FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

www.nworeport.com

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:

This is out of hand and we need to stop this!!!

www.nworeport.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Eh?

I'm sorry but i don't really understand the consequences of this..
Can you provide more info as to how this would apply to the web?

Thanks.

reply to post by Absence of Self


Very simple. If you have a radio or TV show that you own and operate as a stand alone entity and sell that show to stations then you should not have to have the government step in and tell you that you have to have someone who takes a diametricly opposite stance to your message and to your beliefs of how to say it. What your opinion is isn't any business of a government entity just because someone else thinks you might have a monopoly on agreement. If you then allow that content to be streamed on the internet and this fairness doctrine is imposed then you must pay to have your counterpart on the show as well. This is controlling information by the government and hipocracy in the use of the first amendment. If someone has differing views from yours its they're responsibility to get they're own media to disprove your point of view. It is not the governments right to step in and decide on the opinions espoused.

Zindo

[edit on 8/12/2008 by ZindoDoone]

Yeah, so I guess if you are on the air telling the truth about something. Then you would have to put on the air, a disinformation agent to tell "his side." That sounds "fair."

Troy

Return of the Fairness Doctrine is not only a good idea, but is needed desperately. The only ones it is going to hurt is the "hate mongers" who control talk radio right now. They would have to provide equal time to the opposing views... lol

FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly... they are the ilk that have and are driving the need for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Only media needs to be concerned about this... it will not affect the average user at all.

Rose,
Its been tried by Air America and no one listened. Why should someone who owns they're own show, sells it on the free market and has a following thats as large as it is be told that because someone doesn't see eye to eye with them they have to now, under government edict be forced to take time that costs millions a minute, and let someone else give they're opinion on YOUR dime?? If Air America was such a great idea and they had the audience then why should they have to give the other side. Its works both ways. Its not any of the media you mentioned fault that they are believed and Air America wasn't. Its opinion and if no one listened, they would die they're own death. Just like Air America.

Zindo

When I want to hear a liberal viewpoint, I just switch it over to NPR. I do enjoy the hard news there, but I don't care to much for some of the opinion and commentary. I think the fairness doctrine is crap. If people really wanted to hear something like Air America (I've listened on XM here and there as well) then they would be able to make it profitable. Apparently they cannot. Why should the government mandate that there should be a counter to a certain point of view?

Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are making the kind of money they are not so much because of thier views but because they can sell soap. (Or lobstergrams, steakhouses, legal zoom or whatever.) I'd like to believe that someone who was entertaining with an opposite viewpoint could be as successfull. Bill Maher comes to mind.

I could get behind a publicly funded station to be required to have some sort of balance. But requiring a for profit, private enterprise to give a certain amount of time to a certain viewpoint is assinine.

Well something stinks, if the government steps in on something like this. That should say something right there.

What do they not want us to hear? What do they not want us to believe?

Troy

The FCC is acting just as any governmental agency does. Perceive a need and then fill it.

The current demoncratic leadership is upset with talk radio, but like others before them, only have limited vision in how it protects their positions of power and not what it does to the people.

The internet will be included with the purview of the fairness doctrine as it gives more power and more budget (more people) to the FCC fiefdom. Then the age of censorship will rear it's head.

It's that simple.

It will affect every American as site just like this one will be shut down or not accessible from the USA.

Zindo,

Is that Sam Elliott in your avatar? Because if I was talking to a man that looked like that, the conversation would have nothing to do with the FCC.

Rush would not have to change his tune at all, but the stations that carry his show would need to offer an opposing viewpoint. They will probably bury it at 4AM... but it would still be there.

When Regan did away with the Fairness Doctrine is when news began to be more biased, and more entertaining than filled with information the public needs to know. We need to get back to news being a public service. The reporting should be fair and balanced. Investigative news shows and reporters will be allowed to air and publish their stories even if they go against the status quo, or the owner of the station.

I understand what you are saying. But we need ALL the facts to get us through the future, not just the "talking points" that the POTUS or Rupert Murdoch wants us to hear.

Honest, it's a good thing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine... I wouldn't lie to you... your avatar is too sexy.

Rose,
I have no idea who that guy is,LOL. I "borrowed" the avatar. Mine won't fit the program. Anyhow, if that was the way the Fairness Doc was written I would agree but they want the differing opinions on the same show. They want to force opposition on the same program and to be immediate. Can you imagine how mesed up any show would be? It would be one continuous shouting match. It won't work, and thats exactly what the framers of this edict want. To disrupt, not to make it fair and balanced. U2U your email and I will send you a real pic of me in my Western garb,LOL. Its not that far off.LOL!!!!


Zindo

To impose the fairness doctrine on the interweb would be tantamount to censorship of the web.

It goes against everything we, as regular web users, stand for.

Do we not seek out alternative viewpoints to challenge?

Do we take everything we read at face value?

Are we idiots who need telling "...but some people think this..."

I think not.

It is an attempt at web censorship, pure and simple.

Resist it.

You cannot censor something global.

Peace,

MGGG

As a loyal [and naively trusting] MSNBC viewer for the entire Democratic nomination process, I find Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, et al. to be every bit the liberal blowhards as O'Reilly, Hannity, et al. on the conservative/Fox side. Both slants exist in the cable news world.

Whomever suggested that the profit isn't there [see Air America] is right on the money.

Finally, what do you actually expect out of the MSM these days? The 'Truth'? Feh...

[edit on 8.13.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

[edit on 8.13.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

Well obviously this Fairness Doctrine needs to be worked on. In no way would I expect that each and every program should share their dime with the opposing viewpoint. But they should at least give equal time station wise.

Why can't we all just be Americans again. A little give and take, the art of negotiation is not dead yet. I think we should work this thing out intelligently, and get America back on track.

Zindo, I'd send you my email... but I'm such a sucker for the John Wayne type, you'd have me spouting off GOP viewpoints in a few days! lol I just hate myself when that happens... but thanks anyway. Maybe AFTER the election

Jeeze... some people are dense

The fairness doctrine is "change the freeking channel !".

Really this is about talk radio because "one" side of the political powers don't like it.

Well, we have TV, radio, internet, XM, etc.

WE HAVE THE FAIR CHOICE TO GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM ANYWHERE YOU WANT !

The so called "fairness doctrine" is from the days when "radio" was the only choice so it made sense.

We would have to regulate every TV, RADIO, Satellite station, and the internet to comply with the purpose of this bill... do any of you really want that?

Yeah, sometimes the other side of the argument is a lie. Do we need to be told lies too?

It's like 911. Someone gets on the air and tells the truth. But, no, this wouldn't be good enough, we have to hear the other BS side of the story. "Come on, the American people know two planes took down three towers. It's obvious, ha, ha."

And who would it be fair to? The liars? It wouldn't be fair to the people who want the truth.

How many times have you seen a UFO documentary, only to have to listen to a die hard rambling skeptic explain everything away with swamp gas and weather balloons.

Yes, it could be censorship.

Overall, I'm not sure that this Fairness Doctrine is a good idea. Perhaps it could be used for good purposes, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

Troy