It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the "fairness" doctrine have a place in radio?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
My short answer is "no". For those not aware of what I'm talking about, the fairness doctrine, which was abandoned in the 80s, called for radio broadcasters to give equal amounts of airtime to all sides of a debate. Some Democrats want to bring it back.

Don't get me wrong, I think Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are idiots, but it is unconstitutional to try to censor his viewpoints with such a doctrine.

Your thoughts?

www.cbn.com...

[edit on 23-7-2007 by uberarcanist]




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
If they are going to try and revive the fairness doctrine it should apply to all media Radio Television Newspapers Magazines the whole lot, they are targetting radio because its views are more right wing. If they only do radio it is flat out censorship.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
If they are going to try and revive the fairness doctrine it should apply to all media Radio Television Newspapers Magazines the whole lot, they are targetting radio because its views are more right wing. If they only do radio it is flat out censorship.


Yeah, but they WON'T do that because then it would be even more obvious it's unconstitutional, and also then the print media, which has a left-wing bias, in my opinion, would be censored.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Short answer, yes I support it.

I don't see it as unconstitutional myself, since it's not saying you can't say what you think,
but that if you are running a public show, that you must also provide the opposite viewpoint as well.

I think that it should apply to TV as well, though, I think that there are only a
few cases where it would apply.

If all news channels were like CNN, we probably would'nt need it for TV at all.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
That is a reasonable viewpoint, Iori, but I counter with-if you must give equal time, you don't have an unlimited amount of time to say what you want, and this is therefore unconstitutional censorship.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I hate the idea of the Fairness Doctrine coming back. To apply it specifically to radio is unacceptable, especially when you consider this is the one area where liberal shows are being blown out of the water by conservative shows. Air America is bankrupt and other liberal shows on broadcasting stations across the country are finding it impossible to stay afloat. Why? Because liberals don't generally get their politics via opinion shows.

To implement the fairness doctrine is like welfare for liberal radio talk show hosts who can't otherwise stay in business. We're doing a tremendous disservice to radio broadcasters by forcing them to to air liberal radio programs when their demographic just isn't into the subject matter or delivery. It isn't censorship necessarily, but it is the government imposing rules & regulations on free speech, which i have a serious problem with.

If liberals want to corner the market in radio, they should put the work in. They should find out what people like in a radio show and do that. They should do what their competitors are doing, only better. That's how every other market in this country works. Why should the exception be for liberal talk radio? Makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Short answer, yes I support it.

I don't see it as unconstitutional myself, since it's not saying you can't say what you think,
but that if you are running a public show, that you must also provide the opposite viewpoint as well.

And I would ask you, why? Why must you provide the opposite viewpoint?

The shows are not public in any sense except for who can listen. Everything about them is the result of a decision by a private entity.


I think that it should apply to TV as well, though, I think that there are only a
few cases where it would apply.

Well, I guess that if you are going to support censorship, you might as well include TV and print.
Me, I don't support the Fairness Doctrine because it is inherently unfair.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
To my mind this is an example of government butting in where it shouldn't. Radio is a business and will regulate itself; Air America went broke because it didn't provide what the people who listen to talk radio want to hear. In any business to make money you must cater to want the paying public wants. The fact is the desire to force talk radio to implement this fairness doctrine without forcing the rest of the media to do the same smacks of censorship. Whether or not that is the goal of those who are pursuing this or not doesn't really matter because they are giving the appearance of censorship and that I can't support.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
gallopinghordes, you took my thunder.

Radio has been singled out but it would apply to television also. The printed media is exempt as it falls directly under the constitution as a freedom of free speech and the press has been historically recognized under his basic freedom.

Radio and TV fall under different rules due to the fact they have an FCC license for the public airwaves. Airwaves (frequencies) are controlled by regulation and laws of the FCC. This is not a free speech issue as one would think. It is a market issue that has placed a value on public and free frequencies. The government can regulate what is done on these frequencies.

Now gallopinghorde took all my remaining thunder, but he is very correct about the market driven business end of radio.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
hinky, sorry about stealing your thunder I just said what I feel.

Also I'm not a he; I'm a woman at least that's whats on my driver's license.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join