Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine

Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine

www.upi.com

U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is "looking at" the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.

...

U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.

...

Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was "looking at it."

(visit the link for the full news article)

The problem with this debate in particular is that I think that people are being disingenuous about the goal here. If the goal is to ensure that people receive non-biased information, then you have to realize that the result of the fairness doctrine will be to push the extreme voices to the Internet and to Satellite radio. And you will cripple terrestrial radio along with it.

But I get the sense that there are those in Congress who want to silence those voices, and I am not comfortable with Congress doing this because it amounts to a restriction on speech. What if liberal radio controlled the airwaves? Then if someone were to inevitably cry "fairness doctrine," there would be an uproar of claims that that person is restricting free speech.

Just because you or I disagree with what someone is saying, is that justification enough to try to silence or "balance" it?

I guess that's what happens when politicians get involved.

www.upi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

She's not the only one who supports the Fairness Doctrine. At least 4 others, ( Sanders, VT., Kucinich, Ohio, Hinchey and Slaughter, NY) support it.

Given the history of the Act, it is doubtful that she will have much success getting it passed. However, it is something to keep an eye on, so it isn't passed as a rider during one of those infamous Friday evening sessions.

I don't understand what this act is supposed to accomplish? Everyone has the ability to express their opinions. There are liberal talk shows. Apparently there just isn't a market for it. It makes me so angry when you get these people trying to take away people's freedom of speach.

The fairness doctrine is a real dinosaur in the contemporary media market. It only covers programming broadcast over the "free" public airwaves. A decent Washington Post article analyzes the situation.

Originally posted by closettrekkie
I don't understand what this act is supposed to accomplish? Everyone has the ability to express their opinions. There are liberal talk shows. Apparently there just isn't a market for it. It makes me so angry when you get these people trying to take away people's freedom of speach.

"The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner." Wikipedia. As a practical matter, if you air two hours of liberal-leaning programming, you must air two hours of conservative-leaning programming.

Yeah, I know what it means, but I don't understand why they think they need to put something like this in place. Everybody has a right and the opportunity to speak their opinion on a talk radio show. There was Air America - it just didn't bring in a good market and tanked. Why does the government feel like they have to get their fingers in yet another little petty issue? She's just a blow-hard politician trying to justify her job. I'm guessing she's got something to cover up that talk radio is sniffing out on her.

The doctrine was killed by Reagan in the 80's and is seen as the first stepping stone towards establishing a permanent Republican/conservative majority. Despite claims to the contrary conservative voices are the norm in print and on the air... even the so-called liberal Roanoke Times has far more conservative commentaries than liberal ones.

As for everyone has the right to say what they want on air...ever hear Bill O Reilly or Michael Savage shout down those who disagree with them? I have and its not pretty.

IF we had had the fairness doctrine in place in 2002/03 presenting both sides during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, we might not be there now.

AND for those who will inevitably claim this is an attempt to silence conservative voices, well it isn't. It is an attempt to reestablish what has been sorely missing in this country for 20+ years now, an educated and informed electorate.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.[1]

Sounds like censorship to me. "Say things in a way that we decide is "equal and balanced", or you can't talk at all!"

If grover's right, thank God Reagan shot it down.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by grover
The doctrine was killed by Reagan in the 80's and is seen as the first stepping stone towards establishing a permanent Republican/conservative majority. Despite claims to the contrary conservative voices are the norm in print and on the air... even the so-called liberal Roanoke Times has far more conservative commentaries than liberal ones.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the fairness doctrine will fix that. Those voices will just go onto the Internet and satellite radio. If the goal here is to moderate all of the information we receive and ensure that it creates an "educated and informed" electorate, wouldn't you then, as a natural extension, be required to regulate the Internet, television cable (which does not use a part of the electromagnetic spectrum) and satellite radio with a comparable "E-fairness" doctrine?

In addition, what constitutes an "educated and informed" electorate? I can see a lot of people who wouldn't see the electorate as educated and informed until the electorate agreed with their personal policy preferences. You must admit that if given the opportunity--and a policy like that set in place--the Christian right would insist that the only "educational and information" information would be that consistent with their agenda?

As for everyone has the right to say what they want on air...ever hear Bill O Reilly or Michael Savage shout down those who disagree with them? I have and its not pretty.

I am not going to defend demagoguery; I choose not to watch them. Further, their audiences are measured in the ones of millions. I think a lot of people see those people for what they are.

IF we had had the fairness doctrine in place in 2002/03 presenting both sides during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, we might not be there now.

I disagree. The "other" side was just as gung-ho about going into Iraq as the pro side. The anti- side was relegated to the fringe because those voices who ideally should have been making up the other side were worried about their political skin. Everyone screwed up that one.

AND for those who will inevitably claim this is an attempt to silence conservative voices, well it isn't. It is an attempt to reestablish what has been sorely missing in this country for 20+ years now, an educated and informed electorate.

I would argue that the electorate today is more informed than it was 20 years ago. We have forums like this, no to mention the Internet itself. People didn't understand the decisions being made during the Cold War like they understand the decisions being made today. Scandals were covered up by a willing media. And you can't realistically say that people were more informed during the days in which they would read one newspaper and watch 30 minutes of news at night. The fact that now we have such intense national dialog is a result of people having access to more information, not less.

[edit on 6/25/2007 by Togetic]

[edit on 6/25/2007 by Togetic]

You're a trip.

You think Rupert Murdoch and his cronies are fair and balanced? Do you think ratings decide what is fair and balanced?

You should watch Frontline's show on the candidates toward the end of each presidential election cycle to get an idea what fair and balanced really is. You will NEVER see anything like that on faux news or any of the other media outlets as well.

I am old enough to remember the fairness doctrine and it worked like this candidate Joe Blow wanted X number of spots to make his case... his opponent would then be alotted the same amount to make their case.

No matter how you cut it an informed electorate is better than a spoon fed one.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by grover]

That's how it is. You can't rely on a company or even the government for a complete unbiased account of anything. You need your own research for that, not someone else's. Forcing this "fairness doctrine" on people is just destroying free speech. If I want a show that does nothing but talk about how evil Bush is, how the Constitution is worthless and outdated, and how much I love Hilary Clinton, I'll do it, because it's mine and I can.

Get the government out of our news!

Only the conservatives would consider the fairness doctrine a form of censorship.

Based on some of the posts I have read on this site, whose members supposed to be denying ignorance... I would have to say that the only ignorance they are denying is their own.

This administration meddles with the news all the time. You just don't get it do you? If is allowing time for multiple voices not the dictating who those voices are.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Only the conservatives would consider the fairness doctrine a form of censorship.

Shut it with the political labeling. You sound like a child.

Originally posted by grover
I am old enough to remember the fairness doctrine and it worked like this candidate Joe Blow wanted X number of spots to make his case... his opponent would then be alotted the same amount to make their case.

See the problem? If I own that show, I'll talk about whatever I damn well choose, excluding libel. If I don't want to give someone air time, I won't give them air time! It's my choice, and my choice alone.

If you really want to see the truth, ask. Do some research. Get off your rear, away from your TV, and actually learn things for yourself. Relying on television or any form of entertainment for your information, including papers, radio shows, and anything else, and expecting it to be complete and unbiased, is both impractical and full of stupidity and laziness.

SIGH!!! Some people.

It was not... I repeat was not aimed at individual shows such as talk radio it was aimed at stations... the evening news and the like... the people who (used to anyway) rent their air space from the public domain... if a broadcaster gave air time to one viewpoint then they were obliged to give equal air time to the opposing view as well.

BTW I read broadly both in print and online ranging from the hard right to the hard left and base my opinions on the balance between the two... I am not some ignorant couch potato.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
SIGH!!! Some people.

Damn those people! And their...their...logic! How dare they use reason in a debate like this!

Originally posted by grover
It was not... I repeat was not aimed at individual shows such as talk radio it was aimed at stations... the evening news and the like... the people who (used to anyway) rent their air space from the public domain... if a broadcaster gave air time to one viewpoint then they were obliged to give equal air time to the opposing view as well.

Originally posted by grover
BTW I read broadly both in print and online ranging from the hard right to the hard left and base my opinions on the balance between the two... I am not some ignorant couch potato.

I wasn't talking about you, but it seems that this "fairness" doctrine is to spoon-feed ignorant, lazy people neds.

Why don't a bunch of liberals get together, and come up with their own Radio Network, and have a lineup of nothing but liberals?

Wait, uhmmm, nevermind, they already did that...no one listened, now they are bankrupt! I think it was called AIR AMERICA!

Even billionaire lefty George Soros, and stealing money from Boy's and Girls's Clubs couldn't keep them solvent.

Let's say the Democrats evil plans come to fruition. All that would do is drive Conservative Talk Radio to the satellite companies, and kill commercial radio. Then what would they do?

Are you sure you're not a broken record RR cause you certainly sound like one.

Originally posted by grover
Are you sure you're not a broken record RR cause you certainly sound like one.

Grover, unlike you, not everybody reads every single post I write.

This is a totally seperate post, so I believe my comments pertain.

To get us back on topic...

Why do you think AIR AMERICA failed? Even with all the massive hype of the mainstream media, and Billionaire lefty George Soros dumping money into it?

As productive as the "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" partisan back-and-forth is, I was wondering if someone had an opinion on my comments above.