Look Out! Here Comes the Fairness Doctrine

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
Liberals please wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not asking you to be Republicans but at least think about how your party was during the Kennedy years.

Oh yes. Very clearly. We were slammed for being liberal, laughed at for asking for equal wages for men and women, sneered at for trying to insist that women (like me) could have a bank account and buy a car without having a man co-sign (true story), for wanting to be able to sit with our friends of all races in a nice restaurant and everyone get served -- after all, only whacko liberals would be offended if Blacks and Latinos had to sit behind the restaurant and wait while you had your nice meal.

We fought for school lunches because kids were coming to school who hadn't eaten in days. We fought for food stamps because families were starving. We fought for low cost subsidized housing because whole families were living in cardboard box "houses" and in cars.

We fought to put women in military command positions and to allow them into executive positions (I remember during that time men threatening to resign because a woman had been promoted to a supervisory position.)

And I haven't forgotten what the John Birch Society did to Black kids who tried to go to public schools "for whites only" or sit at the front of the bus (or an exhausted Rosa Parker who was told to give up her bus seat because she was Black.)

The Conservatives didn't like that and fought bitterly against us liberals.

Yes, I remember it vividly... from the liberal side. The sneers and slights and demonizing of those of us who said "what's happening here is wrong, and I'm liberal."

Liberals, do you realize that if JFK were alive today he would be a conservative?

I find it VERY heartening that some of the conservatives have made some progress in the past 50 years. I don't believe the John Birch Society (and others) have made as much progress as the average Conservative has, but I hold out hope that someday they might.

Clinton wants 'more balance' on airwaves

So now Clinton his getting his two licks in as well. Slow and steady the probe is getting closer.

Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.

In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability.

www.politico.com...

Amazing, most MSM outlets including most large newspapers lean towards the Liberal base and contributed heavily to the victory of the One.

Conservative talk radio is popular because conservatives/moderates have no where else to turn.

Additionally, Liberals control the overall tone of our public schools and Universities. The liberals can't stand opposing viewpoints and this is just recent flare up of this Doctrine is like a little kid calling his mommy to intervene in a fight. Grow up libs. and take your licks like a man.

Like it or not, this is idea of the Fairness Doctrine infringes on the free exchange of thoughts, ideals and speech in a free market.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by jibeho]

The media should be controlled by a FAIR MARKET and not by the government.

If people want to listen to idiot Rush .. then that's their right.

If people want to listen to crap like Air Amerika .. then that's their right.

But if not enough people want to listen, then the market won't support it and it dies. And rightfully so.

Forcing crap on the airwaves that people dont want to listen to is against free market principles and is just plain wrong.

Please Exalted Brahmin of this A.T.S. forum...~~~Enlighten me as to the validity of my opinion that the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine"...
Fairness Doctrine

in regards to Freedom of Speech within the United States, is nothing more than a modern example of Kurt Vonnegut's worldview in "Harrison Bergeron" being applied (in this case) as a pathetic panacea to appease incessant leftist mewling.

Harrison Bergeron

As for you skeptics skulking in the shadows... I would cry foul on the uber-idiocy of this "Fairness Doctrine" concept were it offered from a "hawk's" or "dove's" point of view.

Does it truly require, in your opinion, Federal intervention in the free market to justify altering a particular slant from a editorial driven broadcast's content ???

Can the Free Market not define it's own "Raison d Etre' as long as there is a tangible, viable audience seeking a codification of the myriad of aspects a particular argument offers?

I challenge ALL of you who proclaim to tread upon the path of knowledge to read Vonnegut's previously cited work in it's entirety. IMO let the free market determine the validity and worthiness of a particular argument or point of view.

I have always been one to research a particular topic in a way that takes into consideration many different points of view before I form my personal opinion.

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or lose. If you know neither yourself or your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

~~~ "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu



[edit on 14-2-2009 by Snisha]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Snisha]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Snisha]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Snisha]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Snisha]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Snisha]

This is really all about shutting down free speech, allowing only NWO controlled radio shows to exist. They want to shut down Shortwave and all public radio that they can not control.

This will really be used to shut down shows like Texe Mars, Alex Jones, Alan Watt, Steve Quail and those types; as they at least try and tackle the evil agendas behind the curtain, and arent completly going along with Project Mockingbird. That being said, even all these guys will never fully talk about everything, but I really feel that they would be in dire trouble if they talked about certain things, I mean there life would be in danger, and we can all understand that.

There are things that simply cannot be said on public radio.
National Secrets, and gory details of events, stuff that would be above public debate. There is evil so evil, it is hard to fathom. And that evil will often find it hard to make public airwaves.

This is an interesting article that sheds some light on the the Fairness Doctrine

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.

Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.)

I think that this statement just about sums it all up. If you don't like what you hear turn the dial.

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

www.heritage.org...

In 1987, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, finding it to be contrary to the Constitution. The commission report stated the following:

We believe that the role of the electronic press in our society is the same as that of the printed press. Both are sources of information and viewpoint. Accordingly, the reasons for proscribing government intrusion into the editorial discretion of print journalists provide the same basis for proscribing such interference into the editorial discretion of broadcast journalists.

hraunfoss.fcc.gov...

Regulating speech in order to ammend its content is exactly the sort of intrusion that the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. Clearly, it is not the job of politicians to correct the mix of opinions being expressed in the free marketplace of ideas, even if they disagree with those opinions.

I was thinking about posting a new post, but since we have already been talking about the "Fairness Doctrine" I thought I would just add it to here.

Now that Obama got what he wanted with the stimulus package and it is signed, I am betting his next big push will be the Fairness Doctrine. I think he will want to do everything he can do to silence the opposition.

My guess is that after he accomplishes that, he will start trying to do something with ammunition that will make it very, very difficult to get or afford. I think he knows that taking away guns is not doable at this time.