I have been hearing about the Fairness Doctorine for many years (Since the late 90's). A couple of nights ago I was watching Hannity on Fox News Channel. There was mention of the Fairness Doctorine again. This was the first time I have heard it mentioned on TV.
For those who doesn't know what the Fairness Doctorine is, its a form of the government stomping out free speech. If I owned a radio talk show & I wanted to express my viewpoints on a particular issue, I would have to make sure that someone that has the opposite viewpoint is also heard. Equal time has to be set aside for the person who is discussing their views. This means that If I didn't allow that, I could get into some serious hot water from the federal government.
My view is simple: The Fairness Doctorine on the outside appears to be okay until you examine it. Its just another way the government tries to control what others are saying by weighing them down with stupid rules. The Fairness Doctorine isn't fair at all.
Do you believe the Fairness Doctorine is really fair?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by BigBossman, Jan 30, 2009.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Only a liberal would concoct something so ridiculous.
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
BigBossman said:For those who doesn't know what the Fairness Doctorine is, its a form of the government stomping out free speech.Click to expand...
But secondarily, it didn't trample free speech. You can say anything you want. How does it trample free speech by not giving you a broadcast platform to do so? The airwaves belong to everyone, not to the radio station. In your hypothetical, you are borrowing the radio frequency that belongs to all. Therefore it is not yours to do with as you please. You are subject to FCC regulations to insure you use that public asset in the public interest. We are not obligated to let you use that public asset as your personal soapbox. This is not a free speech issue at all, despite how you framed it. Are the FCC regs against porn being broadcast also a denial of free speech? Using your logic, it is. -
Why should it be a law? is my question. A radio talk show will generally have people calling in expressing their views. The person who owns the program controls it. The government shouldn't tell you how to run the show & who to put on it. Liberal talk shows typically don't do so well either.
-
How is allowing both sides of an issue to be discussed violating anyone's free speech rights?Click to expand...
If you owned a radio station and refused to let a conservative respond to a liberal, would that be fair? Other way 'round also.Click to expand...
If liberals want to be on the radio, they need to have something to say and say it in a manner that people want to listen to.
Remember, there is a reason Rush is huge. It is because people listen to him voluntarily. There is a reason Ed Schultz isn't. Because people voluntarily don't listen to him. If you took Rush off the air and put Ed Schultz or whoever else in his place, the audience will likely not remain the same. They people will turn it off. It's called ratings. -
BigBossman said:Why should it be a law? is my question. A radio talk show will generally have people calling in expressing their views. The person who owns the program controls it.Click to expand...
Read what I wrote about public assets above. It answers this question. We all own the radio spectrum. Therefore we get to make the rules via our government, as to how those assets are to be used. Your original assertion that it tramples free speech is false, as I have already shown.
The government shouldn't tell you how to run the show & who to put on it. Liberal talk shows typically don't do so well either.Click to expand...
I do remember when the station gave editorials, they always had to invite dissenting opinions the opportunity to respond. I really enjoyed the various viewpoints you would hear. Why are righties so afraid of another opinion being heard? Are your tenets not strong enough to hold up in the light of the free marketplace of ideas?
As for liberal talk shows, tell that to Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Alan Colmes, Jay Marvin, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, and many others. -
SBCPreacher Active MemberSite SupporterCrabtownboy said:If you owned a radio station and refused to let a conservative respond to a liberal, would that be fair? Other way 'round also.
Just curious.[/SIZE]Click to expand...
I can see where this is going. The government is going to pass a law that says that steakhouses can only serve pork, not beef. They're real good at selling pork! -
SBCPreacher said:I can see where this is going. The government is going to pass a law that says that steakhouses can only serve pork, not beef. They're real good at selling pork!Click to expand...
-
SBCPreacher Active MemberSite SupporterMagnetic Poles said:No, because your grill isn't public property. The radio spectrum IS. Now to hold up, your analogy would require that the grill in the kitchen is owned by the public, who could then set up rules on how you use it.Click to expand...
-
SBCPreacher said:The equipment used to produce and transmit the programs that air on the public airways is private equipment.Click to expand...
-
A twisted mind's thinking capabilities revealed:
Censorship of child pornographers on the internet=wrong
Censorship of conservative talk radio=ok -
sag38 said:A twisted mind's thinking capabilities revealed:
Censorship of child pornographers on the internet=wrong
Censorship of conservative talk radio=okClick to expand...
Again, I ask, is it trampling your free speech to have the BB restrict topics on their property? Why is this different than the public owners of the airwaves having regs about how they are used? No one seems to be able to answer that. :tongue3:
EDITED TO ADD: Strawman alert. Your accusation that I said child porn is okay is a flat out lie. Apologize or show where I said such a thing. Child porn is NEVER ok. You have been reported. -
Again, the thinking of a twisted mind. I rest my case.
-
Why is this different than the public owners of the airwaves having regs about how they are used?Click to expand...
Furthermore, the "owners" (as you put it) are making decisions by who they listen to. They are telling us what they want done with the airwaves.
Think about why a station changes from rock to country. It is because the owners think that is what the audience wants. It seems like every couple of years a station is changing formats in an effort attract listeners.
Should the FCC limit the number of country stations in a market to be fair to the pop audience? Should they mandate that a country station must devote time to classical music?
Of course not. You would say that is silly. And rightly so. But you advocate doing exactly that with the fairness doctrine. It attempts to force stations to play things that they don't want to, and that will ultimately cost them profits, which mean jobs go out the window. Just last week in Detroit, one of the two major sports stations fired all local hosts and went to nationally syndicated broadcasting. Why? Money ...
It's all about the dollars. Why should stations be forced to put on programs that will lose them money and cost people jobs?
When WJR in Detroit picked up Rush a number of years ago (after Rush was dumped from another station that changed to sports radio), noted liberal Mitch Albom completely understood. It was about dollars and audiences.
Why don't you understand that?
No one seems to be able to answer thatClick to expand... -
sag38 said:Again, the thinking of a twisted mind. I rest my case.Click to expand...
-
Pastor Larry said:The BB is a private place. The airwaves are not. Furthermore, the public owners are not making regs about how they are used in this case. It is a small group.Click to expand...
Furthermore, the "owners" (as you put it) are making decisions by who they listen to. They are telling us what they want done with the airwaves.Click to expand...
Think about why a station changes from rock to country. It is because the owners think that is what the audience wants. It seems like every couple of years a station is changing formats in an effort attract listeners.
Should the FCC limit the number of country stations in a market to be fair to the pop audience? Should they mandate that a country station must devote time to classical music?Click to expand...
Of course not. You would say that is silly. And rightly so. But you advocate doing exactly that with the fairness doctrine. It attempts to force stations to play things that they don't want to, and that will ultimately cost them profits, which mean jobs go out the window. Just last week in Detroit, one of the two major sports stations fired all local hosts and went to nationally syndicated broadcasting. Why? Money ...
It's all about the dollars. Why should stations be forced to put on programs that will lose them money and cost people jobs?
When WJR in Detroit picked up Rush a number of years ago (after Rush was dumped from another station that changed to sports radio), noted liberal Mitch Albom completely understood. It was about dollars and audiences.
Why don't you understand that?Click to expand...
You are right about one thing...it's all about the $$. Here in Denver, Clear Channel owns the Air America outlet AND the conservative stations. Talking from both sides of their mouth. There is the problem...group ownership of up to 8 stations in one market...too much control in one corporate set of hands. IF CC decided to make 8 stations of Rush, or of Ed Schultz, is this good for America? This is even more why we need to revive the Fairness Doctrine in some form.
SO again, what are you righties so afraid of? Why do you fear another opinion being heard? Is your side's arguments so weak that they can't stand up to other views being aired? -
Pastor Larry said:The BB is a private place. The airwaves are not. Furthermore, the public owners are not making regs about how they are used in this case. It is a small group.
Furthermore, the "owners" (as you put it) are making decisions by who they listen to. They are telling us what they want done with the airwaves.
Think about why a station changes from rock to country. It is because the owners think that is what the audience wants. It seems like every couple of years a station is changing formats in an effort attract listeners.
Should the FCC limit the number of country stations in a market to be fair to the pop audience? Should they mandate that a country station must devote time to classical music?
Of course not. You would say that is silly. And rightly so. But you advocate doing exactly that with the fairness doctrine. It attempts to force stations to play things that they don't want to, and that will ultimately cost them profits, which mean jobs go out the window. Just last week in Detroit, one of the two major sports stations fired all local hosts and went to nationally syndicated broadcasting. Why? Money ...
It's all about the dollars. Why should stations be forced to put on programs that will lose them money and cost people jobs?
When WJR in Detroit picked up Rush a number of years ago (after Rush was dumped from another station that changed to sports radio), noted liberal Mitch Albom completely understood. It was about dollars and audiences.Click to expand... -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite SupporterSBCPreacher said:If I owned a radio station, I should be allowed to have on any programming I want and not have on any programming I don't want (as long as it doesn't violate laws of decency). The government shouldn't be allowed to tell any business what they can and can't sell.QUOTE]
I find this a very interesting comment. Back when I was a in my early 20's this is exactly the same idea, just change the word from radio station to restaurant or hotel, that was used to justify not serving African-Americans in their restaurants and hotels.Click to expand... -
Crabtownboy said:I find this a very interesting comment. Back when I was a in my early 20's this is exactly the same idea, just change the word from radio station to restaurant or hotel, that was used to justify not serving African-Americans in their restaurants and hotels.Click to expand...
Well guys, carry on. I have to go to work.
Page 1 of 3