When the first use of the Fairness Doctrine was used, it was designed to give equal views of various political subjects and candidates. It was not for equal time however, but equal views. So that a news show could give 5 paragraphs of information on one side, and a sentence on the other, and this was considered equal view. So in effect it was never truly a "Fairness Doctrine", but a precursor to what is commonly done today on many shows, especially in the view of the left, and some heavily on the right. While the left still uses this charade, a few on the Right do as well, and in here Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity come to mind.
What is being desired to be subjected to the public today, is not even what this used to be. What it is that the Left wants now, is a Fairness Doctrine that limits any view but what they claim is valid. This is in line with what we see in Communist countries where only what the State says is truth can be told. It is a movement to control free speech, and the people following this view are either not paying attention as usual, or are so indoctrinated they no long can see what is going on.
The version of the fairness doctrine that is being offered today, is a direct assult on what the fairness doctrine was 50 years ago. Evan Pelosi has stated she wanted it to be used to knock out Conservative Radio, and Harry Reede supported her on this. While in no effort did the Right try to attack or hamper the Left attempt to talk radio, and let it fail on its own. A large number of Liberal Representatives and Senators have stated agreement to Pelosi and Reed. Thus in that view makes the Fairness Doctrine Constitutionally illegal.
If someone wants to equalize the talk shows, then they would have to set something up that is equal in effect, not just one sided, and would not interfere with the Constitution. Which makes the attempt a hard road to do, and thus should not be touched by either side.
People have to be free to believe what they will. If the government moves in to control what we hear and see, then we all lose, the Country loses.
The followers of the Liberal Movement are not seeing what is happening right under their noses, and need to wake up. This is not new, as we have been losing our freedoms for decades, and mostly at the hands of the Liberals, mostly not totally. The People need to take a stand.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47 ( 1 removed by Dan R. )
As usual, Dan,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Thus in that view makes the Fairness Doctrine Constitutionally illegal."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"It is a movement to control free speech, and the people following this view are either not paying attention as usual, or are so indoctrinated they no long can see what is going on.
"
AND YOU LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Any resurrection under the Dems will be the same thing. They can paint it anyway they want to but its speech control and has nothing to do with "fairness"
And According to some of the Politicians on the Left, they have made that very clear without the window dressing.
That is not correct.
"The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949. The doctrine remained a matter of general policy and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations."
-- from Wikipedia's page on the Fairness Doctrine.
This time line is confirmed by a Time magazine article "A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine dated February 20, 2009.
fairness!
bother the radio heads!
thats of no value as the radio heads are of no value
Where privately held and controlled mega-mass media sources are the primary, or only source, of media to more than ten million people, the government needs the ability to ensure that the right of free speech is being accommodated and that information being disseminated is not biased; especially regarding local, regional and national issues.
Yeah, it smells similar to a government censorship board, but the Fairness Doctrine was limited to only forcing accommodation of free speech on those mass broadcasting organizations whose audiences were limited in exposure to media presenting other perspectives, and limited application to those organizations that were obviously restricting their information output to only one-sided positions.
Free speech is an American right that our government should be able to protect and enforce.
I do not see how that can be protecting our freedoms, when the Left has supported more of the removal of our freedoms than anyone else. This is why I have stated that everyone needs to look and think, even if we still disagree, at least the common ills we would be seeing. Yet people like yourself, Eric, and others want to continue to hammer away at what made this country great.
There is absolutely nothing in my comment that shows a preference for Left bias, or against Rightist perspectives.
I am FOR free speech for EVERYONE.
Media, controlled or manipulated by corporations with specific ideological slants, is NOT what made this country great. Free Speech, in open and diverse forums, is.
"My take is this, for the sake of our national safety, to promote and ensure open and free public discourse, and to prevent large groups of civilians from becoming brainwashed by media controllers, I support the government in having mechanisms like the Fairness Doctrine. "
So far the brainwashing has been done by the left media. THe Radio programs, even though many like Rush I do not like, mostly promote free thought. The Left media dictates what you are to think. Now you are supporting the ones that are dictating controlled thought over those that promote free thought.
"Where privately held and controlled mega-mass media sources are the primary, or only source, of media to more than ten million people, the government needs the ability to ensure that the right of free speech is being accommodated and that information being disseminated is not biased; especially regarding local, regional and national issues."
And this I agree, but by using the Fairness doctrine, you are supporting the control of free speach rather than the promotion or defending of it. The Fairness Doctrine as stated by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed is needed to control the Conservitive Talk Radio. Which means that they and those that support them, are afraid of being stopped. When people talk about the support of the Constitution, Politicians like Pelosi and Reed get very scared.
"Yeah, it smells similar to a government censorship board, but the Fairness Doctrine was limited to only forcing accommodation of free speech on those mass broadcasting organizations whose audiences were limited in exposure to media presenting other perspectives, and limited application to those organizations that were obviously restricting their information output to only one-sided positions."
The Fairness Doctrine was a joke then, and is now to be used as a tool of controling free speach. In all honesty, as l;ong as any one from the left makes sound and rational arguements, most talk shows will let them talk. They know the Left will show themselves for what they are, and not need any help. But you try and talk on a Liberal Talk show and keep calm and rational, and you get insulted, then hung up on without a sound arguement. Then the Left applauds the skill of the talk show host for handling the person... Yeah....
"Free speech is an American right that our government should be able to protect and enforce."
I agree and supporting the Left's efforts is supporting the removal of free speach. Look it up some time, the Conservitives had a more sound bill offered and was blocked by the Democrats. It actually had more protection than the Fairness Doctrine has, yet the Democrats did not want that bill in any form.
You want to give me the legal justification for your opposition to the fairness doctrine, based on your own, extensive background in constitutional law?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And this is from a guy who can't even spell spokesman.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Synopsized:
"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section."
CFR parts for which 47 USC 315 provides authority
* 47 CFR 22
* 47 CFR 80
* 47 CFR 97
PS- As for the uniforms we have plenty of brown shirts for everybody . . . you will be responsible for providing your own jackboots though.
the purpose of Amendment I is to ensure that any individual or group can express a one-sided position without government interference. What is the point of Amendment I if you have to be careful what you say in public? There is no point to it at all. You may as well tear up the Constitution.
"Free speech is an American right that our government should be able to protect and enforce."
Free speech is not free if the government has to enforce it. The best way for the government to protect it, is to not interfere with it.
All of us have friends, coworkers, neighbors, and family members who hail from different points on the left-right continuum.
Most folks' attitudes are more complex than that, anyway. People can be socially progressive and fiscally conservatives -- or vice versa.
So, stay true to your beliefs, Dan, but try harder to make one of those beliefs that Americans have more in common than some would have us believe.
Then ask yourself whose interests are served by dividing us.
Retreating to opposite corners and hurling catcalls doesn't solve our problems. Working together does.
So no I do not respect a lot of them, but that is what you get here.
To extend your bovine metaphor, my beef is with writers of any political stripe who take "sides," build fences, and offer negativity about those on the other "side" rather than constructive suggestions from theirs.
If your aim is to corral the like-minded and isolate them from others, this approach snaps into focus for what it is. But grazing one corner of the pasture provides a steady diet of think-alike, talk-alike -- hardly a recipe for free thinking.
That's why I wander around, listening for and heeding intelligent, constructive voices, regardless what part of the pasture they're from.
Although history shows that playing groups of people against each other can indeed make big things happen (the Third Reich, for example), Americans can do better. Perpetuating divisiveness and appealing to the worst aspects of human nature are not elements of a "solution" we should welcome.
If I have an ideology, it's taking the "U" in USA seriously. We accomplish much more when we work together, and there is a lot that needs to be accomplished now.
If the Right want their good ideas to be incorporated into those accomplishments, bellyaching about the foibles of the Left is not the best way to make that happen. Advancing your values is gonna require, to quote Toby Keith, "a little less talk and a lot more action."
Your observation that collectively the Gather crowd is left of center rings true. And there is indeed a tendency for rather shallow "rah-rah-rah" and "hooray for our side" in commentary. The "rah-rah" is mostly benign fluff, but "hooray for our side" often tends to build fences across the Gather pasture.
Yet even on Gather, there are many intelligent, constructive conservative voices.
Strive to become one of them.
Since then, it has been a constant war between the Democrats and Republicans, and both parties have been erroding this country.
And those wascawwy Democwats and Wepubwicans! You, of course, are bwamewess.
Thomas, it started with Lincoln, and has continued through today. Most politicians have in some way added to it slowly, each in their own way.
...and you are just following their lead? That would be nice going -- if you were one of the "sheep" you disdain so much.
But you're a free thinker, right?
So you know (or ought to) that a rift along North-South lines; had already opened during President Buchanan's administration, and that 7 of the 11 Southern states that seceded from the Union had already done so before Lincoln took office.
Even this Tar Heel knows that this wasn't Lincoln's doing.
Thomas, did you know five of the first states in the COnfederacy were not even from the south? Did you know that the confederacy started before Buccannan?
Ok so what does any of this have to do with my statement?
> what does any of this have to do with my statement?
I'm just trying to understand your "it started with Lincoln" assertion.
What is "it"?
The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with equal time or providing the expression of "equal views." It is about not allowing a media outlet to reject other viewpoints. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place, the media was more responsible and gave many sides time to air their concerns and points of view. There was woman in the 1960s, named Midge Decter, who was quite active in conservative political circles. She had once been a member of the highly regressive John Birch Society. She made clear at many of her speeches that she intended to see the Fairness Doctrine abolished. Her reasoning was that once it was no longer in force, the conservative movement could dominate the airwaves. Well, she got her way (with a lot of help from President Ronald Reagan) and the conservative movement does, in fact, dominate the airwaves. There isn't one media outlet that gives anything close to equal time to non-conservative points of view. The media outlets are owned and operated by conservatives. It is quite popular for conservatives to whine about the "liberal media." Of course, it just isn't the case. There are some media outlets with a liberal philosophy, but they are rare and mostly moderate. The fact is that the conservatives have enjoyed complete freedom to express themselves. The concept of a "liberal media" does not translate to reality.
Joe T., If the fairness Doctorin was to be passed, the only view that would be allowed, would be that of the left, and then you all would clame it to be fare and even views. Because the only view that would be allowed would be your's (as in the leftest views) and all others would be regulated just like Russia and China do to all other views out side the main parties view.
The Conservative media has only existed in the Radio talk shows, while the real dominate power is in the printed and television media, which is 90+%.
"The concept of a "liberal media" does not translate to reality."
That is so much party line bunk.
Dan,
I would be interested to learn what you consider "liberal media." There are many conservative pundits screaming about the "liberal media" when it just isn't the case. There are quite a few moderate voices featured in the media outlets, but liberal voices get very little attention. I think that it's possible that when a viewpoint is expressed that you don't like that you consider it liberal. There is long and varied history in America with liberalism. So many of the workplace expectations that people have today came about because of the efforts of the many liberals before us. There would never have been the concept of the weekend if it weren't for the liberals who toiled endlessly to improve the quality of life for workers. Anyone who enjoys the fifty-two weekends a year owes it to those "damn liberals." The eight hour work day came about because of liberals. There is a lot of history with liberals, Dan. We have benefitted greatly because of the liberal politics of the past. Today, the media doesn't even touch on liberal causes, unless you are confusing liberal causes with those things that you don't agree with. Conservatives in the era of Barry Goldwater would never lie to people about liberals. Those conservatives understood that liberals were good people, too. Todays, conservatives lie and cheat to get their way. Conservatives have captured the American culture and won on many issues in the past twenty-five years. Workplace values have completely changed because of conservative efforts to tip the scales in favor of business. This cultural shift happened with the help of the media outlets, Dan. Anyone who doesn't see the truth is either a liar or just plain stupid.
Joe, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are just a few of the hundreds of Liberal Media outlets, as if you did not know. I really do not understand why you people constantly scream that you have no voice when your's is the most heard and reputed BS in the country?
A fundamental flaw of discussions such as this is that pivotal terms (in this case: "liberal" and "conservative") have not been defined.
Said it on May 12, and I'll say it again:
Dan,
Those stations might give more airtime to a liberal than others would. But, it is simply wrong to suggest that they are dominated by liberals in any way. The ones you listed are all conservative owned.
Exactly, Thomas! That's why conservatives are so shocked to learn that the voters will vote for a Democrat when the Republicans fail them (as happened the past eight years). They believe that Americans are on the same page when, in fact, Americans are interested in living their lives with the principles that have lasted throughout the past two hundred thirty-three years. The major principle is the ability to better oneself. Conservatives have shown little interest in that lately. When they choose to ignore the needs of the middle class, they lose. The penduluum will swing back. I believe that when the Republicans win again that many of the repressive voices that we hear in the conservative movement will have been drowned out. The Republicans will either change or die.
Speaking of working together: I was totally impressed with President Obama's speech about managing the abortion concerns on both sides with compromise and an approach that reduces a woman's need for abortion. We'll have to see if anything comes of it. This is the first time that a president has come up with an idea that seeks to build consensus rather than division. I find it refreshing.
Joe, those stations give none liberal views next to no view what so ever. They will only support liberal views, they only carry Liberal idology in everything they show. What would it take for you and others to call them a liberal station? I mean there is no views beside yours allowed on them, so what else is there to call it?