Obama against reviving "Fairness Doctrine"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kavika411, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #1
  2. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #2
    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).
     
  3. kavika411 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #3
    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.
     
  4. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #4
    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...
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Good for Obama. This'll make Limbaugh's head spin for a few weeks. :) He won't know what to make of it!
     
  6. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #6
    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.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Please cite your evidence for this claim.
     
  8. gibbz macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #8
    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.
     
  9. iAthena macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #10
    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?
     
  11. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #11
    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?
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Ha! Is this a joke? Are you serious with this? The entire Bush administration was based on squelching freedom of speech.
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    That might have been what they did, but that's not what they said. It's an important distinction to republicans.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    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.
     
  15. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #15
    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...
     
  16. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #16
    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.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    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.

    This seems like a mark of incredulous insanity more than anything else. Acts should always mean more than words.
     
  18. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #18
    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.
     
  19. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #19
    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.
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    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.
     
  22. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #22
    If I can't take things out of context then I'll have to form rational, developed opinions. I can't stand for that.
     
  23. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #23
    I think you guys can find what will likely be Rush's new position about Obama and the F.D.:

     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    :eek:

    Is he, no he cant be, RUSH!?
     
  25. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #25
    Probably a dittohead, which is worse than actually being Rush Limbaugh.
     

Share This Page