retiredman]

no surprise mfm missed that post... as in every thread, it is liberals 5, conservatives 200... I admit I have a tough time keeping up... and I will also admit that your posts are ones that I frequently pass by simply because they are usually either ad hominen attacks or legalistic gothca posts....."counselor".

[Yurt]

yet he manages to post an entire post filled with nothing but insults...as if my post was not directly above the one you answered

LA: you are right, mfm seeks only to drag the conversation down. he can't even answer a simple post, rather, he resorts to insults.

[Immanuel]

How can you know what the new fairness doctrine will look like when it hasn't even been written yet? If it passes constitutional muster through the courts, what is your problem with it?

Look at what your buddies are asking for. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

What if it passes constitutional muster? Roe v. Wade passed constitutional muster and that is the biggest disgrace in American jurisprudence history. To date, the Patriot Act has passed constitutional muster and it is the second biggest disgrace in American jurisprudence history.

What is my problem? I'm surprised you have to ask. I have always been opposed to the suppression of free speech. I thought you had as well, although, now it has become obvious that in that case I was wrong.

Immie

[retiredman]

Look at what your buddies are asking for. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

What if it passes constitutional muster? Roe v. Wade passed constitutional muster and that is the biggest disgrace in American jurisprudence history. To date, the Patriot Act has passed constitutional muster and it is the second biggest disgrace in American jurisprudence history.

What is my problem? I'm surprised you have to ask. I have always been opposed to the suppression of free speech. I thought you had as well, although, now it has become obvious that in that case I was wrong.

Immie

I have never supported the supression of free speech.

[Immanuel]

I have never supported the supression of free speech.

You have in every single thread dealing with the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Immie

[retiredman]

You have in every single thread dealing with the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Immie

not so. I do not happen to believe that the fairness doctrine suppresses free speech.

[Immanuel]

not so. I do not happen to believe that the fairness doctrine suppresses free speech.

Sure it doesn't and Roe v. Wade doesn't encourage abortions.

The Fairness Doctrine's express intent is to stymie conservative talk radio. Now, you may not consider that suppression of free speech but the rest of the country does excluding devout Democrats that is.

Immie

[retiredman]

Sure it doesn't and Roe v. Wade doesn't encourage abortions.

Immie

Roe v Wade allows a woman to make a personal choice about what is happening inside her body. Even though I do not agree with that choice, I support giving it to women to make as they see fit.

[Immanuel]

not so. I do not happen to believe that the fairness doctrine suppresses free speech.

I can just see you after the "Fairness" Doctrine is passed and conservative radio begins to be forced off the air. Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't see you standing up and saying, "whoa there, that is not what you guys said it was going to do." You'll be jumping for joy and showing Rush Limbaugh the nearest unemployment line.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Roe v Wade allows a woman to make a personal choice about what is happening inside her body. Even though I do not agree with that choice, I support giving it to women to make as they see fit.

Roe v. Wade encourages abortions nation wide.

It IS the biggest disgrace in American jurisprudence history.

Immie

[retiredman]

I can just see you after the "Fairness" Doctrine is passed and conservative radio begins to be forced off the air. Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't see you standing up and saying, "whoa there, that is not what you guys said it was going to do." You'll be jumping for joy and showing Rush Limbaugh the nearest unemployment line.

Immie

I could care less what you see me standing up and saying. you have revealed yourself as a partisan hack right along side your pals RSR and yurt.

I told you what I believed. If you don't believe it, I won't lose a bit of sleep, I promise.

[avatar4321]

How can you know what the new fairness doctrine will look like when it hasn't even been written yet? If it passes constitutional muster through the courts, what is your problem with it?

What is so damn difficult for you to understand about the First amendment?

[Immanuel]

I could care less what you see me standing up and saying. you have revealed yourself as a partisan hack right along side your pals RSR and yurt.

I told you what I believed. If you don't believe it, I won't lose a bit of sleep, I promise.

Listen jackass... if anyone is a partisan hack it is you. Go shove your head up your own ass a bit farther.

Immie

[retiredman]

What is so damn difficult for you to understand about the First amendment?

if the new congress passes a fairness doctrine that does not pass constitutional muster with the supreme court, that will be fine with me.

[Immanuel]

And keep your damned hands off the First Amendment.

Immie

[retiredman]

Listen jackass... if anyone is a partisan hack it is you. Go shove your head up your own ass a bit farther.

Immie

my point proven.

thanks.

[Immanuel]

if the new congress passes a fairness doctrine that does not pass constitutional muster with the supreme court, that will be fine with me.

Whatever it takes to suppress free speech. You don't give a darned as long as it is not your speech that is suppressed.

Imme

[Immanuel]

my point proven.

thanks.

And which point would that be hack?

Immie

[Immanuel]

I could care less what you see me standing up and saying. you have revealed yourself as a partisan hack right along side your pals RSR and yurt.

I told you what I believed. If you don't believe it, I won't lose a bit of sleep, I promise.

Why should I believe a damned thing you say anyway?

You have proven yourself to be a liar, time and time again. I don't even believe you preach let alone attend church. You lie consistently about your apologies. You are rude and you sure as hell do not display the attitude of a preacher.

You're a liar.

Immie

[Kathianne]

Whatever it takes to suppress free speech. You don't give a darned as long as it is not your speech that is suppressed.

Imme

Agreed, he doesn't. At the same time ignores what may happen down the road to 'progressives' rights' if the tides turn. Reminds me of McCain and 'campaign finance reform.' Unintended consequences.

[Immanuel]

Agreed, he doesn't. At the same time ignores what may happen down the road to 'progressives' rights' if the tides turn. Reminds me of McCain and 'campaign finance reform.' Unintended consequences.

You have a point. From the time the Republicans began pushing the Patriot Act, I said that I feared what the act may do down the road. It wasn't that I was concerned about the Bush Administration, although obviously, I should have been. To me it was more about what a future administration could do.

MFM is more than willing to hide behind his lies that his gods are not trying to suppress free speech, when it doesn't matter what their goals are. The Patriot Act opened the door for the removal of our civil rights and Obama and company are gladly following in its footsteps.

Immie

[Kathianne]

You have a point. From the time the Republicans began pushing the Patriot Act, I said that I feared what the act may do down the road. It wasn't that I was concerned about the Bush Administration, although obviously, I should have been. To me it was more about what a future administration could do.

MFM is more than willing to hide behind his lies that his gods are not trying to suppress free speech, when it doesn't matter what their goals are. The Patriot Act opened the door for the removal of our civil rights and Obama and company are gladly following in its footsteps.

Immie

Yes. BTW, this is one of those very rare times I've seen you 'lose it.' :laugh2: Someone asked about that awhile ago. You da man!

[Immanuel]

Yes. BTW, this is one of those very rare times I've seen you 'lose it.' :laugh2: Someone asked about that awhile ago. You da man!

:lol:

As I said to MFM a week or so ago. He should write his posts as he wants, then re-read them as if he were the person who is being addressed. Then he should edit about 80% out as I do.

I do an awful lot of editing.

Those last few posts, I didn't edit one bit. But, I should have. I was reading about John Calvin returning to preach in the same church in Zurich (I think) two years after being run out of town. They say that rather than preaching about what they had done to him, he picked up right where he had left off and didn't mention what had happened at all. I should have learned from that lesson. :(

Immie

[Yurt]

are you actually claiming you did not say that the current fairness doctrine was about equality and that you did not ask for a link to the current fairness doctrine? are you actually suggesting you wanted me to link to the "new" fairness doctrine?

why can't you answer this post?

[Kathianne]

why can't you answer this post?

Yurt, I think WE agree on the bullheadedness of any "Fairness Doctrine" however, I couldn't answer the question as written.

The old Fairness Doctrine has been repealed. Is there a 'new' Fairness Doctrine that is being considered? I thought it had been defeated or shelved. I have no doubt based on many Democrats that they have every intention of writing a new one, I just don't know what form.

[Yurt]

Yurt, I think WE agree on the bullheadedness of any "Fairness Doctrine" however, I couldn't answer the question as written.

The old Fairness Doctrine has been repealed. Is there a 'new' Fairness Doctrine that is being considered? I thought it had been defeated or shelved. I have no doubt based on many Democrats that they have every intention of writing a new one, I just don't know what form.

he and i were talking about the current fairness doctrine, while it may not be in effect, it is the only one that exists on paper and can still be reintroduced. did he really want me to link to a non-existent act? if you read our posts, there is nothing future about them, we both kept referring to the fairness doctrine, not some new, yet to be introduced fairness act/document...

[Kathianne]

he and i were talking about the current fairness doctrine, while it may not be in effect, it is the only one that exists on paper and can still be reintroduced. did he really want me to link to a non-existent act? if you read our posts, there is nothing future about them, we both kept referring to the fairness doctrine, not some new, yet to be introduced fairness act/document...

Thanks. I've been reading a lot of posts today, just didn't go through this now. I think it was the FCC that said at the time of the appeal, that it was no longer necessary? As there was enough access available airwaves then to make the reasoning no longer applicable?

So MFM, with enough available "public airwaves" for the asking, why should the current holders of license have to provide the time? It's easy enough for those interested to buy into the airwaves and promote their viewpoints. I think that was Air America's point. That there weren't listeners doesn't seem to be a case to be made for destroying the programming of others.

Perhaps you disagree? I mean you think that it's ok to destroy the programming that brings in revenues in order to silence them when they don't wish to put on programs that aren't bringing in revenues?

So which is it? Against free markets or against first amendment? Both you say?

[Yurt]

Thanks. I've been reading a lot of posts today, just didn't go through this now. I think it was the FCC that said at the time of the appeal, that it was no longer necessary? As there was enough access available airwaves then to make the reasoning no longer applicable?

So MFM, with enough available "public airwaves" for the asking, why should the current holders of license have to provide the time? It's easy enough for those interested to buy into the airwaves and promote their viewpoints. I think that was Air America's point. That there weren't listeners doesn't seem to be a case to be made for destroying the programming of others.

Perhaps you disagree? I mean you think that it's ok to destroy the programming that brings in revenues in order to silence them when they don't wish to put on programs that aren't bringing in revenues?

So which is it? Against free markets or against first amendment? Both you say?

no worries, mfm was just playing down that he is wrong about the fairness doctrine on paper by dismissing it as the "old" one and implying that he was referring to a future fairness doctrine re: equality of airtime....that of course is not true, as how could he expect me to link to a future doctrine that is not in existence....more obfuscation by the master

the current doctrine was never about equal airtime it was only about allowing/having a contrasting viewpoint. at the time the doctrine was introduced, radio was the main source of information for the nation, tv was in its infancy and newspapers did not have the reach that radio did:

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1949-Raytheon-Belmont-M1101.JPG


IMO, it is important to understand the history of the doctrine and exactly why it was introduced and why it is no longer necessary...with the courts agreeing it is no longer necessary and currently the government is laying low on the matter. so while the doctrine is no longer in force, all it would take is a minor tweak to get around case law and viola, the doctrine is back in force.

[Kathianne]

no worries, mfm was just playing down that he is wrong about the fairness doctrine on paper by dismissing it as the "old" one and implying that he was referring to a future fairness doctrine re: equality of airtime....that of course is not true, as how could he expect me to link to a future doctrine that is not in existence....more obfuscation by the master

the current doctrine was never about equal airtime it was only about allowing/having a contrasting viewpoint. at the time the doctrine was introduced, radio was the main source of information for the nation, tv was in its infancy and newspapers did not have the reach that radio did:

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1949-Raytheon-Belmont-M1101.JPG


IMO, it is important to understand the history of the doctrine and exactly why it was introduced and why it is no longer necessary...with the courts agreeing it is no longer necessary and currently the government is laying low on the matter. so while the doctrine is no longer in force, all it would take is a minor tweak to get around case law and viola, the doctrine is back in force.
Agreed. It was put into effect when there were few channels. That's a long gone time ago, which is why the FCC chose to drop the Fairness Doctrine. Now the "Progressives" are trying to make the case that since they aren't being represented on radio, since no one chooses to listen to them; the radio owners should be forces to put them on, for the same time as successful programs. Hello??? It's not lack of opportunity, it's lack of success.

[Yurt]

Agreed. It was put into effect when there were few channels. That's a long gone time ago, which is why the FCC chose to drop the Fairness Doctrine. Now the "Progressives" are trying to make the case that since they aren't being represented on radio, since no one chooses to listen to them; the radio owners should be forces to put them on, for the same time as successful programs. Hello??? It's not lack of opportunity, it's lack of success.

that is exactly why i asked mfm what he thought the fairness doctrine is all about. people like him harp on the word "fairness" and i wanted him to state what that is....and to him...it comes down to equality, equality of time on the airwaves. many hold that belief, but that belief has been ruled wrong and not only do the court's recognize such an understanding of the doctrine to be wrong, the legislative branch has not ventured forth to offer anything new.

did the doctrine have a purpose in its day? i don't know, i am opposed to any doctrine that forces speech onto any of us. will a nation survive without some form of forced speech...such as the pledge of allegiance? i don't know. but to force citizens who have properly purchased the rights to airwaves to give equal access to opposing viewpoints was never the intention of the fairness doctrine.

[Kathianne]

that is exactly why i asked mfm what he thought the fairness doctrine is all about. people like him harp on the word "fairness" and i wanted him to state what that is....and to him...it comes down to equality, equality of time on the airwaves. many hold that belief, but that belief has been ruled wrong and not only do the court's recognize such an understanding of the doctrine to be wrong, the legislative branch has not ventured forth to offer anything new.

did the doctrine have a purpose in its day? Perhaps, the venues were limited to the networks.
i don't know, i am opposed to any doctrine that forces speech onto any of us. will a nation survive without some form of forced speech...such as the pledge of allegiance? i don't know. but to force citizens who have properly purchased the rights to airwaves to give equal access to opposing viewpoints was never the intention of the fairness doctrine.Agreed. 1960 something and today are very different. There are a so many venues. No need for fairness doctrine, other than as a suppressor of free speech.