Fairness Doctrine

[songsmith]

Hello and welcome to the first political thread I ever started. Surprising, huh?

So, last week Republican leaders sent a press advisory to conservative outlets regarding a pre-emptive strike on the Fairness Doctrine, an old FCC edict that, among other things, forced locally-based media outlets like terrestrial radio to report local views on issues, in addition to attempting to allow opposing viewpoints equal time. This was repealed in 1987, enabling the rise of Rush Limbaugh, and subsequent single-view shows. What research I've done indicates that it was seldom enforced before that. At any rate, be prepared to hear a LOT about it.

My own view is that it's yet another "Liberals are cancelling Christmas!" tempest in a teapot (Obama has stated unequivocally that he does not support it), meant to rile and rally a far-right base who's not used to losing elections. Right-wing talk radio has been THE way to talk to these people for 2 decades, and has been instrumental in disseminating both information and disinformation leading to the follies of the Bush administration... such a direct line to the most fervent supporters (however misguided) is of great value.
My point is that "fairness" would extend to liberal outlets as well, so what's the difference? Of course the obvious response would be to say that the libs won't require liberal outlets to give equal time, but law is law, and neo's will obviously screaming at the top of their lungs for their share of the pie to make sure it is so. The libs don't want the RNC determining what they say (like it does on Fox News) so, it's a huge, loud, dead issue. Also, it won't be signed by the president, so it's a dead issue. Call it the "they're going to take away my guns" of the Obama Era... something that sounds like it's important, but will never happen.

So, what do YOU think?--->JMS

[bassist_25]

There are much bigger issues in the world right now. This whole thing is a red herring, and I think that we'll see red herrings being thrown out from both sides of the political spectrum. I think Obama's smart enough to not get bogged down with this, but both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress may make a big ordeal about it.

As far as my personal feelings on it - It's a sticky situation because it's not clearly an issue of the free market or objective information. Like them or not, people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Liddy have found a channel for their product, the same way that Franken and Carville have found capitalistic channels for their views. The problem is that people take what the pundits say as the one and only Truth. Coming from a science and research background, I can tell you that people as a whole are very poor consumers of information. They have confirmation biases, don't understand statistics nor realize that it takes a body of evidence to support a claim, the concept of validity (which is different than reliability) is lost on them, and they're just plain unable to differentiate between logic and empiricism. I don't know if it's the government's job to regulate the bias of information, which is always inherent no matter how objective the person presenting it attempts to be. The pundits thrive on this ignorance of information. I'm cynical that we'll ever be a well-informed enough society to be able to become excellent consumers of information.

Would forcing outlets to give equal time to both sides make people more well-informed? Perhaps, but unfortunately media outlets are not charities. Rush makes the stations the bucks. NPR needs to solicit donations to stay in business. Perhaps it's an issue of NPR not selling advertisement space; perhaps the demand for their product wouldn't make them enough money otherwise. I honestly don't know.

[Gallowglass]

I agree, red herring.

The answer is simple, let the free market decide. Most people don't listen to talk radio etc., to be INFORMED for chrissake, they listen to hear somebody reaffirming that their view of the world is correct. Any information gleaned is secondary and to be used in the support of their preformed conclusions. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The fairness doctrine would just further involve the gummint in areas where it doesn't belong. Let the people listen to what they want.

[bassist_25]

I agree, red herring.

The answer is simple, let the free market decide. Most people don't listen to talk radio etc., to be INFORMED for chrissake, they listen to hear somebody reaffirming that their view of the world is correct. Any information gleaned is secondary and to be used in the support of their preformed conclusions. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The fairness doctrine would just further involve the gummint in areas where it doesn't belong. Let the people listen to what they want.

Bingo.

I think I would be more behind this legislation if we were dealing with legitimate facism, but I really think it does come down to capitalism being at work. I have no idea why people on the right are more prone to listen to the radio to reaffirm their views of reality. People on the left have other sources (e.g., blogs, shows like Real Time). Again, I think it comes down more to how well people can evaulate information rather than what single source they get their information from.

[lonewolf]

I want somebody to define for me in objective legal terms what constitutes an opposing view? An opposing view of what? Whiich opposing view? What if there are 5 opposing views? What if a person labelled a conservative takes a liberal viewpoint on an issue? Do you have to find a liberal who takes an opposing conservative view? Which view?

Government is already confused enough and I don't trust judges to determine this.

This may seem like a red herring because the media have you all convinced that this is the worst time since the great depression (crock of shit) and the government needs to solve the present economic crisis. To that I tell you 2 things:

1. The federal government can't solve shit
2. 2009 will present the greatest entrepreneurial opportunities of a lifetime...
...for anybody who has a pair and is willing to get up off their ass.

Since 2006, the present Congressional leadership has been busy crafting all sorts of what you might call red herring legislation, but did not bother bringing it to the floor because Bush would have vetoed it. Since the Obama team is busy putting together an economic plan that as yet does not exist, it won't be a problem for Congress to pass several pieces of this red herring legislation.

I believe somebody here on RP predicted this.

[RamRod 1]

I agree, red herring.

The answer is simple, let the free market decide.

I see your point, but when the conservative company Clear Channel or whatever their name is, owns over 50% of the radio stations in this country, is it really "Free Market"?

[Banned]

I agree, red herring.

The answer is simple, let the free market decide.

I see your point, but when the conservative company Clear Channel or whatever their name is, owns over 50% of the radio stations in this country, is it really "Free Market"?

Same question. When the liberal ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, US News and World Report and USA Today run 95% of major media outlets, is it really a "free market"?

[Banned]

I agree, red herring.

The answer is simple, let the free market decide.

I see your point, but when the conservative company Clear Channel or whatever their name is, owns over 50% of the radio stations in this country, is it really "Free Market"?

Thats Why We have Xm Or Siris!!!

[songsmith]

sorry, hit submit before I was ready

[Sapo]

Yeah, I think it is. When you factor in Fox News, Wall St. Journal, Christian Science Review, Drudge Report, Washington Times, National Review, Free Republic, Accuracy In Media, The Conservative Voice, most military newspapers, News Max, most evangelical church bulletins and newsletters, Weekly Standard, Worldnet Daily, Media Research Center, The Dartmouth Review, The Cornell Review, The Harvard Salient, The Richmond Review, Heritage.org,

[songsmith]

I agree, red herring.

The answer is simple, let the free market decide.

I see your point, but when the conservative company Clear Channel or whatever their name is, owns over 50% of the radio stations in this country, is it really "Free Market"?

Same question. When the liberal ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, US News and World Report and USA Today run 95% of major media outlets, is it really a "free market"?

Yeah, I think it is. When you factor in Fox News, Wall St. Journal, Christian Science Review, Drudge Report, Washington Times, National Review, Free Republic, Accuracy In Media, The Conservative Voice, most military newspapers, News Max, most evangelical church bulletins and newsletters, Weekly Standard, Worldnet Daily, Media Research Center, The Dartmouth Review, The Cornell Review, The Harvard Salient, The Richmond Review, Heritage.org, RightWingNews.com, New York Post, Rising Tide, buchanan.org, family.org, The 700 Club, Trinity Broadcasting, christiancoalition.org, and of course: Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Rush, Coulter, Savage, Levin, Hedgecock, Ingraham, Doug McIntyre, Bill Cunningham, Jason Lewis, and a total of 12 hours of local right-wing programming per day just on the two Altoona talkradio outlets, in addition to 10-12 hours of syndicated con-talk each)... well, it would seem there are plenty of places a fellow could get his dose of self-indulgence. I'm sorry, Joe, I'm just not buying into the idea that conservatives are being bound and gagged. Part of any propaganda is the notion of persecution, "they're out to destroy us and our culture because they disagree, we must act NOW!!"
I agree fully with Gallowglass, people don't go to Drudge or Huffington to form their political ideas, they go there for validation of their already-formed opinions. One can find bias in nearly any statement if you examine it closely enough, and even if you don't, it's not a huge effort to just manufacture a bias.--->JMS

[RobTheDrummer]

I don't care how anyone explains the fairness doctrine, forcing people to have opposite views is against freedom of speech. Obviously people want talk radio to stay the way it is, because it actually does well. People need an outlet for all the mainstream liberal bullshit.

[slackin@dabass]

Zdravstvuj!

red haring or not, the government is stomping on our bill of rights... again. shouldn't someone be pointing that out? there is freedom of press in this country. and a freedom of speech. if your media company sells democratic views, and that's what you report on, shouldn't that fall under freedom of press?

whatever. it dosn't matter what the people think anymore. there is no freedom in this free country. don't surf the web trying to learn more about islam or why people in other countries could possibly support jihad. if you do, your labeled as a terrorist and the government has the right to search your house sans warrant. they also have the right to deport you to gitmo with no lawyer and no trial. ... but they only do this to terrorists. it's to protect you, the people from yourselves. because who knows how to prtect you more than a person that dosn't even know you. ahhh yes... gotta love freedom

maybe i'm being extreme about all of this.

but it kinda makes you wonder. could thomas jefferson see the future when he said such things as "people willing to give up their freedoms for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety?"

i think so. you libs and cons take care now...

Do svidaniya, commrade!

[Banned]

I see your point, but when the conservative company Clear Channel or whatever their name is, owns over 50% of the radio stations in this country, is it really "Free Market"?

Same question. When the liberal ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, US News and World Report and USA Today run 95% of major media outlets, is it really a "free market"?

Yeah, I think it is. When you factor in Fox News, Wall St. Journal, Christian Science Review, Drudge Report, Washington Times, National Review, Free Republic, Accuracy In Media, The Conservative Voice, most military newspapers, News Max, most evangelical church bulletins and newsletters, Weekly Standard, Worldnet Daily, Media Research Center, The Dartmouth Review, The Cornell Review, The Harvard Salient, The Richmond Review, Heritage.org, RightWingNews.com, New York Post, Rising Tide, buchanan.org, family.org, The 700 Club, Trinity Broadcasting, christiancoalition.org, and of course: Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Rush, Coulter, Savage, Levin, Hedgecock, Ingraham, Doug McIntyre, Bill Cunningham, Jason Lewis, and a total of 12 hours of local right-wing programming per day just on the two Altoona talkradio outlets, in addition to 10-12 hours of syndicated con-talk each)... well, it would seem there are plenty of places a fellow could get his dose of self-indulgence. I'm sorry, Joe, I'm just not buying into the idea that conservatives are being bound and gagged. Part of any propaganda is the notion of persecution, "they're out to destroy us and our culture because they disagree, we must act NOW!!"
I agree fully with Gallowglass, people don't go to Drudge or Huffington to form their political ideas, they go there for validation of their already-formed opinions. One can find bias in nearly any statement if you examine it closely enough, and even if you don't, it's not a huge effort to just manufacture a bias.--->JMS

Johnny if you really want me to list ALL the liberal oriented media in America today, the list would fill up several columns, and I could not even do it justice. And remember, Lonewolf will not read any post that you have to scroll down more than once.

The MAJOR media outlets in the US are liberal today. The ones you post are matched by a ton of liberal blogs and smaller outlets. The average sheeple get their knowledge from the MAJOR media, not Drudge or the Christiancoalition . org or whatever it is. Only newsjunkies like you and me know of all the plethora of media available. And unfortunately for the average American sheeple, the news they get is criminally slanted liberal by the Main Street Media (who shout to the heavens that they are objective even though evidence time and time again show that they are over 90% liberal democrats)

[JackANSI]

Zdravstvuj!

red haring or not, the government is stomping on our bill of rights... again. shouldn't someone be pointing that out? there is freedom of press in this country. and a freedom of speech. if your media company sells democratic views, and that's what you report on, shouldn't that fall under freedom of press?

whatever. it dosn't matter what the people think anymore. there is no freedom in this free country. don't surf the web trying to learn more about islam or why people in other countries could possibly support jihad. if you do, your labeled as a terrorist and the government has the right to search your house sans warrant. they also have the right to deport you to gitmo with no lawyer and no trial. ... but they only do this to terrorists. it's to protect you, the people from yourselves. because who knows how to prtect you more than a person that dosn't even know you. ahhh yes... gotta love freedom

maybe i'm being extreme about all of this.

but it kinda makes you wonder. could thomas jefferson see the future when he said such things as "people willing to give up their freedoms for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety?"

i think so. you libs and cons take care now...

Do svidaniya, commrade!

This!

[songsmith]

Joe, I'd point out, then, that any single one of the outlets you mention (other than MSNBC, which I'll give you) has at most 2 1/2 hours per week to give their liberal view, whereas Rush alone has 15 hours per week, and gets approximately the same daily audience as any network newscast. To say that conservative media is less effective just doesn't add up... it got the current president elected and re-elected, helped tar and feather the previous president and all democrat presidential contenders, helped sell a spurious war, and turned a slam-dunk election into a three ring circus. The backlash to the failings of single-minded conservatism are what contributed to the end of the Reagan Era, not liberal media. Conservative leaders purchased the rope, tied the knot, and placed it around their own party's neck. Liberal media just showed it on the news.--->JMS

[JackANSI]

At least with a president change there will be new stuff for the media to rip on...

I'm getting tired of the same old crap


Look at it this way... In 3.25 years everyone will have a wealth of "how much change will you get back when you hand someone a X dollar bill with Obama's face on it" jokes...

[songsmith]

That brings up a good point. You know Obama won't be able to fart without somebody questioning his motives. The hype created during the election is impossible to live up to. If he doesn't please the libs, they'll say he's ineffective; if he does, the cons will say he's pandering to special interests. Rest assured, there will be attempts at character assassination every 15 minutes for the next 4-8 years, the neo-media doesn't have an "off" switch, and they're going to quit licking their wounds in about 6 days. There'll be allegations of corruption, Muslim ideology, socialism, infidelity, and any other negative thing they can lay on him, take that to the bank. It's to be expected, especially on Neo radio. It's what they do.
Add to that, he's not always right. He's trying to extend the deadline for the Digital TV changeover! Are you kidding me? As if somebody wasn't aware of it, it's on every damned show, and every commercial break, and they run crawls every hour! He says it's because the coupons are in short supply, but so what... we got through the digital cellphone changeover, and most people never knew the difference. If you don't watch enough TV to figure out that you need a digital converter, then you don't watch enough TV to justify buying one. Sheez!--->JMS

[metalchurch]

What's this about the digital tv??

I live under a rock, don't watch TV and even I knew that.

[Banned]

Joe, I'd point out, then, that any single one of the outlets you mention (other than MSNBC, which I'll give you) has at most 2 1/2 hours per week to give their liberal view, whereas Rush alone has 15 hours per week, and gets approximately the same daily audience as any network newscast. To say that conservative media is less effective just doesn't add up... it got the current president elected and re-elected, helped tar and feather the previous president and all democrat presidential contenders, helped sell a spurious war, and turned a slam-dunk election into a three ring circus. The backlash to the failings of single-minded conservatism are what contributed to the end of the Reagan Era, not liberal media. Conservative leaders purchased the rope, tied the knot, and placed it around their own party's neck. Liberal media just showed it on the news.--->JMS

There are over 300 million in this country. Rush's audience is about 20 million, and that is the largest of all the radio talking heads. Many more people turn on the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN (24 HRS), and MSNBC (24 HRS) and get brainwashed by the libs than those that listen to the Rush. Bush got elected because the dems ran the biggest idiot in the world against him, twice.

[bassist_25]

Bush got elected because the dems ran the biggest idiot in the world against him, twice.

In regards to the second election, Kerry was a horrible choice. But if I remember correctly, people still believed that the war in Iraq was a good thing and that Saddam had connections with Bin Laden...or at least Bush's Republican base did. Now, anybody on the right, with the exception of the extreme nutjobs, wants to get as far away from the man as possible. A senator or governor saying that he or she supports Bush is election suicide.

[waydowneast]

http://www.prisonplanet.com

[lonewolf]

Aside from this being (and I repeat) nothing less that a castration of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you guys have made my point by arguing about who has the most affected media, the left or the right. Of course, the left says its the right and the right says its the left.

What about the center? What about up? What about down?

And some of you want a bureaucrat to decide what's fair & balanced?

Unfortunately, the biggest victim that will come out of this legislation is the TRUTH

[slackin@dabass]

Aside from this being (and I repeat) nothing less that a castration of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you guys have made my point by arguing about who has the most affected media, the left or the right. Of course, the left says its the right and the right says its the left.

What about the center? What about up? What about down?

And some of you want a bureaucrat to decide what's fair & balanced?

Unfortunately, the biggest victim that will come out of this legislation is the TRUTH

and what about us libertarians? where do we turn for biased media to afirm the way we feel? are we making a big deal about it? no. i don't give a shit what any channel broadcasts... whoever owns the station should decide that, not the government. less big government, more small.

[lonewolf]

Aside from this being (and I repeat) nothing less that a castration of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you guys have made my point by arguing about who has the most affected media, the left or the right. Of course, the left says its the right and the right says its the left.

What about the center? What about up? What about down?

And some of you want a bureaucrat to decide what's fair & balanced?

Unfortunately, the biggest victim that will come out of this legislation is the TRUTH

and what about us libertarians? where do we turn for biased media to afirm the way we feel? are we making a big deal about it? no. i don't give a shit what any channel broadcasts... whoever owns the station should decide that, not the government. less big government, more small.

Heh, heh, heh...that is what I meant by "What about UP?"

Somewhere, I saw a diamond shaped chart where left & right was left-wing & right-wing and UP was Libertarian. I forget what was DOWN.