Fairness Doctrine Talk Returns

[TalkShowGuy1979]

http://www.rbr.com/media-news/washi...-giffords-shooting-to-reinstate-fairness.html

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) was one of many politicians to criticize the vitriolic tenor of politics today in the wake of the shootings in Tucson AZ that critically wounded Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killed and wounded many others. He also said it was a good reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Clyburn noted that free speech isn’t utterly free, citing the old fire-in-the-crowded-theater example as an inappropriate exercise of the right.

According to the Charleston (SC) Post and Courier, he said that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would bring back balance to the media, apparently suggesting that it might be a remedy to fix the current level of political discourse.

But when it came time to cite an example, it was another politician that he mentioned, in particularly the comments of Sharron Angle, who lost her bid to send Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) into retirement as the Republican candidate for his seat last year.

Keep in mind this is based on nothing. No evidence. Nothing.

 

[flashback]

sounds like the pro-fairness doctorine advicates and people blaming talk radio for what happened in arazona are yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

[Talk_Dude]

http://www.rbr.com/media-news/washi...-giffords-shooting-to-reinstate-fairness.html

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) was one of many politicians to criticize the vitriolic tenor of politics today in the wake of the shootings in Tucson AZ that critically wounded Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and killed and wounded many others. He also said it was a good reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Clyburn noted that free speech isn’t utterly free, citing the old fire-in-the-crowded-theater example as an inappropriate exercise of the right.

According to the Charleston (SC) Post and Courier, he said that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would bring back balance to the media, apparently suggesting that it might be a remedy to fix the current level of political discourse.

But when it came time to cite an example, it was another politician that he mentioned, in particularly the comments of Sharron Angle, who lost her bid to send Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) into retirement as the Republican candidate for his seat last year.

Keep in mind this is based on nothing. No evidence. Nothing.

Keep in mind that Clyburn is the minority whip, and that Obama appointed Clyburn's daught to the FCC in 2009, with a term that lasts until 2012.

I would say that a comment by the #3 Democrat in the House, even if they did lose their majority, and the father of a recent appointee to the Federal Communications Commission is something that deserves attention. Even if it is nothing but a trial balloon to gauge public sentiment about a institution of a new variation of the Fairness Doctrine, it's something to think about and talk about.

Remember, the old Fairness Doctrine is dead. If Congress is convinced to start something new, they might revive the name "Fairness Doctrine" to apply to some totally new and different attempt to suppress free speech on the radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Remember, the old Fairness Doctrine is dead. If Congress is convinced to start something new, they might revive the name "Fairness Doctrine" to apply to some totally new and different attempt to suppress free speech on the radio.

Agree. Old FD is dead.

But there is the optimist's view to consider also. "they might revive the name 'Fairness Docrine' and apply to some totally new and different attempt to actually make radio stations relevant in the communities they serve."

 

[TheBigA]

The majority of Democrats, including the President, is opposed to it. This is just another political opportunist. I don't care if his daughter is Diana Ross. I would hope she's smart enough to think for herself. And I think she is.

But there is the optimist's view to consider also. "they might revive the name 'Fairness Docrine' and apply to some totally new and different attempt to actually make radio stations relevant in the communities they serve."

Yep, and cows might fly if you drop them from a really really tall building. Eat more chicken.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Remember, the old Fairness Doctrine is dead. If Congress is convinced to start something new, they might revive the name "Fairness Doctrine" to apply to some totally new and different attempt to suppress free speech on the radio.

Agree. Old FD is dead.

But there is the optimist's view to consider also. "they might revive the name 'Fairness Docrine' and apply to some totally new and different attempt to actually make radio stations relevant in the communities they serve."

You are confusing optimism with delusional fantasy.

 

[MattParker]

Ah, the wing-nut talk show hosts are dragging this out again to rouse the rabble. The Tucson shooting has them scared that this may be the end of their lucrative hate-mongering.

Some facts:

• The fairness doctrine was about station editorials, not talk shows. If stations did an editorial, they had to allow someone with an opposing viewpoint airtime to reply. TV stations finally figured out the audience didn't care much for either the editorials or the replies and stopped doing them.
• Opinionated talk show hosts, bloviating on politics, were around and did just fine when the fairness doctrine was in effect. Joe Pyne. Wally George. Bob Grant. Yes, even Rush Limbaugh. When Rush says different, he lies. The FCC considered talk shows entertainment and didn't bother with them. If they had, all a station would have to do is let on callers who disagree with the host. The callers wouldn't stand a chance with a host who can pot them down any time but this arguably would make much better radio than callers who saying nothing but "mega-dittos."

One has to ask, why are Rush and his copy cats so afraid of the fairness doctrine?

 

[Tom Wells]

One has to ask, why are Rush and his copy cats so afraid of the fairness doctrine?

Umm, maybe because if a meaningful method were enacted, they'd have to behave and speak as rational adults,
and extend decency and courtesy to all even though they might vehemently disagree?

 

[Talk_Dude]

Ah, the wing-nut talk show hosts are dragging this out again to rouse the rabble. The Tucson shooting has them scared that this may be the end of their lucrative hate-mongering.

Some facts:

• The fairness doctrine was about station editorials, not talk shows. If stations did an editorial, they had to allow someone with an opposing viewpoint airtime to reply. TV stations finally figured out the audience didn't care much for either the editorials or the replies and stopped doing them.
• Opinionated talk show hosts, bloviating on politics, were around and did just fine when the fairness doctrine was in effect. Joe Pyne. Wally George. Bob Grant. Yes, even Rush Limbaugh. When Rush says different, he lies. The FCC considered talk shows entertainment and didn't bother with them. If they had, all a station would have to do is let on callers who disagree with the host. The callers wouldn't stand a chance with a host who can pot them down any time but this arguably would make much better radio than callers who saying nothing but "mega-dittos."

One has to ask, why are Rush and his copy cats so afraid of the fairness doctrine?

You are referring to the old, original Fairness Doctrine. That was what it was. It was a known quantity. And it's now also gone, and never coming back in it's original form.

This is about something that for the sake of accurate conversation should probably be called "Fairness Doctrine, Rev. 2". It hasn't been written yet. It could be this, or it could be that. No one knows. It could be benign, or it could be harmful. It might not even happen. But the #3 Democrat in Congress, whose daughter was recently appointed to the FCC, is floating public trial balloons to measure the public's reaction to a new "Fairness Doctrine, Rev. 2".

One has to ask, why are Rush and his copy cats so afraid of the fairness doctrine?

Umm, maybe because if a meaningful method were enacted, they'd have to behave and speak as rational adults, and extend decency and courtesy to all even though they might vehemently disagree?

When the government steps in and attempts to mandate through the force of law what is and isn't decent and courteous, be afraid. Be very afraid. I don't want to even contemplate having a bunch of government bureaucrats writing the regulations that define what is and isn't decent and/or courteous. The next time a bunch of bureaucrats with GS numbers defining their pay grades writes a series of regulations that actually work as they are supposed to will be the first.

 

[MattParker]

When the government steps in and attempts to mandate through the force of law what is and isn't decent and courteous, be afraid. Be very afraid. I don't want to even contemplate having a bunch of government bureaucrats writing the regulations that define what is and isn't decent and/or courteous. The next time a bunch of bureaucrats with GS numbers defining their pay grades writes a series of regulations that actually work as they are supposed to will be the first.

I really don't understand your phobia about this. First, as you point out, the government did have such regulations and the nation, as well as the medium, not survived but radio actually was listened to by more people, was relevant to more people and was more profitable. I also fail to understand why right-wing phobia about government regulations does not extend to sexually explicit content, recreational drugs, abortion and the entire patriot act. It seems the right only objects to the government getting involved if it relates to making money or curbing rude and nasty behavior.

 

[Talk_Dude]

When the government steps in and attempts to mandate through the force of law what is and isn't decent and courteous, be afraid. Be very afraid. I don't want to even contemplate having a bunch of government bureaucrats writing the regulations that define what is and isn't decent and/or courteous. The next time a bunch of bureaucrats with GS numbers defining their pay grades writes a series of regulations that actually work as they are supposed to will be the first.

I really don't understand your phobia about this. First, as you point out, the government did have such regulations and the nation, as well as the medium, not survived but radio actually was listened to by more people, was relevant to more people and was more profitable. I also fail to understand why right-wing phobia about government regulations does not extend to sexually explicit content, recreational drugs, abortion and the entire patriot act. It seems the right only objects to the government getting involved if it relates to making money or curbing rude and nasty behavior.

Let's look at what you're claiming. The government did not have "such regulations" before. The original Fairness Doctrine was about balance, and making sure that for every spokesperson advocating one side of an issue there had to be equal airtime given to someone from the other side to balance the presentation, hence making it "fair". There were no regulations that required anyone to be polite. There were (and still are) regulations about the words you can't say on the air.

Radio had more listenership and was more profitable in the past, which was coincidentally when the original Fairness Doctrine was in operation. That was, as I said, a coincidence. There was no cause and effect relationship between radio being a more popular and profitable medium and the fairness doctrine. It is far more reasonable and accurate to observe that technology that provided better devices for people to choose to listen to their own recorded music combined with the rise of alternative media like the internet did far more to replace radio than the loss of the Fairness Doctrine. Your implication that the end of the Fairness Doctrine caused the decline in radio listenership and profitability is one of the most blatant examples of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy I've seen in several weeks.

Your blather about "sexually explicit content, recreational drugs, abortion and the entire patriot act" deserves no response.

As for your last sentence, this is a capitalist country, or at least it used to be, and many of us want to see it remain so. We don't want to see America descend into the pit of socialism, and don't want to see the government use radio regulations to facilitate the degeneration of America into a socialist state. That includes passage of regulations that would enable the government to censor any statements that the current President is a socialist by declaring that calling someone a socialist is rude, and is therefore prohibited. Suppressing ideas by using the false accusation that they are "rude" is one of the standard tactics from the totalitarians' playbook.

 

[Tom Wells]

Don't mistake what we're talking about here.

We are a capitalist country. We HAVE decided to socialize a good many things, considering the
good to the whole nation or state.

Now, at issue is how we discourse, not getting bogged down in ANY of the inflammatory issues we currently enjoy.

No law should dictate what is courteousy and what is decency. We are free agents.
By attaining adulthood it is expected that one has attained some control and forethought over their actions and words.
Words DO have meaning and do have power to motivate for all purposes.

Why let them be ugly, ever?

 

[MattParker]

Talk Dude: Stop twisting things to suit your own viewpoint. While this thread originally started out to be about the Fairness Doctrine, you brought up the question of "attempts to mandate through the force of law what is and isn't decent and courteous." I pointed out that FCC rules and, even more, the NAB Code did "mandate" decent and courteous behavior.

And, of course, you'd rather not talk about the hypocrisy of railing against government regulation while attempting to legislate morality and force religion on people. Libertarians are the only people on the right with any integrity. Of course inconsistency is nothing new to the right: Millions for bail-outs but not one cent for welfare.

 

[TalkShowGuy1979]

Yeah those on the right in talk radio were really pushing for bail-outs. Please.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Talk Dude: Stop twisting things to suit your own viewpoint. While this thread originally started out to be about the Fairness Doctrine, you brought up the question of "attempts to mandate through the force of law what is and isn't decent and courteous." I pointed out that FCC rules and, even more, the NAB Code did "mandate" decent and courteous behavior.

To set the record straight, this thread is about what Congressman James Clyburn said in public and what it might mean. His statements included this gem, "According to the Charleston (SC) Post and Courier, he said that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would bring back balance to the media, apparently suggesting that it might be a remedy to fix the current level of political discourse."

You can make of that what you will, I will make of it what I will.

And none of your posts in this thread make any reference to any FCC rules other than the old Fairness Doctrine. Your most recent post was your first mention of the NAB code, so don't claim now that you were talking about that before. I am not one of Dionne Warwick's friends.

 

[TheBigA]

Clyburn is right that it's time for better judgement. Unfortunately that's not something one can regulate. Judgement is a subjective thing. What made the original FD impossible was there was no way to include all points of view. It's even harder now.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Clyburn is right that it's time for better judgement. Unfortunately that's not something one can regulate. Judgement is a subjective thing. What made the original FD impossible was there was no way to include all points of view. It's even harder now.

Everyone, note this day on your calendars. TheBigA and I agree on something.

 

[MattParker]

It can be done easily. All congress has to do is repeal every change to the Communications Act and other laws regulating broadcasting passed in the last 45 years. In addition, order the FCC to roll back any regulatory changes made in that time. All new AM station licenses and modifications granted since adoption of the Havana Treaty are not subject to renewal (post-treaty frequency allocations remain). Fairness doctrine is restored. Ownership caps are restored. Rules limiting commercial content are restored (no more infomercials, no more extended blocks of commercials). Group owners required to dispose of all licenses over the limit of seven in each class of service (AM, FM,TV) or the license is not renewed. News and public service requirements are restored. Preference given to local applicants for licenses. No AM-FM simulcasts in the top 50 markets. Additional requirement that all programming on Class A AM stations must be local and live. At least 50% of programming between 6am and 6pm on Class B AM stations in the top 100 markets must be local and live. Licenses for daytime only stations are not renewed. No IBOC on AM stations. FCC will not renew any licenses of stations found not in compliance with the NAB Code (based on 1966 version).

 

[TheBigA]

Sure. While they're at it, let's require every American to turn in their computer and cell phone. Shut down FedEx and require people to do business using the post office. And let's bring back the draft, outlaw foreign cars, and institute a national dress code.

The past isn't coming back. Forcing radio to live in the 60s won't change the fact that every other business isn't restricted by government regulations, and the public simply likes surfing the net, texting on their phones, and playing video games. Repealing a bunch of laws and bringing back Fairness Doctrines or ownership caps won't solve radio's problems. Let's deal with the real world.

 

[MattParker]

Sure. While they're at it, let's require every American to turn in their computer and cell phone. Shut down FedEx and require people to do business using the post office. And let's bring back the draft, outlaw foreign cars, and institute a national dress code.

The past isn't coming back. Forcing radio to live in the 60s won't change the fact that every other business isn't restricted by government regulations, and the public simply likes surfing the net, texting on their phones, and playing video games. Repealing a bunch of laws and bringing back Fairness Doctrines or ownership caps won't solve radio's problems. Let's deal with the real world.

There's a difference between technology and rules of conduct. And, yes, we should bring back universal military service - the most effective social program this country ever had and ironically liberals fought it (and they are the ones always talking about "service"). This time everybody goes at age 18. Two years. No deferments. No exemptions. College afterwards. Alternative service options would be offered.

I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.

I’m opposed to it --
On general principles I’m opposed to it!