sevfiv Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 A new bill (S.34) was introduced on January 6: "A bill to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine."Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? It was originally introduced in 1949, and legislation was vetoed by Reagan in 1987...There's so much grey area and reading the ins and outs of every little thing is tedious...Opinions:-TV Week-Huffington Post article-Fairness Doctrine is another name for censorship-Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine Information:-S.34 information-Fairness doctrine at Wikipedia-Govtrack S.34 information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 A new bill (S.34) was introduced on January 6: "A bill to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine."Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? It was originally introduced in 1949, and legislation was vetoed by Reagan in 1987...There's so much grey area and reading the ins and outs of every little thing is tedious...Opinions:-TV Week-Huffington Post article-Fairness Doctrine is another name for censorship-Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine Information:-S.34 information-Fairness doctrine at Wikipedia-Govtrack S.34 informationIn theory it makes sense but would be a nightmare to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I think it would be hard to fairly enforce. Liberals scream conservatives have to much say in the media and conservatives say just the opposite. Does seem radio leans right and tv/print more to the left. Myself, I won't listen/watch either because I recognize to keep up their ratings they have to be controversial and both groups love to use scare tactics. Rush, O'Reily, Hannity are all idiots if you ask me, even though I consider myself fairly conservative. However they apparently make money for the stations or they wouldn't be on. It's all about money and I don't think the government should have a say in what sells commercial time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'm against it. It costs too much to enforce, relies on subjective decisions, and requires more government involvement in media. On top of all that, the "free" airwaves are rapidly losing their importance as more people get their information and opinion from the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'm against it. It costs too much to enforce, relies on subjective decisions, and requires more government involvement in media. On top of all that, the "free" airwaves are rapidly losing their importance as more people get their information and opinion from the internet. Agreed meme, besides, if some Liberal wants to own a radio and have nothing but Liberal talk radio, what is to stop them, besides the bleak outlook of no profit, as Air America set precedent to ??? I am against it, all's fair in Talk Radio, if you want "equal time", go establish an "equal time" radio station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Agreed meme, besides, if some Liberal wants to own a radio and have nothing but Liberal talk radio, what is to stop them, besides the bleak outlook of no profit, as Air America set precedent to ??? I am against it, all's fair in Talk Radio, if you want "equal time", go establish an "equal time" radio station. True, since liberals can read, they don't need talk radio. But, it is fun to know what scares the bejeezus out of conservatives now. I'm going to bring it up every chance I get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 True, since liberals can read, they don't need talk radio. But, it is fun to know what scares the bejeezus out of conservatives now. I'm going to bring it up every chance I get.If the Libs are such cool customers, then why do they need to try and muscle in on current radio stations ? And by "reading" you mean the Lib bible of the NYT and L.A. times, then God help you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 If the Libs are such cool customers, then why do they need to try and muscle in on current radio stations ?I haven't a clue what that means. If you are suggesting that liberal radio programs are trying to get placed on a radio station's schedule, that is called...umm...business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I haven't a clue what that means. If you are suggesting that liberal radio programs are trying to get placed on a radio station's schedule, that is called...umm...business.Ummm...the current talk radio stations don't want their business, so the Dems. feel they have to pass legislation to shoehorn them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Ummm...the current talk radio stations don't want their business, so the Dems. feel they have to pass legislation to shoehorn them in. OOOOHHH!!! YOU are one of the people that thinks this is coming! Good. Now I know how to terrify TJ. Just bring up the Fairness Doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 OOOOHHH!!! YOU are one of the people that thinks this is coming! Good. Now I know how to terrify TJ. Just bring up the Fairness Doctrine. Yeah, shakin' like a leaf over here ! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I say bring it back. There would no such thing as Rush Limbaugh... there would be more fairness on the radio. Maybe the Republicans could have actually won (by listening to the "other side")... vs. listening to the constant, one-sided trash that Rush and Sean put out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I say bring it back. There would no such thing as Rush Limbaugh... there would be more fairness on the radio. Maybe the Republicans could have actually won (by listening to the "other side")... vs. listening to the constant, one-sided trash that Rush and Sean put out.LOL! See, right there. Bryan, why can't you Libs make your own radio station ? If someone doesn't want to hear what Rush says, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, right ? You have the ability Bryan, right ? Why must the Libs demand that they be on the same station and get equal time on that station, why is it impossible for them to make their own talk station ? Their thinking is that someone will FINALLY listen to them, but they are wrong, and the station owners know this, the owners have researched it, and it has been tried before. Bottomline, it was bad for their business. Radio stations are a private industry with regulation by the FCC. What are these owner's doing that is so wrong ? I don't listen to Air America, never have, they don't interest me. Conservative talk does, so why can't it be my choice to choose who I listen to ? If I choose to listen to that station, why must they be forced as to what programming they have to put on ? Please try to answer at least TWO of these questions, thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Liberals just don't listen to talk radio like Conservatives do. Conservatives are more prone to sit around listening to someone talk on a radio... Liberals tend not to even sit around that much let alone listen to someone talk and talk and talk on the radio. Liberals generally have more active lives... they are out experiencing life... not sitting home listening to the radio. Conservatives tend to be more old and well... boring... while Liberals tend to be younger...more active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porchman Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Media in the U.S. should not be regulated. If anything, civil litigation should take care of that. Absence of malice is one thing. However, the negligence matter is evolving in the media realm. As an aside, from what I heard of the ruling, I think that if Sylvester Turner had sued Dolcefino and KTRK for negligence (i.e. you didn't research your story, you're all about efficiency and making profits for ABC, and you expect return of timely stories), he might have actually prevailed.Additionally, I believe that things run in balance. (OK, so I'm a libra). Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter (well, not so much Coulter because only total wackos will publish/broadcast her) have done their damage. Yet, we have elected a democrat - a black democrat - a democrat who can't bowl (BTW. I can't bowl either, but I do know it's an important part of life to Americans in the Midwest and Katy) - as President of the United States. I didn't expect this in 2004 when Shrub accepted his victory amongst those big, black W banners (which, quite frankly, reminded me of Hitler speaking in front of his party's banners - replacing his country's flag with his ideals.)Free press can disseminate bent information. Free press also can report that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Free press also can report on the damage of that fallacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Liberals just don't listen to talk radio like Conservatives do.they watch network news, msnbc and cnn instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 LOL! See, right there. Bryan, why can't you Libs make your own radio station ?Singular, not plural. Only one poster, liberal or conservative, has expressed support for the concept. The rest of us have no use for it.Keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 What's with the bowling hate? I know communists who love to bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Liberals just don't listen to talk radio like Conservatives do. Conservatives are more prone to sit around listening to someone talk on a radio... Liberals tend not to even sit around that much let alone listen to someone talk and talk and talk on the radio. Liberals generally have more active lives... they are out experiencing life... not sitting home listening to the radio. Conservatives tend to be more old and well... boring... while Liberals tend to be younger...more active. Thank you for the laugh Htown. Do tell about this hectic, fastpaced, jetsetting lifestyle you so enjoy. How many miles did you jog today? How many homeless were you out saving today? Right, so busy with your 3 trips to Starbucks today to get your Mocha Lattes, and fastpaced flipping of channels between Oprah, HGTV and WE. Give us a break, oh "Active" one. I wish I could sit at home and listen to radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 And of course, this issue cannot be addressed without both sides making idiotic personal remarks about each other, rather than the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan the Man Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The "Fairness Doctrine" is too subjective to enforce. Plus, it seems to run contrary to that whole "Freedom of the Press" thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 LOL! See, right there. Bryan, why can't you Libs make your own radio station ? If someone doesn't want to hear what Rush says, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, right ? You have the ability Bryan, right ? Why must the Libs demand that they be on the same station and get equal time on that station, why is it impossible for them to make their own talk station ? Their thinking is that someone will FINALLY listen to them, but they are wrong, and the station owners know this, the owners have researched it, and it has been tried before. Bottomline, it was bad for their business. Radio stations are a private industry with regulation by the FCC. What are these owner's doing that is so wrong ? I don't listen to Air America, never have, they don't interest me. Conservative talk does, so why can't it be my choice to choose who I listen to ? If I choose to listen to that station, why must they be forced as to what programming they have to put on ? Please try to answer at least TWO of these questions, thanks in advance.It cuts both ways, TJ. Aren't you tired of only hearing liberal view points in the main stream media? Why do you even post to HAIF? Because they're people, like me, who give you plenty to THINK about. It just wouldn't be fun otherwise. The world is full of different colored flowers. Why poison and brainwash your mind, with only one viewpoint? What if HAIF was just like right-wing radio - one viewpoint - all of the time? That's no fun. I say, let's make radio fun again.One of my favorite radio shows is Michael Savage. He is so outrageous, that, for me, it's like comedy hour. It would be more interesting to hear him debate the issues of the day with someone just as nuts as he is... but from the other side of the coin. "We've got nuclear submarines! We paid for 'em! Let's use them! NOW!" I also find it peculiar that he lives and broadcasts his show from San Francisco. Someone has some major, unresolved issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 One of my favorite radio shows is Michael Savage. He is so outrageous, that, for me, it's like comedy hour. It would be more interesting to hear him debate the issues of the day with someone just as nuts as he is... but from the other side of the coin.But there isn't a "coin". Few real issues resolve to two opposing positions. How fair does "fair" have to be? Do we have to ensure time for 3 different opinions? Why not 4? Why not 40? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 But there isn't a "coin". Few real issues resolve to two opposing positions. How fair does "fair" have to be? Do we have to ensure time for 3 different opinions? Why not 4? Why not 40?Because you are either for or against an issue. You cannot be both for AND against an issue, and have any credibility, or add anything to the debate. "I am both for, and against, gay marriage." Get off the stage. Last time I checked, in Congress... you can either vote yes or no or no vote. I want to hear both the yes and no sides, fairly. I guess you could careless about an issue... neither for or against, but that too, adds nothing.Doesn't affect the first amendment either. Actually, it reinforces the Constitution - equal access. One side can say all it wants about an issue, but the opposing side must be given equal time. A truly fair and balanced approach to discussing the merits of the issues of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Doesn't affect the first amendment either. Actually, it reinforces the Constitution - equal access. One side can say all it wants about an issue, but the opposing side must be given equal time. A truly fair and balanced approach to discussing the merits of the issues of the day.Not on a privately owned forum they don't. In a public forum, perhaps. But, these are not public (as in government owned) radio or tv stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 As much as I revile some of the television and radio hosts who care more about their political views than the good of the country, I don't think this doctrine is necessarily the right thing. That doesn't mean the one-sided commentators don't have influence. I've met plenty of otherwise intelligent people who, once the conversation turns political, become nothing more than broken records repeating everything some failed disc jockey turned political commentator lied about that day. I'd like to see more real journalism and less sensationalism, but not at the expense of free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Because you are either for or against an issue. You cannot be both for AND against an issue, and have any credibility, or add anything to the debate. "I am both for, and against, gay marriage." Get off the stage. Last time I checked, in Congress... you can either vote yes or no or no vote. I want to hear both the yes and no sides, fairly. I guess you could careless about an issue... neither for or against, but that too, adds nothing.Really? I've heard more than two positions on gay marriage, many of them on this forum. Here are a few:1. For gay marriage, want to replace domestic partnerships and civil unions.2. Against gay marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions.3. For domestic partnerships or civil unions but against gay marriage.4. Against the federal government defining marriage, want to leave it to the states.5. Against any government involvement in the definition of marriage, want it to be a religious issue like "baptized" or "excommunicated".Very few "issues" have only two sides. There may be many reasons to vote yes or no on a bill; is it fair to only give voice to one reason for each vote? Who determines which reason will be broadcast? The federal government? Elected officials? Appointed bureaucrats?Even on this issue (The Fairness Doctrine) we can find more than two sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The problem with the "fairness doctrine" wasn't in its intent, it was in its execution.It gave any wacko with a few defective brain cells the notion that he had a "right" to be on the air on any station he chose at any time to say whatever he wanted. They would sometimes line up outside waiting for their "turn" and scream at the receptionists about the "fairness doctrine" and how they would call the police if the station kept violating their "rights."It was a big fat hassle for everyone involved. Here's what I'd rather see:Expanded and strictly enforced public service content. Ideally in the form of mandatory news or public affairs programming during normal broadcast hours and not shunted off to 3:00 Sunday morning. Strictly enforced public service content for the city of license. Galveston has its own radio and TV stations, yet none of them actually serve Galveston -- they go after Houston. Ditto for Conroe, Lake Jackson, and lots of other cities that are underserved by broadcasters. Stations should be required to serve their city of license first with the public service content mentioned above. The FCC should either enable itself, or find some method through the courts, to determine appropriate content. I'm not talking about obscenity or any of that stuff. I'm talking about content like news programming, bias, (maybe formats), public service, etc... For decades the FCC has weasled out of many of its responsibilities for regulating content by claiming it doesn't have the authority or mandate to determine whether a station is serving the public good based on its content. Well, what else is the FCC for if not to regulate COMMUNICATIONS? If all it wants to do is frequency allocation, we have the United Nations and other organizations for that. The FCC should be deciding things like, "Yes, this station is doing a good job serving the public" or "No, a 30 second weather forecast at 1:15am does not qualify as local content for an entire broadcast week" or "No, the public good is not served by flipping the last classical station in the market to join the six country stations already on the air." The FCC should revoke more licenses. Do you know how many broadcast licenses the FCC revoked last year? I don't, either. But I only heard of two or three, and those were for stations that were already off the air. The broadcasters should be afraid of not serving the public. When people call a TV or radio station and say "I'm going to report you to the FCC!" the people in the station laugh because they know nothing will happen. Ever. Especially in TV. The FCC is beyond toothless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 It cuts both ways, TJ. Aren't you tired of only hearing liberal view points in the main stream media? Why do you even post to HAIF? Because they're people, like me, who give you plenty to THINK about. It just wouldn't be fun otherwise. The world is full of different colored flowers. Why poison and brainwash your mind, with only one viewpoint? What if HAIF was just like right-wing radio - one viewpoint - all of the time? That's no fun. I say, let's make radio fun again.One of my favorite radio shows is Michael Savage. He is so outrageous, that, for me, it's like comedy hour. It would be more interesting to hear him debate the issues of the day with someone just as nuts as he is... but from the other side of the coin. "We've got nuclear submarines! We paid for 'em! Let's use them! NOW!" I also find it peculiar that he lives and broadcasts his show from San Francisco. Someone has some major, unresolved issues...No Bryan, I don't have to listen to it. I change the channel from CBS and NBC all the time. I even find CNN to be more conservative now than any of the big 3 networks, very sad. There is always FOX though, they have their own channel, it is an alternative to NBC nightly made up news. See how Murdock got tired of the Liberal Bias and went and made his own network ? You don't see Rush or Hannity demanding that they be put on Air America radio, now do you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Bryan... TJ... chill. This is not about HAIFers, it is about the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Don't make it about each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.