Does anyone, besides left wing politicians with an agenda, like Pilosi, actually support this blatant violation of free speech. It was allowed to expire under the Reagan years, but some in congress want to bring it back. I really hope no one can truly think this is a good idea when its only purpose is to silence views that oppose those in power.

12/9/2008 2:43:15 PM

Is anyone besides right wing pundits with an agenda, like Rush and Hannity, even talking about this complete non-issue. It was allowed to expire under the Reagan years, but noone in congress wants to bring it back. Noone thinks this is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with silencing the views that oppose those in power.

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : d]

12/9/2008 2:46:13 PM

I for one oppose this

12/9/2008 2:52:19 PM

Quote :

"Noone thinks this is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with silencing the views that oppose those in power. "

ummmmm there are plenty who think its a good idea and it absolutely is intended to silence a viewpoint.

talk radio is largely conservative. the fairness doctrine is targeted at the 'public airwaves' - broadcast TV and radio. nobody cares about broadcast TV. something like this would def. hit the conservatives a lot harder than the libs.

12/9/2008 3:06:05 PM

yes, and it is totally unconstitutional

12/9/2008 3:12:22 PM

Quote :

"actually support this blatant violation of free speech"

i don't think its a violation of free speech since people aren't being prohibited from discussing certain issues or promoting a point of view. Also i think its rather exaggerated to say that its only purpose is to silence those with conflicting points of view of those who are in power. once again its not forbidding anyone from speaking openly about certain topics but is merely providing more thorough and involved discussion on an issue. IIRC it only applies to radio and the government does own the frequencies with which the radio stations broadcast so they do have jurisdiction over how those airwaves are used.

Regardless of these points I am against it. I'm against it because of the slippery slope argument that it could one day expand to other forms of communication besides the radio.

also, i don't know who noone is.

12/9/2008 3:14:17 PM

I oppose it. Who cares if its left or right wing....its the free market. Government has no business controlling what you can/cannot say on any airwaves.

12/9/2008 3:16:13 PM

Quote :

"Doctorine "

Quote :

"Pilosi"

Its a violation of free speech, but so are campaign finance reform laws. Unlimited freedom is not desirable so that only the wealthy have influence and the ability to squash opposing viewpoints or ideologies.

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 4:58 PM. Reason : Republicans can't spell, or do much of anything else really]

12/9/2008 4:56:57 PM

Does anyone think that the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act relates somewhat to the discussion of the Fairness Doctrine? Prior to 1996, no single radio corporation could own more than 65 radio stations; today, Clear Channel owns over 1200 radio stations.

I would assume that a single company controlling such a large portion of the radio market would play some role in this discussion, or is it a separate subject entirely?

12/9/2008 5:15:27 PM

It would only be relevant if you could credibly argue that clearchannel has built itself a monopoly, which it has not.

12/9/2008 5:57:14 PM

OH GOD I'M SO CONTROVERSIAL THEY WANT TO TAKE ME OFF THE AIR, BETTER TUNE IN TO HEAR ME RANT ABOUT MY FEIGNED PARANOIA, MY ADVERTISERS WILL LOVE IT

pure genius

the fairness doctrine is dead, it should stay dead and it will stay dead

you'd be better off reading about the damage Michael Powell and Kevin Martin have done to the FCC instead

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 6:44 PM. Reason : +]

12/9/2008 6:42:12 PM

If you are going to implement the "Fairness Doctrine," then bloody well implement it. But not just on radio. Do it to CBS, NBC, Fox, and others. Do it to the NY Times, do it the Chicago Tribune, and do it to the Washington Post. Do it to Oprah and The View. Do it to Tom Joyner. Actually apply it.

12/9/2008 6:44:21 PM

Reid, Pelosi, and several of the other liberal scumbags in Congress have supported reinstating it. All it takes is for Obama to request that his appointees to the FCC board implement the Censorship Doctrine. He will have a majority. It does not require congressional action.

12/9/2008 7:22:27 PM

12/9/2008 7:51:31 PM

Quote :

"Is anyone besides right wing pundits with an agenda, like Rush and Hannity, even talking about this complete non-issue. It was allowed to expire under the Reagan years, but noone in congress wants to bring it back. Noone thinks this is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with silencing the views that oppose those in power."

jocristian

You don't know what you're talking about.

"Schmuck" Schumer (D-NY) compares free speech to pornography:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_uhI2a2NH0

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM):

Quote :

"Q.: Do you think there will be a push to support the Fairness Doctrine? Bingaman: I don't know. I certainly hope so. Q.: Would you support it? Bingaman: I do."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veF2KNlHW6w

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34I3kg7BeF8

Candidate for Congress Kay Barnes (D-MO)--defeated thankfully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTvxBZEDAGY

Lawmakers Push for Return of Fairness Doctrine

Quote :

"LOS ANGELES The Fairness Doctrine, which forced broadcasters to air views on both sides of controversial issues, was abolished in 1987, paving the way for talk radio to take the opinionated -- and popular -- form it has today. Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and such influential Democratic senators as Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer are pushing for its return, or something like it. Could the provision pull a Don Imus and make a radio comeback? It could, industry insiders say. And the government-mandated programming restrictions that come with it could hobble an already struggling industry. Talk-radio hosts are unlikely to accept a new Fairness Doctrine without a fight, though."

Quote :

"Obama has called on Henry Rivera, who was a commissioner in the 1980s when the Fairness Doctrine existed, to oversee the FCC transition process. Rivera is a supporter of bringing back the provisions. And heading Obama's overall transition team is John Podesta, head of liberal think tank the Center for American Progress. Last year, the CAP issued a report called 'The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.' While the CAP stopped short of advocating a return of the Fairness Doctrine, it did support more stringent adherence to so-called localism, which critics consider a backdoor to requiring that stations ditch some of their conservative hosts. The FCC is considering the matter now, weighing such questions as whether to require stations to create 'community advisory boards' made up of 'local officials and other community leaders.' The boards would tell radio executives whether the content they broadcast is adequately addressing the needs of the community, subject to the board's interpretation."

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i9417c5a4a703467d2454358994429623

12/9/2008 8:43:07 PM

If they do move to pass this will you dems on here that oppose it still oppose it?

12/9/2008 8:55:23 PM

i'm of the opinion you may listen to as much shitty radio, watch the most idiotic garbage on tv, view the most horribly thought-through of films and surf the most banal of websites as you would ever want

just sitting there

suckling from the teet

oh Sweet Mary, it tastes so good

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 9:02 PM. Reason : nom nom nom]

12/9/2008 8:59:01 PM

This whole discussion reinforces one of the main points of liberalism- Free speech and tolerance are great as long as they do not go against liberal ideas.

12/9/2008 10:33:36 PM

don't flatter yourself

the see-saw is no fun alone

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason : idealogue soup]

12/9/2008 10:39:53 PM

^^^

Quote :

"oh Sweet Mary, it tastes so good nom nom nom"

omfmarko




for realz, tho. the fairness doctrine is an anachronistic fantasy of a very few. nobody with any damn sense wants to reinstate this.

the whole "issue" is a diversion from the REAL problems ... such as the deregulation that has allowed corporate conglomerates to assimilate every local market from Topeka to Timbuktu into a vast homogenous Borglike morass, spoonfeeding regurgitated shit to the masses.

12/10/2008 12:42:32 AM

^

Quote :

"[N]obody with any damn sense wants to reinstate this."

O'RLY? QFT!

So, you mean those with no sense like Democrats Pelosi, Durbin, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Bingaman, Schumer, Clinton, et al? I'm sick of some of you poo-pooing this when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine
Published: June 24, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is 'looking at' the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters."

Quote :

"'I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,' she said, 'and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.'"

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/06/24/Feinstein_might_push_for_fairness_doctrine/UPI-96841182731131/

Quote :

"Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005. In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, 'It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,' an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008, 'Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has "no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view"—that the American people were served well under the doctrine—"and it's all been blown out of proportion."' On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents most of San Francisco, California) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding 'the interest in my caucus is the reverse.' When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied 'Yes.'" On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 'I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view,' and 'All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#cite_note-17

Senators pushing for return of equal-time rules
Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:06am EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE4AP15J20081126

12/10/2008 1:18:30 AM

are the dems trying to make the radio less conservative? cause they own the tv i thought so its like only fair that the repubs get something

12/10/2008 1:20:56 AM

^^ fucking SNORE.

this shit's a non issue.

i know it makes Rush Limbaugh's sphincter start twitching uncontrollably, but you'll please pardon me for not getting my panties in a bunch about it.

it ain't going anywhere, nobody gives a damn.

12/10/2008 2:52:18 AM

Any politician who is currently thinking of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine or anything similar to it should just go ahead and resign right now. And then be beaten and spit on by a mob on the streets of DC. Nothing of value would be lost.

Not only does this shit go against the Constitution, but it goes against the principles of intelligent thought and common sense.

12/10/2008 3:06:10 AM

^^ I am unfamiliar with Limbaugh's anus. In contrast, you seem to know it quite well.

If the Democrats really aren't trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or something like it, why won't they just stop talking about it? Can you answer this?

12/10/2008 3:24:04 AM

I'd support it. Talking heads drive the political machine that has people voting against obama "because he's muslim", and against McCain because hes "neo-conservative".

12/10/2008 5:20:17 AM

^Exactly. And the fairness doctrine would just make it worse.

Suddenly, the populous would be fed even more forcefully than before the concept that there are only two possible sides to any issues ever... and any attempt at "balance" in the news media would result, essentially, in a whimpering pussy or obviously-bad-debater from the "other side" of the issue, like Colms is to Hannity.

Also, who's to decide what issues are controversial and what aren't? It's FAR too subjective. Enacting such a law is a lose-lose situation... if you enforce it with objectivity and equality, you end up with the scenario in the next paragraph, and if you don't... then, well, you've got a policy based around subjective inequality. And if you try to meet somewhere in the middle... then, well, you'd probably just be spending a lot of time arguing semantics and establishing rather meaningless percentages used to determine what makes something "controversial".

To enforce such bullshit with objectivity and equality (which wouldn't happen), you'd essentially need to ensure that any issues whatsoever have someone from an opposing stance to represent themselves. For example, what's the word on the Jewish community? Well, to help us debate this, joining us in the studio are a normal Jewish person, and Klaus the Nazi.

12/10/2008 5:36:58 AM

Quote :

"Not only does this shit go against the Constitution, but it goes against the principles of intelligent thought and common sense."

Since when have things like that ever stopped the government? Kelo vs New London, anyone?

12/10/2008 6:50:33 AM

I don't really think that any Democrat could make much hay off of supporting this, which is why I'm confused as to why any of them support it. I mean, there's more conservative media out there in the world today than ever and they still are faring pretty well.

Politically it's a bad move. Constitutionally it's an illegal move. The only time you can really step in on political speech is when it becomes libel.

12/10/2008 7:59:44 PM

no democrat should EVER support this shit

unless they want to see their radio shows' ad revenue tank harder than it already does

12/10/2008 11:10:49 PM

Quote :

"i'm of the opinion you may listen to as much shitty radio, watch the most idiotic garbage on tv, view the most horribly thought-through of films and surf the most banal of websites as you would ever want just sitting there suckling from the teet oh Sweet Mary, it tastes so good [Edited on December 9, 2008 at 9:02 PM. Reason : nom nom nom]"

12/10/2008 11:43:03 PM

I mean, LOOK AT ALL THE FUCKIN CRAZY STUFF ON THE INTERNET and some people are worried about a few dudes on the RADIO?

I mean, yeah, Coast to Coast AM has on Alex Jones and talks about shadow people and the threat posed by chemtrails, but at any given time on any given day people have absolute access to the most insanity ever offered to humankind at any point in history and it's GREAT!

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2008 12:00:20 AM

here's what i suggest for the "fairness" doctrine

i mean for real

you could stir nancy grace, rush limbaugh, keith olberman, sean hannity, larry king, don imus, tucker carlson and bill o fucking reilly in a GIANT ASS POT

set it on stew

wait

i dunno

something biblical

like 7 or 40 days

open it up

and it wouldn't be even sacred ground enough to HOLD THE FUCKING FECES OF A PATRIOT LIKE EDWARD R MURROW









come back and let me know

let me know in the most partisan, most bullshit alarmist radar you could possibly have

just shout it out

i don't support the fairness doctrine

use labels

it's fun






you just contribute to the soup

at least the advertisers love you and you support the economy

[Edited on December 11, 2008 at 12:31 AM. Reason : fops]

12/11/2008 12:30:17 AM

marko is losing it

12/11/2008 10:11:50 AM

Quote :

"Noone thinks this is a good"

BTTT because the libs are talking about this, again. Anyone that believes in free speech and is against censorship in any form should oppose this, lib or conservative. I really hope there are enough sensible Dems in Congress to prevent this from ever seeing the light of day

1/31/2009 7:47:46 PM

OH JESUS I'M SO SCARED WE'LL BE BACK TO THE JOURNALISM OF OLD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker

bah



FUCK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 8:52 PM. Reason : +]

1/31/2009 8:42:48 PM

i hope you are right marko.......and for the record, no one likes Nixon

1/31/2009 10:54:24 PM

Democrat leaders want to destroy their enemies. Remove them from the playing field. They want to erase national conservative talk radio.

This from msnbc 11/08:

Quote :

"[President-elect Barack] Obama has called on Henry Rivera, who was a commissioner in the 1980s when the Fairness Doctrine existed, to oversee the FCC transition process. Rivera is a supporter of bringing back the [Fairness Doctrine] provisions. And heading Obama's overall transition team is John Podesta, head of liberal think tank the Center for American Progress. Last year, the CAP issued a report called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." While the CAP stopped short of advocating a return of the Fairness Doctrine, it did support more stringent adherence to so-called localism, which critics consider a back door to requiring that stations ditch some of their conservative hosts. The FCC is considering the matter now, weighing such questions as whether to require stations to create community advisory boards made up of local officials and other community leaders. The boards would tell radio executives whether the content they broadcast is adequately addressing the needs of the community, subject to the board's interpretation."

Democrats will slap the label of "localism" on the Fairness Doctrine and trot it out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27928193/

2/1/2009 12:49:53 AM

okay hooksaw

2/1/2009 1:17:25 AM

I tend to agree that in reality, its probably pretty far-fetched that the 'fairness doctrine' will be re-instated with any real teeth to it.

however its impossible to argue that some very prominent democrats want it to happen.

2/1/2009 1:28:39 AM

Quote :

"Doctorine "

Quote :

"Pilosi"

the only people who care about this are extremists.

"progressives" who would even consider such a retarded law are shooting themselves in the foot.

because it's never going to pass. The real consequence of supporting such lunacy, is to fuel rightwing nutjob AM radio, and give the lunatics another talking point.

2/1/2009 3:51:59 AM

there are some who view politics as war. crush your opponent whenever they are down and you have the upper hand. there are others who view politics as a way to get things accomplished.

unfortunately washington is full of the former on both sides of the aisle (one is the chicken, one is the egg, who knows who started it) who push for shit like this and the american public suffers as a result.

2/1/2009 3:36:50 PM

lol

another case of republicans wanting it both ways

they want to complain about the liberal media AND want to complain about the fairness doctrine

classic

2/1/2009 3:53:32 PM

anyone here surprised he misspelled pelosi?

2/1/2009 5:52:23 PM

not really

the whole 2006 election fiasco has been a bitter Pill for him to swallow.

2/1/2009 6:29:33 PM

While the "fairness doctrine" does restrict speech, I don't know that you can say the government has no business being involved... the FCC does control the majority of the airwaves. I'm not saying whether that's the right way for things to work, but to say that the government has no business controlling airwaves does seem kind of naive.

2/1/2009 7:16:07 PM

It is a policy opinion. No one is suggesting it would be illegal for the FCC to impose the fairness doctrine. Afterall, the fairness doctrine pre 1980s was upheld by the supreme court. Living in a democracy there is nothing the government cannot make its business.

What they are arguing is that the government and politicians should volunteer to stay out of it.

2/1/2009 9:41:53 PM

^^^^^Woodfoot, you just dont get it.....

If the fairness doctrine is instated, I believe it will benefit conservatives...the only people that listen to radio are conservatives anyway......thats why Air America failed....America rely's on the mainstream media for its news. Currently, the MSM is left and adding a more conservative voice will be a net gain towards neutrality for most of the population.

However, no matter the benefit, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT FORCING ITS WILL OVER MEDIA OUTLETS. I dont care if it benefits my view or not....

Obviously, you disagree with anything that does not support the current liberal movement, even though the idea usually has little or no moral ground to stand on.



[Edited on February 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ..]

2/1/2009 11:17:43 PM

^ The only possible way this could help conservatives is the potential backlash from headlines like "government silences conservative voices." Outside of that, this would hurt badly the nutjob wing of the Republican party (which is a very influential wing).

2/1/2009 11:33:03 PM

^^i can't tell if you are being sarcastic, are you really claiming that only conservatives listen to radio shows?

2/2/2009 12:01:02 AM