Democrats need to ATTACH Fairness Doctrine to EVERY BILL IN CONGRESS

[rpgamerd00d]

Attach it to Patriot Act.
Attach it to the Budget.
Attach it to Katrina Funding.
Attach it to War funding.
Attach it to the asbestos thing.

Attach it TO EVERYTHING.*


* (or a new law like the Fairness Doctrine, with much better language, clearer mandates, and harsher penalties)

[VOX]

1. Yes, Yes, and YES!!!!!

Until that little piece of Reagan legacy is dealt with, it'll remain nearly impossible to score points in the media with an opposing viewpoint.

:thumbsup:

[f-bush]

2. This would be great!!!

Hopefully the Dems have some balls and do it!

[ClassWarrior]

4. Hopefully WE will demand that our elected Dems do it!!

Last time I checked, telepathy wasn't cutting it. We have to TELL 'EM WHAT WE WANT 'EM TO DO!! And it's ESPECIALLY important to tell those who are up for reelection this year!

NGU.

[onenote]

3. and exactly what do you expect resurrection of the fairness doctrine to do

Here's what the FD said: a broadcaster "shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

So let's say its resurrected. How will the world change. Is it liklely that the current FCC will find a violation? No. Is there a strong case that it would be struck down as a violaiton of the First Amendment, particularly if an effort was made to apply it cable networks? Yes.

My point is that the FD isn't some sort of panacea.

onenote

[ClassWarrior]

5. Not panacea = bad??

:crazy:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

23. No answer, huh?

Figures.

NGU.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. Democratic Party door is that way ---->

I hate your kind of negativity. Comments like this are the problem with Dems appearing like "wussies".

[onenote]

8. I'm sorry if I'm negative about proposals that won't actually solve

anything. Why expend any time or resources on something that isn't going to be helpful even if we could accomplish it. Now, after we have a Democrat in the WH, appointing a Democrat to be Chairman of the FCC, then it would be the time to reintroduce the FD (although it still would probably would be thrown out on constitutional grounds). BUt now? Even if we succeeded, with the repubs controlling the FCC, its more likely to be used against us than to help us.

onenote

[rpgamerd00d]

9. Here is a shocking idea

Make a new version of the FD which has better language that isnt vague, isn't ignorable, and a different name, then attach that.

OMFG !

Sheesh.

[onenote]

11. or just let the First Amendment do its thing

Should this new FD apply to newspapers too? After all, there are more radio stations in most communities than newspapers. If the justification for the FD was "scarcity" in the pre-cable, pre-Internet days, what is the justification now?

onenote

[rpgamerd00d]

13. I think Freedom of Speech supports a "Fairness Doctrine"

I think if a viewpoint is surpressed, you could claim a violation of 1st Amendment.

[onenote]

14. so would you apply the same concept to newspapers?

What about websites. No more tombstoning freepers?

onenote

[rpgamerd00d]

15. I would limit it to TV and Radio. -nt

[onenote]

16. and how do draw that distinction under the First Amendment

It used to be a scarcity rationale, but with cable and the Internet, that rationale doesn't seem to hold water anymore.

onenote

[rpgamerd00d]

17. I am not entirely sure I understand what scarcity means....

... but, I would say that since Radio and TV are broadcast, they qualify, whereas newspaper and internet are subscriber-based and do not qualify.

[onenote]

21. the problem with that distinction

is that it would suggest that a free newspaper (or a free website) would be subject to regulation.

The concept of scarcity was based on the idea that there were a limited number of frequencies available for broadcast. Because not every person can get a broadcast license, broadcasters were entitled to a reduced level of First Amendment protection. As a practical matter, it remains true that the number of frequencies available for broadcast transmissions is not infinite. But it also is true as a practical matter that the number of "outlets" for communicating one's views are much broader now, with the advent of cable television and the Internet.

BTW, I appreciate the civil tone of our discussion. I'm not questioning your sincerity or the fact that some media outlets (Faux News being the most egregious example) are extremely slanted. Its just that my personal preference is to keep government out of content based determinations.

onenote

[rpgamerd00d]

22. Wait, so, because limited frequencies existed, that meant that...

... only X viewpoints could possibly be presented. Once you got to X, you were out of outlets. Therefore, the X outlets had to be "forced" to be "fair", and this the FD made sense. And now, since an essentially infinte # of outlets are available, that removes justification of FD? Do I have it right?

I would argue against that. I would say regardless of how many potential outlets exist, getting an outlet is subject to practical limitations, such as # of feasible cable channels, disparity in distribution, uneven playing field regarding control and monopoly, and of course disadvantage to the poor vs the rich in viewpoint.

Using the same arguements for "publically funded elections" I think a feasible and legal statute could be crafted that would protect equal representation without violating any single persons or corporations' 1st Amendment Rights.

[rinsd]

24. There are a few more issues....

One, the non-suppression of a viewpoint does not entail granting one access to the biggest of hundreds of stages.

Two, you are thinking of the FD in binary terms, black and white. When in reality there is more nuance.

Three, would this also apply to broadcast TV shows that are non-news? I assume not but you'll see where I am going with this below.

Four, the effect on TV would be minimal as the Big 3 are fairly neutral. Alot of people think FD will help counter Foxnews. The unintended consequnce is you let the FCC het their paws on cable which they are already attempting to do. Right now cable stations voluntarily shift more adult programming to later hours by choice on cable including the censoring of the 7 words (and even that has ebbed a bit).

Five, in terms of radio I'm not sure if I want an AAR stattion to have to play a Glen Beck-type for equal time.

[rpgamerd00d]

26. I still think a detailed statue could be created.

[tlsmith1963]

7. I Agree 100%

If we don't have a fairness doctrine, then both sides will continue to fight over the media. It's better to present both sides & let people make up their own minds. They had it when I was a kid, & it seemed to work. But remember--it was Reagan who got rid of the Fairness Doctrine. It's ironic that conservatives complained so much about the "liberal" media when it was someone on their side who inadvertently made it happen in the first place.

Tammy

[Lars39]

10. Excellent idea. K &R

[Just Me]

12. I like it!!!

:bounce:

Then, point out how the repukes keep voting it out! :rofl:

[rpgamerd00d]

20. Actually, thats great. If they keep it down, its becomes visible

[mmonk]

18. Truth's only path

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Yes, some sort of revised and improved version to fit our current

day situation.

[Lars39]

25. A kick for the evening crowd.