Time to flex some of our new muscle BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Despite a huge nationwide democratic / progressive / anti Iraq war vote
progressive radio stations are being shut down. Call you democratic senator
or congress critter and ask for a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" for OUR
public air waves.

I just called Sherrod Brown's office in D.C..

This is not about stopping all the "right wing blather" but a return to open
and honest debate about the issues that face this country. We need to be
able to hear all sides of the story not just a few selected sides.

Millions if not billions of dollars have been spent on demonizing the word
liberal to the point now that all somebody has to say is "Oh that is just too
liberal," and a large percentage of people automatically shut off what ever
the "liberal man or women" have to say and this is partly due to people only
hearing one side of the story.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine .... make those calls.

and all the issues with the original doctrine need to be addressed.

The MSM should have a responsibility and an obligation to report all the news, not just the stuff they want to report, and all sides of the story, with equal time for opposing views.

The MSM needs to be put on notice that the censorship of late is not acceptable.

why can't the communities also have a chance to hear another point of view?

I forget the exact % but something like 80% of Fox viewers still think Saddam
had WNDs and a connection to 9/11. Those wrong facts had to get in their heads
somehow.

that would pretty much break the back of right wing radio across the country...but the first thing is to get the fcc away from the right and move it to the center

Let's face it. We get more sides of every issue now then we ever did back when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. It's not a side effect of the doctrine, in either way, it's simply the progress in technology. We've got, what, 10 zillion new channels, with a hundred-fold as many blogs to look at. Radio has gone high-def, so there's more channels out there than you can shake a stick at. Newspapers, I grant, have gone into collapse, and barely count any more. But we get more sides to every issue now than we ever used to.

Sorry, Fairness Doctrine isn't needed anymore. I suspect trying to reimplement it would just be a lawyer-enrichment act, as everyone would sue every news department under the sun for failing to represent their side of the issue "fairly."

And please keep in mind, it would apply to our side as well as the right. Do you really want John Stewart to be sued for failing to present both sides of this issue?

R. Garrett

propaganda stations, less than 90 progressive stations and every station on television is right winged with a few exceptions like the comedy network and Keith O. We NEED the fairness doctrine! AND we need them to label all media now as OPINION not FACT!

The huge majority of Americans want us out of Iraq yet we hear
White House spin and the media talks about surges.

BTW it is Jon Stewart. He does comedy not news and he jabs the left
every chance he gets to.

I am living in a town that went blue big time yet Clear channel is
shutting down progressive talk for right wing hate talk right now.

Jon Stewart, not John. You're right, and I'm sorry for the error.

I'm far from an expert on the radio market. I do know that Clear Channel is national, and they're probably looking at their return on investment over the national market, rather than the local market. This ends my speculation on the matter - I have no actual data to add, just pointing out that they're probably not responding to your local conditions.

R. Garrett

In the FOURTH LARGEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES, we have ONE liberal station. Pacifica. Free speech is so valued in Texas that it was bombed off the air TWICE in 1970, right after it started. :sarcasm:

There are a grand total of FIVE Pacifica stations in the U.S.

We have NO liberal regular AM or FM commercial stations or shows here.

If I want to hear Randi Rhodes or Al Franken or anybody else on AAR I have to PAY FOR IT on XM Satellite Radio.

That is not choice. The only daily liberal news shows I get are Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman and BBC World News, both on Pacifica.

I refuse to pay for cable or satellite TV and DSL is expensive enough.

Face it, everywhere you turn it's Rush, Bill, Laura, conservative this, conservative that. And the MSM fails to report on so many things of importance, because it might reflect negatively on the Republican Party and George Bush.

The progressives have a hand full of people we can turn to like Keith, Jon, and Steven. But face it, Stewart and Colbert are comedy shows. Yes, they often speak the truth but they aren't presented as factual news shows like some of the others.

There are some great progressive shows like Mike Malloy's, but coverage is sketchy in some parts of the country.

I say let's air all the dirty laundry. Dems aren't perfect, but their list of offenses pales in comparison to that of the mighty GOP.

Mike Malloy, someone has to subscribe, have access to reliable disposable income, to get services like Cable TV, or satellite radio in the first place.

People who can't afford these luxuries are stuck with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

The Fairness Doctrine has always rubbed me the wrong way because it is an encroachment on freedom and the market. It is essentially forcing privately-owened media outlets to broadcast certain material that they might not otherwise chose to. Why should government have that right?

If the public will read/watch/listen, then the programs that are popular and generate ratings will be on the air. It's as simple as that. If the public does not want to support those programs, then the programs won't be on the air. So the answer is -- create programs that the public will want to listen to. Simple as that.

Let's say I own a radio station and that Hannity gets the highest ratings and brings in the most money to my station. Why should I be required to air a low-rated program that brings in low revenue? That's the government hurting my business.

I guess you guys have been preparing for this moment for a long time. Don't blame you.

The Fairness Doctrine is outdated, huh? Yeah, you bet.

Sell your talking points where they'd be more appreciated.

That term is very dismissive because it implies I'm simply cribbing from another source. Why not respond to the actual argument?

I'm a fan of the free market of ideas -- those books or t.v. shows or radio shows that capture the public will succeed. I see no point in coercing a media outlet to broadcast shows that it does not want to broadcast. There's something inherently flawed about getting one's ideas out to the public by force.

Would you like to discuss?

I've gone through my story a few times on these boards - but I'll do it again anyway. I do tend to come at these debates from a different point of view than most.

First off, while I am a Democrat, my husband is a Republican, and quite conservative. You may take from that, rather immediately, that politics is not the overriding concern for either of us. However, more to the point of this particular argument, I tend to hear more of the right-wing side of arguments - both from my husband and from mutual friends - than I suspect many on this board do. (Oh, and needless to say, I also don't approach the right assuming that they are evil or have bad intent, for all that we often disagree.)

Anyway, that background done, I find it interesting that so many here claim the media is overwhelmingly right-wing. That is interesting because on the right, they regularly complain about the left-wing dominance of media. Not talk radio - they fully recognize they dominate that - but mainstream sources like CNN, Time Magazine, and the like.

This, in the end, is why I think the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea. If we have this as a law, all of these fights will not be a matter of argument or disagreement, but a matter of law. We will be fighting it out in court to determine whether CNN, Time, the New York Times, etc. are really biased one way or the other, and the government will be taking action to correct it one way or the other. Frankly, I prefer simply disagreeing about it, arguing, and getting news from the (many) alternative sources already available.

Again, let me stress here, my disagreement with the Fairness Doctrine comes about as a principal from the simple existance of disagreement on the bias of these mainstream sources. I am not myself taking such a position (I have a position, but it is not relevant to this particular discussion.) I think that these types of disagreements are natural - we consider something more objective if it agrees with us, that's the nature of ego. But if we enshrine this into law, the practical upshot in today's culture is simply endless lawsuits over every story.

The Fairness Doctrine strikes me as a bad idea on its face.

R. Garrett

"Fairness Doctrine isn't needed anymore. I suspect trying to reimplement it would just be a lawyer-enrichment act .. "

If that is not a right wing talking point I do not know what is.

Creative Response Concepts?
Fox News?
A.E.I.?
The Heritage Foundation?
Grover Norquist?


Where did you get your material?

I actually thought I explained my point of view well enough above. I do, in fact, have fairly regular contact with conservative points of view. I also have regular contact with progressive viewpoints as well - generally (but as in this case, not always) more enjoyable ones politically.

In order, though -

I've never even heard of Creative Response Concepts.
We watch Fox News irregularly, but often enough (we're not regular viewers of any TV news program.)
A.E.I. stands for American Enterprise Institute, and they're conservative in some way - this exhausts my knowledge of them.
Heritage Foundation - I know more about them, and some of what I've read on the Fairness Doctrine may easily have come from them, but I could not point to it specifically. I have not deliberately sought out their view, nor am I deliberately repeating it.
Grover Norquist - no idea what his opinions on the matter are, nor do I really care.

Now, I hope that satisfies you, because I'd prefer discussing the issue, rather than my motives. Is the argument I've put forward in the other posts remotely persuasive? Apparently not, so what do you see that I'm missing? I'm not a plant, but have no possible way of ever proving that, so I don't intend to address it further. Can we discuss this under the assumption that I honestly disagree with you?

R. Garrett

"Fairness Doctrine isn't needed anymore. I suspect trying to reimplement it would just be a lawyer-enrichment act .. "

Smacks so much of some sort of right wing talking point that I have a hard time getting around it.

Bottom line is the degradation of the fairness doctrine allowed the rise of a right wing echo chamber that
has hurt America in thousands of ways not the least of which is the neutering of much of the main stream
media to the point they are just as much of a problem as the bush & his henchmen.

bush had a fucking transmitter on his back during press conferences and debates and the Times & Post
ran from that story out of fear of being labeled as "liberal media" by the hundreds of outlets by which
these unelected manipulate the message.

The market is more then big and rich enough to support multiple points of view.

BTW

Creative Response Concepts?
Fox News?
A.E.I.?
The Heritage Foundation?
Grover Norquist?

all help plant crap like; lawyer-enrichment act

Now, I suspect this may make me sound even more like a right-wing plant (and I say that in part to immunize myself - I'm making this as an argument, not trying to advance this view. Really...) But let me put forward an example of how the Fairness Doctrine might work in practice - the example chosen specifically to be one I suspect we'd all find outrageous.

When news reports under a reinstated Fairness Doctrine discuss global warming, are they going to need to discuss both sides?i There are still climate scientists who dispute the percentage of anthropogenic cause of global warming (and, given the nature of climate science, you'll never nail down that number - it's a nonlinear system, and so by definition resistant to that level of analysis.) I suspect most of us would disagree with this, and consider the case for significant anthropgenic global warming to be proven. But, let's assume that we can continue to find at least some reputable scientists who disagree. (Or even less than reputable, what the heck.) Would news reports be required to air their views with every global warming story? Why, or why not?

As I understand the old Fairness Doctrine, this would be required, but probably not enforced.

Which brings us to the next part. How will the Fairness Doctrine be enforced? My "lawyer-enrichment" comment that you take so much offense to is based on a suspicion that a new Doctrine will create a private cause of action on this. That's been the trend in legislation over the last decade or so (and it's one I generally, but not always, oppose.) However, the old Doctrine had regulatory, FCC, enforcement. Now, that's fine, as long as your view of fairness coincides with the view of the members sitting on the FCC. We've just come out of 12 years of Republican dominance of Congress, and they've been appointing those members. If we reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, and they retake Congress, they will again appoint members.

I'm sorry, but I don't really like either method (although I think the first one is far, far they worst of the two.)

In an effort at common ground, I at first took your final comment, "The market is more then big and rich enough to support multiple points of view" to be agreement with me. I realized you probably meant that each network or story should have the multiple points of view. Perhaps we could agree that the total market of news - overall - should provide some balance, but that requirement should not be levied on an individual story or even network (I like MSNBC as it is, for instance.)

I'd also take the probably controversial view that the overall market at the moment is, more or less, balanced. I base this on the degree of outrage over bias I hear from both the left and right ;-)

Oh, and if you'd like another area of hopeful agreement - I would love to see legislation making it easier to create local networks and programming, especially in radio. I want more voices out there.

R. Garrett

The old Fairness Doctrine required stations to present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner. Even if someone went to the legal extreme of trying to require their extreme minority viewpoint to be presented in every single broadcast, the best they'd do in this case is get an announcement that there aren't any reputable scientists not in the employ of the energy companies who dispute the existence of global warming. The station is not obligated to present both points of view as being equally valid; it's merely supposed to represent them as accurately as possible.

Don't take me out to the Country and spread bull shit on toast and tell me that
it is country style apple butter.

bottom line the destruction of the Fairness doctrine has allowed right wing propaganda
machines to foul the airwaves with half truths and out right lies.

BTW "trial attorneys" are a very good thing they fight for the little guy and the public good.

Your fears of a problem that does not exist vs the real damage being done to my country
by not having a fairness doctrine strike me a bit too convenient too.

"I'd also take the probably controversial view that the overall market at the moment is, more or less, balanced."

Honest to God I don't know if I should laugh or scream about that abortion of a statement.
A balanced market would never allow the fact that bush never won either election not to be
a known fact to every American ..... BTW I live in Ohio and saw and heard the election theft
first hand .... and yet the MSM labeled me crazy.

if the airwaves were dominated by ultra liberal voices? Have you ever noticed that conservatives seem to think that liberals do dominate the airwaves? Ever wonder why?

The media isn't biased, it's apathetic. Most mainstream media voices are simply not interested in presenting anything legitimately controversial, they just repeat and rehash the same stories in the same way. A law that forces them to keep a balanced viewpoint would only serve to scare the last traces of controversy and daring out of the media.

"Have you ever noticed that conservatives seem to think that liberals do dominate the airwaves? Ever wonder why?"

ummm...

for the same reason that conservatives seem to think that gay people getting married is a "threat" to marriage?
for the same reason that conservatives seem to think that "San Francisco Values" are a "threat" to the US?
for the same reason that conservatives seem to think that creationism is just as "valid" a "science" as evolution?

in other words, because it's just not so, and it's just a bullshit strawman to try and stir up the knuckle-draggers?

sheesh... :eyes:

it's hard for me to understand why you think we're getting more different points of view now than we got twenty or thirty years ago.

News coverage is sloppier, less informative, more homogenized and more centrally controlled now than at any time in the past that I can remember.

Will do.

Ask others to do the same.

we have 2 non-conservative talk radio stations. One is 1480 and the other is 1100. The 1480 is the Air America/Nova M radio station. I apologize for not giving the call letters but my memory is going.

among others. This was yesterday (the 4th), early in the morning before Pelosi formally took over. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is back in the driver's seat in a House Telecommunications subcommittee, I believe it is. He's HUGELY serious about net neutrality. I read somewhere here yesterday that net neutrality now had a good chance of success in the House because of the new lay of the land - especially regarding him. So I called his office (there are TOLL FREE Capitol Hill switchboard numbers at the bottom of my sig line AND my column - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3042082&mesg_id=3042082 ) and talked to a staffer. I urged them on regarding net neutrality, and then did an "oh, by the way" and threw in a plug for the Fairness Doctrine. The staffer told me that Markey was on that, too!

Long-winded way of saying - PLEASE!!! CALL ED MARKEY!!! And urge him on about this, 'cause he's finally in position to be able to do something about it, and most important of all - he's VERY INTERESTED in doing something about it. The ears in Congress are now OPEN to us, guys. They're not blowing us off any longer. OURS are the people who count there, now. And the bad guys? Well, they're taking notice. They see the changing times, and their necks on the block in two years if they don't get with the (NEW) program.

And don't forget to urge him on, about stopping the war, AND about considering IMPEACHMENT as a realistic and most desirable option.

We need to restore the restrictions on the consolidation of media ownership.

Maurice Hinchey had a great bill pending a year or two ago; maybe it can be resurrected:

"The Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 (MORA) is co-sponsored by Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. and Diane Watson, D-Calif. In a written announcement, MORA is described as legislation “that seeks to undo the massive consolidation of the media that has been ongoing for nearly 20 years.”

"The measure would restore the Fairness doctrine, reinstate a national cap on radio ownership and lower the number of radio stations a company can own in a local market. It also reinstates a 25% national television ownership cap and requires stations to submit regular public interest reports to the Federal Communications Commission."

And did you see this:

CARLYLE GROUP LOOKS TO BUY MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS

The Tribune Co., the embattled publisher of the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, is mulling an outright sale of the company, asking private-equity firms, including one based in Washington, to submit nonbinding indications of interest by the end of the month, according to a Monday report from The Wall Street Journal.

According to the report, three groups have emerged as possible bidders:
- D.C.-based Carlyle Group;
- Madison Dearborn Partners, Providence Equity Partners, and Apollo Management;
- Thomas H. Lee Partners and Texas Pacific Group.

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/10/23/daily12.html

And break up the 'news' monopolies!

They're giving every indication of beings tigers on a short leash, not donkeys, like our lot in the UK. (No slur intended on your party).