Why do "Progressives" fear the Fairness Doctrine?

I, for one, want it back.

I belive such talk is totally self-serving on his part. He's no progressive, he's a prime example of the tactic of tell the same lie often enough and people will believe it. He is merely a mouthpiece for a particular "democratic" candidate.

I can't or won't speak for him. I never thought of him as a progressive either. Your question makes no sense.

....or brain candy. Even one show with a liberal voice for three hours a day would take away ratings from any neocon puppet opposite such a show, but these talk show hosts are not allowed over the airwaves here. Fairness would give such shows a chance.

Hey, neat looking bridges.

Thanks for the compliment.

Why do "Progressives" hate the Fairness Doctrine?

And have you stopped beating your catamite?

:popcorn:

something that enforces accuracy in the media, and punishes media which perpetuates falsehoods.

I've got no problem with the Fairness Doctrine, except that "fairness" is a subjective concept, and one that is easily spun by the Right in their favor.

is a public educated, intelligent, and motivated enough to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Freedom of speech and press nowhere implies that said speech and press must be either accurate or truthful. If it did, it would hardly be "freedom" would it? "Freedom" means freedom to be wrong.

Freedom of Speech does NOT include the right to spread untruths and misinformation. That's why there are laws against libel.

free speech DOES include the right to spread untruths and misinformation. Libel is different, becuase causes actual harm to an individual.

But I am free to yell that the Earth is flat all day long. I can publish articles and books saying the earth is flat. The government has no right to stop me.

to include other kinds of harm done by spreading misinformation. I'd love to be for the families of dead soldiers to be able to sue Bushco over their lies about Iraq.

you want the government to decide what is true?

I don't.

to do what it already does: Make judgments about who has been harmed, and make the offenders pay.

are discarding a huge part of the progressive heritage for short-term political gain.

Knowledge is how we fight lies, not fascist oppression of our opponents.

"fascist oppression of our opponents"? That's an interesting world view you've got there. Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL.

Public figures are not well protected against libel.

Besides, we're not talking people here, we're talking issues. People can disagree, and do disagree, on the issues. Maybe they even lie about them, but that is their right. Besides, you is to say that 'X' is a lie, or not?

This kind of thinking will hurt progressive causes more than conservative ones, in the long run.

:shrug:

It's an odd statement, given that the fairness doctrine was implemented by progressives and repealed by rethugs.

I don't think there is a legitimate reason. I've heard more than one progressive radio host say they are NOT in favor of the Fairness Docterine. That bothers me. I am assuming that this is because not having more air time for "our" side, gives them (current "progressive" talk hosts) a big advantage since the market is limited now, but would be more wide open if more air time was required for "our" side of the argument.

I am wondering if there is something I'm missing in these people coming out as "Not For" the Fairness Docterine.

??

One possible argument would be that often times the (ill)logic of the 'balance' is countering fact with fiction. And by that I mean that while news is supposed to be about facts, the neocons have started a (dangerous and destructive) trend of rebutting fact with fiction. This would not be feasible if so-called 'news' organizations had done their job (or would do their job) and call these lying bastards on it. Rather, they tend to parrot it right along with the facts, and thus the idea seeps into the collective dialog anyway, despite the fact that it has no basis whatsoever in reality.

Personally, I would like to see journalists return to the code of ethics that I was taught when I was in J-School. I think that would suffice in lieu of a Fairness Doctrine.

Hope this helps. :hi:

that media conglomerates are opposing re-instituting the fairness doctrine because it would, well, force them to be fair and truthful instead of presenting lies and political rabble rousing rhetoric as news.

You post is odd to say the least. It appears that you have not bothered to do one moments research on the topic or that you are posting to obfuscate to an end that only you can elaborate upon.

And overlooks the reality that there are never two sides to an argument... always many... and a finite amount of time to present them.

one can own the airwaves, and as such, no one can dominate the airwaves or exclude use of them based on issue positions.

Of course there are many positions on issues - thats the point - keeping one group from dominating a resource (that should be open to all) to exclusively present their position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#Supreme_Court_decision

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969

Now, it's not to say that this can't be changed, especially today, but the point that it would "never withstand constitutional review" is clearly not true...

The part that permitted individuals who are personally attacked in a broadcast the right to a rebuttal. The rest has not been constitutionally tested.