PDA

View Full Version : FCC - Forget About Fairness Doctrine


Vincent
05-10-2009, 09:34 AM
This is a surprise. There is one sane dem. :chuckle:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=105776
FCC's Copps: Forget About Fairness Doctrine
by Erik Sass, Yesterday, 5:33 PM

The Democratic acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Copps, has urged members of the FCC's new Diversity Committee not to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which required local broadcasters to present both sides of political debates.

His opinion is significant because the Fairness Doctrine has been a popular cause among Democratic politicians who dislike the general rightward slant of American talk radio. But it is also a political albatross for the Democrats, giving conservative foes fodder for arguments that liberal Democrats will try to restrict free speech.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated the presentation of both sides of political issues by broadcasters from its inception in 1949 until its demise in 1987. Enforcement was the specific responsibility of the FCC for the last two decades of this period, with the doctrine and FCC authority surviving multiple legal challenges beginning in 1969. In 1974, Chief Justice Warren Burger warned: "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."
Once Republican FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan gained ascendancy, the Fairness Doctrine was axed.

During that period, the Fairness Doctrine was vulnerable to a number of criticisms, not all of them political or ideological. At the most basic level, it accepted and reinforced a binary view of American politics, boiling every issue down into two (but no more than two) opposing views, predictably endorsed by Republicans and Democrats.

This reductive, simplistic approach did not allow for diversity of views across the political spectrum or within the two main parties. The doctrine was open to attack on free speech grounds, for the simple reason that compelling a person or entity to voice a certain view might be seen as just as coercive as prohibiting another kind of speech. Also, the doctrine was seen as running counter to free market principles, under which media outlets ostensibly try to offer only content for which there is popular demand. The conventional thinking: if there aren't as many liberal radio mouthpieces as conservatives, it's probably because there isn't as much of an audience for them.

(On a related subject, conservative critics of the Fairness Doctrine argue that its basic purpose is fulfilled by public broadcasting, which sometimes tends toward more left-leaning political views. At the same time, Republican efforts to cut funding for public broadcasting have rendered this argument somewhat disingenuous.)

With the election of Barack Obama, a liberal Democrat, conservative talk show hosts seized on the prospect of a Fairness Doctrine revival to buttress grassroots conservative opposition to the new administration, as well as Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It's worth noting that talk-show hosts from Air America, a liberal talk-radio network, also oppose the return of the doctrine, saying it will hinder their own operations.

Thus, by recommending that the FCC's Diversity Committee let sleeping dogs lie, Copps is trying to forestall a move that Democrats, relishing their newfound power, may later come to regret on political grounds.

He is also delineating the area of responsibility for the Diversity Committee, which was created by Democrats to deal with issues affecting minority ownership of media outlets -- an area which Copps took pains to distinguish from the political content of broadcast media.

"Those who claim that promoting diversity and addressing the woeful effects of past discrimination are the equivalent of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine understand neither the Fairness Doctrine nor, more importantly, the lack of opportunity minorities and women have when it comes to owning and operating the enterprises that allow us to communicate with one another," said Copps.

SteelCityMan786
05-10-2009, 10:02 AM
I'd like to see the Fairness Doctrine become permanent law.

revefsreleets
05-10-2009, 11:54 AM
The fairness doctrine is an AWFUL idea. And it doesn't work because the market SAYS it doesn't work.

Liberal talk shows bash away at business and that's why they can't get any businesses to sponsor them, even sympathetic ones. And ratings? Liberal talk tanks in just about every market...even Michael Savage, who's very conservative, manages to have the #1 talk radio show in SAN FRANCISCO!

PisnNapalm
05-10-2009, 11:56 AM
I'd like to see the Fairness Doctrine become permanent law.

Why?

The radio companies put on shows that get listeners. Left wing talk radio doesn't draw listeners. Why force it upon the radio companies? They're trying to make money.

Vincent
05-10-2009, 01:38 PM
Why?

The radio companies put on shows that get listeners. Left wing talk radio doesn't draw listeners. Why force it upon the radio companies? They're trying to make money.

Broadcast is about attracting and holding an audience for the purpose of selling advertising. Period. If watching bees build hives attracted and held an audience, we'd have the Bee Network.

The liberal message doesn't resonate with anybody except liberals. There aren't that many liberals. That's why overtly liberal programs have very small audiences or just outright fail. On the other hand, "middle of the road" (Fox) or conservative programming (AM Talk) do resonate and attract huge audiences and flourish.

The liberal message has to be disguised in order for "mainstream" America to acknowledge it. Thats why its carefully packaged in PC undertones that accompany most broadcast programming. And thats why audiences and subscribership are in the tank. Even "disguised" liberal messages are viewed as such by the majority of Americans.

The liberal message can't stand the light of scrutiny. That's why it is necessary to liberals to eliminate opposing views and messages.

I just flew in from Mars and am confronted by a broadcast and media landscape entirely dominated by liberals promulgating disguised liberal views through every outlet except a single cable network and an antiquated radio band. Those remaining outlets are the only sources for anything opposing liberal ideology.

So it is necessary to the liberals that their remaining opposition be silenced so that "peace" can reign in the land. Apparently one of their luminaries bequeathed to them one of their core axioms - "peace is the absence of opposition to socialism".

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-death-star.jpg

Conversely, free men define "peace" as the absence of a threat.

Godfather
05-10-2009, 01:44 PM
I'd like to see the Fairness Doctrine become permanent law.

Disagree--it made sense in the past when you were limited to broadcast media and you had a finite number of frequencies. Then you had to make sure someone didn't put together a local or national monopoly and use it for propaganda.

But now you have satellite radio, cable, the Internet, etc. so it's impossible to stifle opposing viewpoints through control of broadcast media.

drewcary
05-10-2009, 04:44 PM
The only way the fairness doctrine could ever be fair would be if they applied it to the far left wackjobs at abc,nbs,cbs,msnbc and cnn.

Hines0wnz
05-10-2009, 08:39 PM
The unFairness Doctrine is an outdated policy and is brought up by the libtards and Dems as the only response to talk radio that continually hammers them on how their awful decisions affect the country. Libs have had many chances to make a case and maybe, maybe they'd have one if Air Amerika hadnt been such an utter failure. No one wants to listen to illogical and emotionally driven responses from people who have no business being behind a microphone in the first place. They (libtards) are just scared that the people they use may somehow find an AM radio signal and get educated and BOOM there goes their agenda.

And I dont believe the uFD will ever be off the table until there is a bill enacted to abolish it. In other words, dont hold your breath on what a Dem says. Right Mr Obama?

revefsreleets
05-11-2009, 12:19 PM
Actually, the fairness doctrine is a VERY smart idea if you a liberal democrat. You get to force-feed people your message by legislation that will eventually end up shutting down a lot of conservative talk. They will never be able to match the numbers that conservative talk make up, so the only way for this to work would be to tear the right down to their level, and the law would be on their side, since they made it that way.

Of course it pretty much cuts against the grain of everything this Country stands for, but, eh, who's counting?

Vincent
05-11-2009, 12:51 PM
"Fairness" works both ways, doesn't it? So, if we had "fairness" we'd have representatives of :bowdown: the People's Ministry of Truth and Fairness counter-messaging every word from Fox and the AM talkers, and we'd have free men doing the same at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and so forth, right? That would be "fair", right? :confused::crazy01::splat::eyecrazy:

JEFF4i
05-11-2009, 04:47 PM
As a flamingly liberal social-policy dude...

I completely and totally disagree with the fairness doctrine.

Why? Media is private enterprise, and unlike many services, it can wholly ignored if it wants. Thus, things will and should produce news with a slant. That way, those who seek to learn more via opposing viewpoints, can.

Further, I just wish they'd do more than 30 seconds spurts on things. At least have reference material or something, you can't explain any news story in 30 seconds, not fully.

steelreserve
05-11-2009, 05:21 PM
Seems like a pointless law to begin with. Every journalist knows that in order to be taken seriously, your #1 job is to remain objective, unless it's the op-ed section. Only problem these days is that a lot of the media has become so fragmented and specialized to certain audiences that entire publications/shows can be like a big opinion piece. Guess it's our job to decide which is worth our time.

JEFF4i
05-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Seems like a pointless law to begin with. Every journalist knows that in order to be taken seriously, your #1 job is to remain objective, unless it's the op-ed section. Only problem these days is that a lot of the media has become so fragmented and specialized to certain audiences that entire publications/shows can be like a big opinion piece. Guess it's our job to decide which is worth our time.

Ironically, this isn't a bad thing that things have become biased, as long as the reporting is full and competent. I don't mind media having its slants, as you get different perspectives on issues, which is healthy. Silver lining, perhaps.

Yes, I watch FOXNews, as well as CNN, NPR, and various others. The funny thing is, most of FOX isn't bad, excluding the rare but extreme example of outrageous statements, which come from all the aforementioned as well.

steelreserve
05-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Ironically, this isn't a bad thing that things have become biased, as long as the reporting is full and competent. I don't mind media having its slants, as you get different perspectives on issues, which is healthy. Silver lining, perhaps.

Well, yeah, that's true, but I do think that since there are a couple dozen times more TV channels now than there ever used to be, and the Internet giving a voice to any random nutjob who wants to vent, the crap-to-credible ratio has gotten a lot higher overall. Not that there's anything wrong with having an opinion, but as a viewer, you have to sift through a lot more and make a lot more of your own determinations these days about what's credible and what's just someone running their mouth.

I mean, remember "Loose Change" or all the conspiracy theories about the 9/11 airplanes somehow being armed with air-to-air missiles that they shot into the World Trade Center? A lot of people actually believed that type of shit. I mean, that used to be the kind of thing that would be relegated to the National Enquirer, but a lot of wannabe "journalists" like that have managed to steal a little credibility because of the prevalence of the Internet and the fragmentation of the mainstream media. Wit the result being that the whole thing has become much more crapcentric.