How Fair Is It?

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Fairness Doctrine:

Originally instituted in the late 40's when radio frequencies were not always readily available, this doctrine was designed to ensure every story had two sides, in 1949, the FCC handed out few liscenses to operate radio stations and wanted to make sure that without the abundance of avenues to disseminate ideas, there was fairness in reporting.

Today, you have the internet, a television in every home and radio. The new administration is working to try and roll out the doctrine again, and hold radio stations accountable for shock jock, particularly aimed at conservative talk show hosts.

I don't like Micheal Savage, I can almost tolerate Sean Hannity and I hate Rush, however, regardless of how acidic I find their opinions, they do have rights protected under the 1st amendment and they shouln't be silenced because they are amongst the only people speaking out against an administration that has in such a short period, brainwashed an entire planet.

Thoughts?

And before nayone says the Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist, you have to dig back in history, but there is such a thing, it wan't invented by Dems in the Obama White House....It started back in the 40's

 

[Dana]

While people are entitled to their opinion, I think opinions can only stretch so far...

 

[dt3]

Fox says Obama is against it, so it must be true

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

 

[Dana]

I would think any good talk show host would love to hear opposing views and rile up a debate?

 

[Peter Parka]

God, they must be desperate and worried to drag this up!

 

[dt3]

I would think any good talk show host would love to hear opposing views and rile up a debate?

Of course. But should they be forced to do so? No, it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Dana]

Of course. But should they be forced to do so? No, it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

No but then they should be held liable for their point of view in some respects.

 

[Alien Allen]

I made a thread about this at another place. This is going to happen.


Fairness Doctrine ..... Censorship Edict is more like it It is almost a certainty that in the new blood thirst of power that the liberals will get their wish and the Censorship Edict will be restored.

It does not take an act of congress. All it takes is a ruling by the FCC Commissioner to dictate what is nothing less than censorship.

What is the left so afraid of that they want to meddle with the free market. These radio shows they want to muzzle are not on the air due to some vast right wing conspiracy by the media giants. They are on the air because people in large enough numbers listen to the shows.

So how are they going to ever make this work and why would it not be shot down by the Supreme Court? Who is going to dictate what is or is not within a standard.

Oh and while this nutbag Waxman likely will not get any support he also wants to look into doing something about the "diversity" there.

Quote:
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.



Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...n-all-fairness

 

[dt3]

No but then they should be held liable for their point of view in some respects.

Liable how?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

While people are entitled to their opinion, I think opinions can only stretch so far...

Who draws the line?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I would think any good talk show host would love to hear opposing views and rile up a debate?

Here's the point, the Dems have plenty of avenues with which to voice their opinion without opposition.

What if I want to pick and choose the opposing views I hear? Shouldn't I have that right?

What is happening is right wing talk radio has become so powerful that Libs think it needs to be stifled so we HAVE to listen to NPR

 

[dt3]

No but then they should be held liable for their point of view in some respects.

They're held liable every day they're on the air. They're liable to their sponsors. They're liable to the station they're on. They're liable to the FCC for their content. And ultimately they're held liable to their audience, who is free to change the dial at any time.

 

[satinbutterfly]

I think it's wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if these show hosts want to make themselves look like idiots, why should anyone want to stop them?

 

[Minor Axis]

Fairness Doctrine:

Originally instituted in the late 40's when radio frequencies were not always readily available, this doctrine was designed to ensure every story had two sides, in 1949, the FCC handed out few liscenses to operate radio stations and wanted to make sure that without the abundance of avenues to disseminate ideas, there was fairness in reporting.

Today, you have the internet, a television in every home and radio. The new administration is working to try and roll out the doctrine again, and hold radio stations accountable for shock jock, particularly aimed at conservative talk show hosts.

I don't like Micheal Savage, I can almost tolerate Sean Hannity and I hate Rush, however, regardless of how acidic I find their opinions, they do have rights protected under the 1st amendment and they shouln't be silenced because they are amongst the only people speaking out against an administration that has in such a short period, brainwashed an entire planet.

Thoughts?

And before nayone says the Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist, you have to dig back in history, but there is such a thing, it wan't invented by Dems in the Obama White House....It started back in the 40's

Right wing idiots are being silenced? Since when? lol.

 

[Dana]

Here's the point, the Dems have plenty of avenues with which to voice their opinion without opposition.

What if I want to pick and choose the opposing views I hear? Shouldn't I have that right?

What is happening is right wing talk radio has become so powerful that Libs think it needs to be stifled so we HAVE to listen to NPR

I agree with the powrerful part. I guess I don't get what you mean by picking and choosing your opposing view? Of course there needs to be more than one opposing view. What good is a debate with only two opinions?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I agree with the powrerful part. I guess I don't get what you mean by picking and choosing your opposing view? Of course there needs to be more than one opposing view. What good is a debate with only two opinions?

Since when did talk radio have to be a debate? What if I don't want to hear an opposing view...That's my point. I tune into stations I WANT TO LISTEN TO, because they offer the format I like. I don't want government saying "Well, you aren't smart enough to know what you should listen to, so we are making you listen to Nancy Pelosi tonight":eek

 

[Alien Allen]

I still can not see how they can regulate talk radio. Correct me if I am wrong but when the fairness doctrine was put in place there was no talk radio so to speak. You had radio personalities that came on and preached. So now you have people calling in and they can have apposing views. You could have a Limbaugh or a Hannity accept only liberal callers and then just let em bash away at those callers. both sides get presented. how is that going to be regulated?/

 

[Ryder]

May I ask why we should care about a doctrine that was made in the 40's?

 

[Alien Allen]

May I ask why we should care about a doctrine that was made in the 40's?

because they want to restore it. It would require stations to have more balanced programming. With the possibility of equal time. Do you think the govt should be able to control radio content?

 

[HottyToddyChick]

They're held liable every day they're on the air. They're liable to their sponsors. They're liable to the station they're on. They're liable to the FCC for their content. And ultimately they're held liable to their audience, who is free to change the dial at any time.

That's the point I was going to make. Nobody is forcing you to watch, listen, or read these opinions. I think it's completely ridiculous to bring this back. If you don't like what your are hearing, flip it to something else.