The Fairness Doctrine is NOT what we need now. We need WAY more than that.

[Stinky The Clown]

From that Wiki Thingie, we get this:

According to Steve Rendall of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting),

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Even if that were a sufficiently broad concept, the law only applies to the public airwaves. Right now, that means three networks and a gaggle of radio stations that aren't doing sports talk. It ignores cable, satellite, and such completely.

The only thing that will help is simply to break up the media. Limit the number of outlets in every market that one company can control to just one. Then limit the number of outlets that can be owned nationally by some absolute number

Having to jump through hoops to get a simple message out is killing us.

[1]

1. i think its time for the "you had your shot assholes, now its our time" doctrine...

shut down all rightwing broadcasts and only allow liberals on the air... any air... any time...

[Breeze54]

3. Right on..."no name' --- "Posted by 1" !!! LOL!

:D

[alexandria]

8. Yeah lets rip up the constituion..

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

[Lorien]

2. Breaking up the media will do nothing. Wealthy interests will still control it

anyone who is old enough to remember what news reporting was like before Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine knows why it is so essential to restoring our democracy. All airwaves are public. Without the Fairness Doctrine the wealthy elite control the message, not the public which owns the airwaves. Since Reagan was in office the left has been effectively muzzled by denial of air time.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. That's what I'm sayin'

[snot]

5. Agreed, get it back; but we also need restrictions on consolidated ownership; and

it IS possible. There are plenty of instances where the law concerns itself with direct or indirect ownership or control; no reason we can't do it here.

Indeed, media history confirms, restrictions worked much better before they were repealed!

[backscatter712]

9. Go Sherman Antitrust on the media oligopoly.

Break 'em up!

Break up News Corp.

Break up Disney.

Break up Clear Channel.

Break up Viacom.

Break em all up! Force them to sell their TV stations, cable channels, radio stations, newspapers, web sites!

We have a monopolistic trust on our hands. Break them.

[Enthusiast]

19. Sounds good to me. +1! nt

[lib2DaBone]

6. I agree. What gives Rush Limbaugh the right to control American Media?

Or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity? Why can these idiots permeate the airwaves, yet DEMS can't even get a word into the conversation?

I rode to the airport this morning and I listened to our local right-wing AM news station.. from 7 AM until 8 am.. the host (commentator) spent a complete hour on a anti-abortion story. (and this is not a religious station!) It's a main-stream, supposedly news-talk Am 1240.

This country is sick.. with sick media. This is not what the majority in our country voted for.

We need to break the media monopoly. One Corporation can only own 7 AM and 7 FM stations, and they can not co-own newspapers and cable systems.

[alexandria]

10. Don't listen to them...

Jeez change the channel....

[Enthusiast]

17. That is not the point!

The media is completely one sided with only Republican views represented. What don't YOU understand about that?

[tom_paine]

38. That comment belies a complete lack of understanding of how modern propaganda and advertising works.

It's impossible to make this both both and complete, as the subjects are deep.

Let me try and say it in soundbytes, like they do on the Bushie-M$M

Three decades of psychological experimentataion shows conclusively that people are barely governed by reason. Emotions, false logic, susceptibility to demagoguery are all the main features of the human condition. Mine, yours, EVERYBODY'S.

This is not opinion, it is science. Look it up. A casual perusal of 8000 years of recorded human history also corroborates these modern findings. Look it up.

The things revealed by psychology have morphed into other manipulative sciences, like public relations, marketing, propaganda and Bushiganda (my term for it - history has not given it an official name yet)

Large statistical theory has mated with these advanced sciences of psychoplogy and manipulation into a frightening effective predictor of behavior of large groups.

In an "uncommonsensical" yet no less true twist, the LARGER the group, the easier it is to manipulate. The only thing that is required is a sophisticated propaganda program and enough control of the media to implement it while silencing any dissenting voices of reason shouting into the gale force cacophony of the carnivalesque media.

Thus, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was but one aspect of a multi-pronged Bushiganda program to parasitize and neutralize the media into confused nonsense and Bushiganda, which benefit tyrants always.

Whew! See? It's terribly complex than "change the channel". And it's tough to prove because it is so cutting edge no one believes it because totalitarianism has never come in this package before.

But tyrants have never had the advanced sciences of psychologically designed propaganda and the sophistication of Statistical Psychology of Large Groups. The Bushies never had their insanity enshrined as Conventional Wisfdom, from which all National Dialogue starts.

Change the channel if you like. Most every one you get "news" information from is to a greatewr or lesser degree, most are greater, Bushified. Bushigandicized. Hell, mke up any word you want for it because history as yet to catch up with the ones who "saw Hitler for what he was fromthe beginning", and give it a name.

But it will. Unless Bush-Putin-Chinese Inverted Totalitarianism takes over the world, historians will surely look back on this mad, destructive era in our country and put names to all of it.

[Marcus Fenix]

11. if you don't like it

then don't listen if you don't like what they say you do not have to listen!!!!!!

[Wednesdays]

12. It's all about access, not whether or not we like what we hear. nt

[Marcus Fenix]

14. who cares???

no one is forcing you to listen to the radio.

When people say that these conservative radio hosts won't let them talk is the fact that they call in and just want to yell and throw insults, if you just talk and listen to what they ask you and answer them they might not hang up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Until there is a viable market for alternative talk and news, its just not going to happen

[depakid]

26. What makes you think that there isn't?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. If there was a viable market, it would be on the air

Radio is a bottom line kind of business. Stations change formats, add/drop shows based on the listeners and resultant ad revenue. Liberal talk radio can not get the numbers that Rush can. It can't get enough numbers to even stay on the air in many markets. If it could, it would be there.

[depakid]

30. Not true

Owners in many markets prefer their own far right views to making additional profits. It's been done several times with Air America- MSNBC did it with their highest rated show, Phil Donohue- and Sinclair (and others) have done similar deals on multiple occassions.

Broadcast media in America is damn near a text book example of market failure- as representative as any you'd cover in an introductory economic course.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Media, including radio is really struggling. They will put up anyone if it helps the bottom line

[depakid]

33. The facts show otherwise

You can't tell me that areas like Eugene Oregon (and many others) are dominated by far right radio- to the exclusion of everything else- due to consumer preferences and choices.

That's market failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Look at AIr America...the market is just not there

Owners are not going to take a loss year after year for ideological reasons.

[depakid]

36. They've been purposefully excluded from certain areas based on ideological reasons

Owners' preferences NOT listener preferences.

And, btw: as monopoly licensees, broadcasters owe a duty to behave in the public interest in retunr for exclusive profits, It's a quid pro quo- one that used to be enforced.

Moreover- as the Supreme Court has held- the right of the listeners- not the boradcasters is paramount- and there's no right to what amounts to private censorship of the public airwaves.

So we have both market failure AND a deleterious 1st Amendment situation.

lose/lose.

[Enthusiast]

18. The point is, the opposition

gets all the air time. This makes our position unheard. This is completely unfair. Are you a filthy Republican? Because Republicans ARE the filth of the earth.

[Marcus Fenix]

42. which media outlets

are conservative besides talk radio and fox news????? No I am not a Republican, but to say that they are the filth of the earth because they don't share the same views as you is just plain ignorance.

[azul]

7. Competition? Investment would help most.

Conservatives on a mission have been funding think tanks and buying media infrastructure and buying and writing legislation for 30 years, and this current crap fest is the result.

Fairness and ownership rules were there for a reason, and were dismantled to have a spun message dominate media sources.

The current MSM is losing it and failing because it has lost credibility. If community tv and radio and alternative news can get it together to put up a real news outlet to put the lie to the MSM baloney, truth and credibility and sponsors may come back.

And we like needed a real watchdog press back when the mushroom clouds were forming in our imaginations, and also right now when our country is getting the financial heck shocked out of it.

[rucky]

13. We need labeling laws.

Just like a food has to have a certain nutritional value in order to call itself "Lowfat"

the news should have a certain journalistic standard in order to call itself "news"

otherwise it's entertainment, opinion, or anything but news

[Dennis Donovan]

22. I agree...

Fox news pukes out O'Reilly & Hannity without letting the viewers know they're OPINION shows, and not actually "news."

[deaniac21]

16. Plus, we need people who want to listen to us!

[mmonk]

20. It's at least what we need and yes, we need to break up ideological media consolidation.

[Dennis Donovan]

21. Bust the media trusts - re-regulate ownership rules...

I'm old enough to remember when my local radio & TV stations were locally owned.

In regards to the cable news nets, there should be a reg that forces them to label "opinion shows" appropriately - perhaps via disclaimers during the show.

[lonestarnot]

25. Now you ARE talk'n!

:applause: I remember those days too! Isn't Murdock going to die soon?

[KharmaTrain]

23. Reregulation...

The Fairness Doctrine lived in a radio that doesn't exist today. Many of the provisions, such as mandatory news and public affairs shows were wiped away in the 90's. Radio stations could become jukeboxes or outlets for non-stop right wing tripe that was considered "Entertainment" programming and never covered under the old Fairness Doctrine.

Fairness isn't the problem...access and diversity to the public airwaves are. A majority of the stations are controlled by a few hands that have frozen out local programming and franchised hate radio. It's time to roll back a lot of the "deregulation" of the past 20 years...limit the number of stations a company can own, give local groups preference in obtaining licenses and shorten license renewal periods to make stations more responsible and receptive to their communities. It worked for 40 years until dereg came along and with the sad state of radio now, it couldn't come a day too soon.

Cheers...

[depakid]

24. When are people finally going to learn- the "free" market by itself won't solve the problems

First of all- even if it only deals with the monopoly on far right propaganda and deceit on radio and TV broadcasting (and there's no reason that it has to be so limited) the fairness doctrine would bring back a semblance of ethics to the industry- as opposed to the culture of lies that Americans now "enjoy."

One which- btw, people in other nations have to see and hear for themselves to believe.

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all.

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the commercial talk stations in his town he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[many a good man]

27. News divisions as profit centers

Something often overlooked in the discussion is the evolution of network news divisions into centers of profit. In the good old days news was not expected to generate a profit. It was highly subsidized by other divisions such as entertainment.

Presenting the News was seen as a public service and was mandated as a condition of being given access to the public airwaves. Over the past few decades this has shifted and news divisions were expected to generate a profit. Resources were drastically cut. There was consolidation that led to homogenization and the exclusion of other voices. Broadcasters became swept into the cult of celebrity and they began demanding big salaries that matched their celebrity status. The growth of cable has only exacerbated all these trends.

Cable does not use the public airwaves so they are exempt from having to serve the public interest.

Given the vital importance of news and information to a functioning democracy, given the sorry state of news reporting in this country, we need to look long and hard at legislative remedies to this problem. The fate of our democracy, our civil rights, and economic security hangs in the balance.

[KoKo]

29. Good Points....we need something that will cover cable...

It can be worked out...if there is a will to do it. Cable relied on the C-Span Networks to get off the hook for news. However many of us can't get C-Span I and II and most of us only can get the C-Span III where many of the hearings are held over our computers.

Make all C-Span Networks available on all Cable Companies.

What happens to those "public airwaves" now that those who could use rabbit ears have to have a converter box?

[depakid]

31. No reason Congress can't revisit the Cable Act of 1984

For the time being though- the FCC could and should promulgate regulations on their own- and Congress wouldn't have to have anyhting to do with it- AND wouldn't have the ability to overturn it.

The bottom line is that this is the key to the Democrats getting damn near anything substantial done. Without it, it's business as usual- and disillusionment for 2010.

[Seen the light]

34. Is it possible that they might expand it to include the Internet?

Could it possibly affect a place like DU?

[depakid]

39. That's an emphatic NO

nor does it apply to print media.

It's simply one of many responsible broadcast media regulations that were in place and work well prior to the deregulatory frenzy since the mid 1980's.

Their demise has poisoned the public airwaves America every bit as much as salmonella has tainted your food. And then some.

Had they still been in place- it's quite possible the we wouldn't be seeing so much tainted food in America

[Marcus Fenix]

43. doubt it

but if it somehow did then they would probably make DU let Republicans in.

[Festivito]

37. Yup, way more is better where fairness brings only minor good.

It could be a sliding scale where number of media in varying areas brings more open space for more opinions.

[jmowreader]

40. Limiting them to one outlet would be unworkable these days

It would be unprofitable to run a media outlet if you could only have one...the advantage someone like Clear Channel has, is they can run six or seven radio stations with one tower, one studio building and one SALES STAFF. Reduce these guys to one station per market, and they'll come up with alternate ways of getting the RW message out. Perhaps leasing studio space to other "station owners" with the provision in the lease that only conservative thought be aired?

I think we'd be well served if we limited a media owner to one AM, one FM and one television station.

[serrano2008]

41. There's nothing stopping you from buying a radio station and having only Liberal shows on it.

Go for it!