I have been advocating the return of Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time for as long as they have been buried.
Buried by the machinations of a man named Rupert Murdoch.
Tusayan mentioned Clintons 1996 action, which was merely the last nail in the coffin. The damage had already been done.
Think about it... less than 2 weeks after the Fairness Doctrine was struck down, Rush Limbaugh and his odious propaganda machine were syndicated FOR FREE to as many stations as were willing to add his program to their broadcast schedule. Thus began the rightwing talk show movement that has so hampered and divided this country.
you talk about restricting freedom of choice?
When Clear Channel Radio owns over 1500 RADIO STATIONS, each and every one of them broadcasting the conservative right wing message 24 hours a day; when a single broadcaster controls all the information disseminated to the public; how is this allowing freedom of choice?
In states like Texas and Oklahoma, where more than 80% of all radio stations are owned and operated by Clear Channel...
I could go on and on, but you get the point i'm trying to make.
and since the right wingers on here are sure to bleat and bloviate about al Franken and attempt to hijack the thread by throwing out the typical misdirecting bullshit about whatever they can come up with at the moment, i will end this thought here:
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason we are such a polarized nation today.
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason we are a nation on the decline.
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason megalomaniacs like Rupert Murdoch are able to manipulate the masses into following his agenda.
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason good people like BillKile, RWU, and you, quadseasonal, have lost the ability to see the Bigger Picture and espouse philosophies of divisiveness and derision.
Modification: I have attached a link to an article about Clear Channel from 2005.
-- Modified on 7/9/2007 9:25:08 AM
When the Fairness Doctrine was enacted there were many less available bandwiths on the radio. Now that we have room for other views it seems to me the fairness doctrine if re enacted would restrict freedom to choose...
-- Modified on 7/8/2007 7:51:22 PM
Not dure how you think the Fairness Doctrine restricts the freedom to choose since there is no Fairness Doctrine today; it was done away with by Reagan's FCC which decided, contrary to the Supreme Court ruling in the Red Lion Broadcasting case, that the Fairness Doctrine violated the First Amendment.
Even though there are more broadcast outlets, there is less diversity of opinion on the airwaves due to the consolidation of media ownership, largely due to the Teleommunications Act of 1996, probably Clinton's greatest sin as President. Since then Since 1995, the number of companies owning commercial TV stations declined by 40 percent, one company, Clear Channel, now owns more than 1200 radio stations, and just two companies, Time Warner and Comcast, control more than 40 percent of the cable market.
People tend to forget the airwaves belong to the public and broadcasters are only allowed to use them as long as they perform in the public interest. Apparently Congress and the FCC have forgotten this fact. They would do well to review what the Supreme Court said in Red Lion in upholding the Fairness Doctrine:
"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC."
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
That assumes that larger companies are driven by ideology rather than profit. Conservative talk radio simply has larger audiences and delivers more advertising revenue. Forcing station owners to air less profitable liberal talk programs is like forcing us to see bad providers because the hot ones make more money. It simply doesn't make sense.
Let the market decide.
To be sure read my original post... I said "IF" the fairness doctrine is re instated ...There are available bandwiths now.. Why do you fear others to listen to what they desire.. Just last night I tuned into a Left station with Alan and I was bored to tears in 10 minutes so I turned the station..Are you scared of truths getting to the people???
and topics like the quagmire of the Iraq war, the health care insurance problem, the moral message of Scooter's commuted sentence, outsourcing of jobs, and consumer confidence were all being discussed. I switched over to see what "Patriot Right" was talking about and NASCAR was the important topic of the day.
The above observation along with how much airtime FOX News gave Anna Nicole Smith's death and Paris Hilton's incarceration lead me to wonder about agendas and demographics.
Get over the Nascar hangup... I know plenty of left wingers who love the fact those Nascar dudes only have to turn left.. If you ever talked to anyone in person you would realize sports and hobbies are not a right and left thing..Sometimes you guys on the left prove you are delusional beyond a shadow of doubt..Frankly I am not going to any Nascar Events until they learn to turn right!!!
Apparently you didn't read my post. My argument was that the greater the diversity of voices and ideas on the airwaves, the better it is for the people and for our democracy. But under the current FCC licensing and ownership rules -- regardless of the technological advances -- we are creating more broadcast spectrum but with a concentration of ownership and a narrowing of ideas on the air.
The Fairness Doctrine could easily be reinstated with provisions to accomodate the changed dynamic of broadcasting from 1987 to now.
Ditto Equal Time.
I doubt it can happen anymore though... the decision making has been left in the hands of those affected negatively the most by the decision. Andso it will probably die a cold cruel death. Again.
Meanwhile, we will continue to be inundated by the shit spewed by Anne Coulter and the rest of her ilk.
I have been advocating the return of Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time for as long as they have been buried.
Buried by the machinations of a man named Rupert Murdoch.
Tusayan mentioned Clintons 1996 action, which was merely the last nail in the coffin. The damage had already been done.
Think about it... less than 2 weeks after the Fairness Doctrine was struck down, Rush Limbaugh and his odious propaganda machine were syndicated FOR FREE to as many stations as were willing to add his program to their broadcast schedule. Thus began the rightwing talk show movement that has so hampered and divided this country.
you talk about restricting freedom of choice?
When Clear Channel Radio owns over 1500 RADIO STATIONS, each and every one of them broadcasting the conservative right wing message 24 hours a day; when a single broadcaster controls all the information disseminated to the public; how is this allowing freedom of choice?
In states like Texas and Oklahoma, where more than 80% of all radio stations are owned and operated by Clear Channel...
I could go on and on, but you get the point i'm trying to make.
and since the right wingers on here are sure to bleat and bloviate about al Franken and attempt to hijack the thread by throwing out the typical misdirecting bullshit about whatever they can come up with at the moment, i will end this thought here:
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason we are such a polarized nation today.
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason we are a nation on the decline.
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason megalomaniacs like Rupert Murdoch are able to manipulate the masses into following his agenda.
The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time is the reason good people like BillKile, RWU, and you, quadseasonal, have lost the ability to see the Bigger Picture and espouse philosophies of divisiveness and derision.
Modification: I have attached a link to an article about Clear Channel from 2005.
-- Modified on 7/9/2007 9:25:08 AM
The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with me not blindly following the liberal view..It reeks of communism to take away our right to tune into whomever we want..Should we force MTV to air a equal amount of JAZZ???? You people are preposterous in some of your views.. For your information I listen to NPR every morning from 6 to 9 and then I switch to Rock ..I usually listen to NPR for a hour in the afternoon. I can't stand Jeff Beck as he is boring in my opinion and only occasionally do I listen to Rush..I do listen to Hannity a couple nights a week..So how does the fairness doctrine work??? They going to make me listen to boring Alan ??? He is as boring as Beck!!!!. What the Hell is Freedom if I can't turn to the damn station I want????!!!! We don't want Alan or Katie or Frankin on the same station as Hannity..It is our choice not yours... You seem more suited for the Venezuelan form of Freedom of the Air Waves ..
Or other opinions. The only way you could make the link with communism is on the presumption of the broadcast license and not on the fairness doctrine.
The approach was that the broadcast spectrum was limited, and was a resource that the government representing the people would lease. Because the spectrum was presumed to be limited, it was considered that broadcasters had to be fair. Not giving a liberal point of view for something conservative, but giving other points of view, voluntarily, for any directly expressed political view.
If you think about it, The Fairness Doctrine is also a restraint on the government. If they still have licensing rights, why can't they license someone they know will give a certain point of view? Without the Fairness Doctrine, well, you're inviting Air Pravda.
Pretty much like Fox had done for Bush specifically.
It's not going to affect the larger political landscape, nor, I will mention, help the government win its policies if MTV plays Jazz too. It's why the Fairness Doctrine wasn't supplied with that.
One thing for sure, since the Fairness Doctrine was put to sleep, the line between voter and marketing niche really disappeared. People really sounded like they were buying Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton cigarettes.
Without the fairness doctrine, the public has become totally misinformed because the rightwing monopolizes the media with propaganda. And, you wanna talk about communist propaganda?
I don;t care who's propoaganda it is -- it is all bad...how about some facts in the news again?
The airwaves belong to the public -- not one political party. It should be truly fair and balance (not like Faux News' "Fair & Balanced"). They should have equal time for each opinion and they should be fined and/or jailed for lying and slandering. The "news" has an obiligation to tell the actual facts -- not the made-up "facts".
The libs are afraid of news they do not agree with..
I'm disappointed thats the best you could come up with.
Derision and division. Thank you for making my point.
Well I sure don't want to goose step with you..If you want to take away my freedoms I am ready for devisiveness.