Thanks for Commenting
The fairness doctrine is one of the most blatant threats to free speech, that we have seen in some time.
It is difficult to believe that anyone could support such an idea, except with the specific intention of stifling free speech. The doctrine will affect conservative talk radio and no one else.
Even if I were I a Democrat, I would be ashamed to be associated with this idea.
There is a lot that democrats should be ashamed to associated with but are not... Communism for example.
Mumia Abdul Jabar (sp?)
How much you want to bet he gets pardoned?
The word "fairness" has been popping up a lot during the past election. You might remember Obama/Biden talking about fairness in the tax system. I agree that fairness is subjective, which begs the question as to what is fair and who decides what's fair?
Why would the Democrats want equal time on conservative talk shows, instead of creating their own talk shows? The simple answer is that they tried and they don't work. Nobody listens and the stations don't make any money. So, to make things "fair" they want to push successful stations to provide equal time under the fairness doctrine. Is that fair to a free society, or the owners of the radio station? They didn't start a radio station to have the government control the content. They started a station to make money, just like every other business and they should be free to run the content as they please. I think TV news is very biased, but the last thing I want is someone trying to regulate the content, like they do in many Communist countries. I choose just not to watch or listen, in the case of radio.
Wow, how “unfair” was it for KKOB to allow Bingaman time on a conservative talk show to address his point of view? LOL
Hey Mario--
Well, here's a Democrat who is 100% with you on this one. I posted about it on heath haussamen's site this week. I think lots of Dems agree this is a terrible idea.
Each side has its people who like to squelch free speech. Fortunately, it's almost the only major constitutional issue that draws strong support from liberals and conservatives on the bench.
Hope you're recovering well from the 4th 
--Carter
I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine is any way necessary or desirable these days with the amount of media options available. I think it probably had a positive role to play in the days of 1 or 2 TV channels and a local paper however. Even now, it can be difficult to reconcile the role of a free press, as conceived by the Founders, with the reality of news media wholly owned and operated by the same corporations whose lifeblood consists of hundreds of billions worth of military contracts, financial bailouts, tax loopholes, etc. Perhaps it is worth revisiting the government / press relationship in times when the Vice Presidential candidate of a major American political party believes the 1st Amendment to the Constitution exists to censor media criticism about her.
However I'd like to address a few points:
1) It doesn't "squelch" or eliminate free speech. If an issue was deemed politically controversial by the FCC, it mandated additional time be given for opposing points of view. How does that "squelch free speech?"
2) Nor does it "dictat[e] the content of conversation on a given station." It "required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The Doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented." That's a far cry from "dictating content."
3) It most certainly does not take away "the right to think for ourselves." That bit of hyperbole is so absurd as to be beyond mere strawman status. Can you explain?
E ghost.
1. If you have to say something that you would not normally say, you do not have free speech.
2. Forcing someone to add content to their show, is dictating content.
3. Controlling input, controls output.
It you can control what some "gets" to think about, you are control "what" they think about.
I have been around long enough to remember what it was like when the Fairness Doctrine existed and lived through the fallout of its demise. That fall out has overwhelmingly led to an ignorant citizenry. When the FCC Fairness on political and social issue people regardless of their views were exposed to both sides of an issue. Today without the Fairness Doctrice has come the rise of extreme views that have fed people unwilling to educate themselves and more inclined to take what is said by talking heads as truth.
The best case is for people to hear both sides of an issue and then think for themselves to develop an opinion.
The return of the Fairness Doctrine will only enhance critical thinking.
I remember a few years back when Janet Jackson freely expressed her nipple on television during a football game. Heather Wilson was like totally outraged at great length in congressional hearings, and the republican congress immediately passed a bill imposing huge fines for such expressions.
If we get a new fairness doctrine will television shows have to include one visible nipple for each covered nipple appearing in the show, since nipples are obviously so controversial?
Who owns radio, anyway? It's my understanding that it's publicly owned, so allowing for alternative views could be entirely appropriate.
Ched -
Re: 1) & 2):
I think you're misinterpreting the practical implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. Requiring that "broadcasters devote some airtime" with "wide latitude" as to compliance is not the same thing as forcing anyone to say anything or dictating content on any particular show.
Your 3rd point is incoherent.
"Me" makes a cogent point about public ownership of the airwaves. There is a legitimate public interest here because of the public resource being used by the broadcaster, the same notion that allows for government censorship in regards to "decency standards."
The strongest signals are commanded by Clearwater a radical right leaning corporation. As a consequence, there is no voice to the Left to be heard in rural areas. The country western, Mexican ranchera and evangelical grifters dominate any other weak signal and it is Rush, Rush, Rush all day anywhere out of range of a large city.
The only people that can pick up anything else are wealthy enough to pay for satellite.
It is a well known fact that the ultra-rich seek to keep the population ignorant and easily controlled absent critical thought.
It is right wing brain washing all day, everyday.
There is a limit to speech when the HATE, lies and distortions overtake the population as proven in Rwandan Hutu on Tutsi violence. Don't think for a moment that it can't happen here in the presence of the shear ignorance that is pervasive in the fundamentalist far right. Even in this election the moderates had to insist on Palin toning it down because the crowds were getting ugly.
Yes, yes you say let the markets decide and let only money dictate what everyone can hear. I say, money and profit only is amoral and has no loyalty to truth or virtue.
The single minded pursuit of profit has debased us all.
Commenting by HaloScan
