Obama against reviving "Fairness Doctrine"

[kavika411]

I'm curious whether people here have a strong feeling one way or another about reviving the "Fairness Doctrine." (Please close or merge this thread if already covered.) It appears Obama does not want to bring it back:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/

[sysiphus]

Glad to hear he doesn't want it. In theory, we've got a free market and freedom of speech--if a media outlet can't survive, but its competitor whose views are counter to the first one's can, why should the government have anything to do with it? That would be like saying that Chrysler can't sell a Sebring here because Ford can't sell enough Tauruses to stay profitable (recognizing that neither one of them are doing well right now, but the analogy works).

[kavika411]

Glad to hear he doesn't want it. In theory, we've got a free market and freedom of speech--if a media outlet can't survive, but its competitor whose views are counter to the first one's can, why should the government have anything to do with it? That would be like saying that Chrysler can't sell a Sebring here because Ford can't sell enough Tauruses to stay profitable (recognizing that neither one of them are doing well right now, but the analogy works).

The question I have - because I simply do not know/understand enough in this realm - is who "owns" these frequencies. I increasingly see an argument in favor of the the Fairness Doctrine if these frequencies are publicly owned, and that is coming from someone who leans conservative more times than not. But again, I don't know how these frequencies are owned, leased, etc.

[yojitani]

I personally don't see a reason to regulate broadcasters like this. What I would like to see are broadcasters held to the same level of accountability as other commercial products. Thus, Fox news' 'fair and balanced' would have to be 'fair and balanced.' Impossible to enforce probably, but there are so many things wrong with American news reporting, it isn't even funny.

I wish the US had an organization like the BBC...

[leekohler]

Good for Obama. This'll make Limbaugh's head spin for a few weeks. :) He won't know what to make of it!

[Lesser Evets]

It will be brought back as the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Please, they'll just change the name. I am surprised they didn't shove some unfairness doctrine in the "bail out" bill, since no one read it anyway.

[leekohler]

It will be brought back as the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Please, they'll just change the name. I am surprised they didn't shove some unfairness doctrine in the "bail out" bill, since no one read it anyway.

Please cite your evidence for this claim.

[gibbz]

Good for Obama. This'll make Limbaugh's head spin for a few weeks. :) He won't know what to make of it!

Yeah I immediately thought of what Limbaugh's reaction might be. Knowing him, he'll find some way to spin this into a negative for Obama.

[iAthena]

I'm glad that he came out publicly against it. That's all we need now is radio stations worried that they are going to be forced to carry content that they can't get advertisers to support.

[Lesser Evets]

Please cite your evidence for this claim.

Did I say it was evidence?

it's common sense. The Democrats see freedom of speech as a threat, because it allows opposition to take hold. The "fairness doctrine" was an obvious step toward controlling people's ability to find and relate to sympathetic media. Limbaugh and other radio hosts have been constantly pegged as obstructions to nirvana.

How much longer do you think until they begin another, slyly packaged, effort at limiting the market and free speech?

[chrmjenkins]

Did I say it was evidence?

it's common sense. The Democrats see freedom of speech as a threat, because it allows opposition to take hold. The "fairness doctrine" was an obvious step toward controlling people's ability to find and relate to sympathetic media. Limbaugh and other radio hosts have been constantly pegged as obstructions to nirvana.

How much longer do you think until they begin another, slyly packaged, effort at limiting the market and free speech?

I'm sorry, but...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I would ask for citations, but I think that would only make it more humorous. We come out of the Bush administration where climatologists are being told to tone down the global warming talk and we're talking about Democrats fearing free speech?

[leekohler]

Did I say it was evidence?

it's common sense. The Democrats see freedom of speech as a threat, because it allows opposition to take hold. The "fairness doctrine" was an obvious step toward controlling people's ability to find and relate to sympathetic media. Limbaugh and other radio hosts have been constantly pegged as obstructions to nirvana.

How much longer do you think until they begin another, slyly packaged, effort at limiting the market and free speech?

Ha! Is this a joke? Are you serious with this? The entire Bush administration was based on squelching freedom of speech.

[.Andy]

Ha! Is this a joke? Are you serious with this? The entire Bush administration was based on squelching freedom of speech.
That might have been what they did, but that's not what they said. It's an important distinction to republicans.

[NT1440]

Did I say it was evidence?

it's common sense. The Democrats see freedom of speech as a threat, because it allows opposition to take hold. The "fairness doctrine" was an obvious step toward controlling people's ability to find and relate to sympathetic media. Limbaugh and other radio hosts have been constantly pegged as obstructions to nirvana.

How much longer do you think until they begin another, slyly packaged, effort at limiting the market and free speech?

My god, your reality is so twisted I don't know where to begin. PLEASE tell me you are either a troll or far far far below voting age.

"Common sense" (especially when as twisted as this) doesn't fly in this forum. The rules specifically state you have to back up your statements.

[jonbravo77]

Did I say it was evidence?

it's common sense. The Democrats see freedom of speech as a threat, because it allows opposition to take hold. The "fairness doctrine" was an obvious step toward controlling people's ability to find and relate to sympathetic media. Limbaugh and other radio hosts have been constantly pegged as obstructions to nirvana.

How much longer do you think until they begin another, slyly packaged, effort at limiting the market and free speech?

Would you like some evidence to why your whole "democrats" theory does not hold water? Here you go, Howard Stern was pushed from the airways because of the FCC's sudden morality turn, under Bush's greater moralifying (yes, that is my word) of the nation and the sudden upswing of religious righteousness that started (in my perception) with the Terry Shaivo case in 2005.

The frequencies are regulated by the FCC, being a government agency therefore the frequencies are owned by the public. I'm glad that Obama is not going to go forward with the Fairness Doctrine, it would undermine the first amendment even more than it has been by the Patriot Act. And to the statement in bold, ask your ultra conservative officials, they would know better then anyone...

[jonbravo77]

That might have been what they did, but that's not what they said. It's an important distinction to republicans.

Exactly, the republicans hold the "do as I say not as I do" attitude far worse then the democrats do. But again, both sides are bad about this.

[hulugu]

Glad to hear he doesn't want it. In theory, we've got a free market and freedom of speech--if a media outlet can't survive, but its competitor whose views are counter to the first one's can, why should the government have anything to do with it? That would be like saying that Chrysler can't sell a Sebring here because Ford can't sell enough Tauruses to stay profitable (recognizing that neither one of them are doing well right now, but the analogy works).

You're forgetting an important aspect of this, the broadcasters are using the public airwaves in order to engage in business, thus the government can act in the public interest. This is why the FCC continues to regulate speech on these airwaves with regard to language, graphic images, and pornography. Now, we can argue whether this is necessary or important, but let's not forget that the Broadcasters have licensed the spectrum and this drives their business.
To use your car analogy, Ford and Chrysler both have to follow certain guidelines on the "street-legal" use of their cars, which includes safety-measures, width limitations, and other design constraints.

Now, as to the fairness doctrine, the idea was not that you'd have one liberal and one conservative per se, but rather this came from the idea that both sides should be able, and even encouraged, to present their ideas with equal time.

I'd argue that this is unnecessary because of the vast number of sources of information available, but at the time the Fairness Doctrine was developed it really did mean something besides two opposing markets. A government auditor shouldn't review Fox News for fairness, because Fox News and indeed every other news broadcaster should already have incorporated such an act into their professional doctrine.

Of course, the point of the News Broadcast should be to transmit news, not drive political ideology. But, I'm apparently a dinosaur in this regard.

That might have been what they did, but that's not what they said. It's an important distinction to republicans.

This seems like a mark of incredulous insanity more than anything else. Acts should always mean more than words.

[jonbravo77]

Of course, the point of the News Broadcast should be to transmit news, not drive political ideology. But, I'm apparently a dinosaur in this regard.


Apparently so am I. it would be nice to see a news station actually tell the news instead of making the news lean one way or another.

[mkrishnan]

Did the Fairness Doctrine ever apply to opinion television like news talk shows? I thought it only applied to news reporting. Granted that line is greyer now than it was 20 years ago when this was repealed, but....

Practically, anyway, it's good for balanced reporting to be available but this is very difficult to practice.

[hulugu]

Did the Fairness Doctrine ever apply to opinion television like news talk shows? I thought it only applied to news reporting. Granted that line is greyer now than it was 20 years ago when this was repealed, but....

Practically, anyway, it's good for balanced reporting to be available but this is very difficult to practice.

AFAIK, the Fairness Doctrine did apply to news talk shows and such shows were one of the reasons it was developed. The idea was simply that a show should have both sides and that attempts were made to allow both to present their case.

I'll look for some specific examples.

[Ugg]

AFAIK, the Fairness Doctrine did apply to news talk shows and such shows were one of the reasons it was developed. The idea was simply that a show should have both sides and that attempts were made to allow both to present their case.

I'll look for some specific examples.

Saturday Night Live had some great spoofs of the Fairness Doctrine.

I can just barely remember the regular newscasts where opposing viewpoints were shown. Sometimes it seemed a little forced, but sometimes it was really good stuff. Of course that was pre shock jock days and there wasn't the level of antagonism there is today.

Personally, I'd prefer it if TV or radio was forced to give up soundbites in favor of thorough coverage of the issues. I think the 20 second soundbite has done more to polarize American than anything else.

[chrmjenkins]

Saturday Night Live had some great spoofs of the Fairness Doctrine.

I can just barely remember the regular newscasts where opposing viewpoints were shown. Sometimes it seemed a little forced, but sometimes it was really good stuff. Of course that was pre shock jock days and there wasn't the level of antagonism there is today.

Personally, I'd prefer it if TV or radio was forced to give up soundbites in favor of thorough coverage of the issues. I think the 20 second soundbite has done more to polarize American than anything else.

If I can't take things out of context then I'll have to form rational, developed opinions. I can't stand for that.

[it5five]

Good for Obama. This'll make Limbaugh's head spin for a few weeks. :) He won't know what to make of it!

Yeah I immediately thought of what Limbaugh's reaction might be. Knowing him, he'll find some way to spin this into a negative for Obama.

I think you guys can find what will likely be Rush's new position about Obama and the F.D.:

It will be brought back as the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

Please, they'll just change the name. I am surprised they didn't shove some unfairness doctrine in the "bail out" bill, since no one read it anyway.

Did I say it was evidence?

it's common sense. The Democrats see freedom of speech as a threat, because it allows opposition to take hold. The "fairness doctrine" was an obvious step toward controlling people's ability to find and relate to sympathetic media. Limbaugh and other radio hosts have been constantly pegged as obstructions to nirvana.

How much longer do you think until they begin another, slyly packaged, effort at limiting the market and free speech?

[NT1440]

I think you guys can find what will likely be Rush's new position about Obama and the F.D.:

:eek:

Is he, no he cant be, RUSH!?

[it5five]

Probably a dittohead, which is worse than actually being Rush Limbaugh.

[Desertrat]

The public statements from those espousing a resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine are claiming that somehow talk radio only caters to the Right Wing, and somehow the Left plays Left Out.

But talk radio is merely editorial opinion, based upon the news. Any person of any political viewpoint is free to try to help the station sell advertising by creating an audience. No audience, no advertising, no viewpoint on the air. The listening public is voting with the dial. Congress has no business messing with that.

As far as Fox News, programs such as Hannity and O'Reilly aren't news programs. They're editorial programs. The actual news-hour programs are as good as any other for accuracy: Did the event happen, and some "who, what, when, where and why". "What does it mean?" is editorializing, as with the Sunday morning talking-head shows like "Meet the Depressed" or "Deface the Nation". :)

'Rat

[.Andy]

As far as Fox News, programs such as Hannity and O'Reilly aren't news programs. They're editorial programs. The actual news-hour programs are as good as any other for accuracy: Did the event happen, and some "who, what, when, where and why".
Did you seriously just try to equate all news programs as equal in accuracy?

[mkrishnan]

Hmmmm, a fairness doctrine that applied to news analysis / commentary / opinion would be ridiculous.

[Desertrat]

.Andy, if an event occurred and is reported accurately by the ancient standards of the "Five Ws", how is one source better than another?

On almost all of today's TV news, however, injecting of personal opinion by reporters is a commonality. We're mostly fed "newsatorials". And that's when "Good" or "Bad" judgements arise from one's own personal views.

I gotta admit to mostly just catching headlines or skimming. At my age, I already heard or saw the deal, somewhere in the last ten to sixty years. "Only the names have changed, to protect the guilty." :) People repeat the same old mistakes, decade after decade.

When there is some political event, don't you already know what a Carville will say? Or a Limbaugh? The WashPost or the NYTimes? But that's not news; it's editorializing.

So, the bottom line is that the news programs are close enough to equal as makes no nevermind...

And back to the highway.

'Rat

[Diatribe]

This is one of the times where I think the system Germany has for example makes a lot of sense. They have 2 main TV stations that are independent and tax funded and therefore more objective than private channels could ever be.
Sometimes Germans wish they didn't have to pay for it but I think it makes a lot of sense to have them. They do have opinion pieces but they are in discussion shows, not in news shows and are labeled as such.

[Thomas Veil]

The FCC was a whole lot different during my youth and into my early adulthood. The airwaves were understood to be a public resource, and the FCC's job was to ensure that they were not dominated by any one company or point of view.

To that end we had the Fairness Doctrine. By way of example, we had a big radio mega-station in town both then and now. But back then, in the morning you had a liberal-slanted show, and in the afternoon you had a conservative. It was interesting, because members of both persuasions called both shows, and the results were sometimes explosive and entertaining.

Now, Clear Channel makes sure we get nothing but Rush, Glenn Beck and other right-wing extremists, day in and day out, and these guys don't tolerate any dissenters. And even when the station reverts to local hosts delivering the news in morning drive time, you get nasty cracks about liberals and other "socialists".

The FCC did other good things too, like make sure we didn't have market dominance by any one company. There were rules against things like one company owning more than one newspaper and five radio stations in any single market. Of course, that was when cities had more than one newspaper, but now we have single companies owning most of the radio stations in town.

The idea, of course, was to make sure readers and viewers were receiving more than one viewpoint, and given the current ubiquitousness of extremist right wing radio, I really don't see anything wrong with that. So I think Obama is wrong on this one. And I think the FCC was better when they were stewarding the airwaves instead of selling them.

Saturday Night Live had some great spoofs of the Fairness Doctrine. "Jane, you ignorant slut!......." :D