Lack of a new updated Fairness Doctrine - biggest Dem mistake

I will always feel that the democrats' failure to address the FD is their single greatest mistake. Usually the Fairness Doctrine is portrayed as a threat to free speech, but as it is now - the far right is pretty much the only group allowed the priviledge of free speech over the nation's airwaves.

"voting" system may be as big a mistake as failing to support the Fairness Doctrine.

Nothing new here, our biggest mistake may well have been to let Prescott Bush and the rest of his Nazi sympathizing pals (such as Getty and Morgan) off the hook in 195 when they were caught dead-to-rights plotting to overthrow the government and depose FDR. You know...the High Treason that the Bush Family has been committing regularly for at least 80 years.

Think I am exaggerating? Think it's hyperbole? Here is a link to a 20-minute BBC radio special that may change your mind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

OK who will it be?

Who's going to be the first dumbass "freedom" fighter defending private censorship of the public airwaves?

Come on- you know you're out there just waiting to show how little you understand the regulations that were once in place- that kept the American corporate media from becoming the most dishonest and unethical booster of dysfunctional right wing policies and religious fundamentalism in all the western nations.

While I think its repeal was a bad thing, I doubt that its reinstatement would be sustained against constitutional review.

However, let's not get too carried away about what it would/wouldn't do. Its not as if right wingers didn't win elections when the FD was in place. In the end, compliance with FD,as it previously existed, wouldn't take much more than having a "Colmes" like stooge to "counter" a Hannity or Rush or Beck.

And the Doctrine was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Having a mechanism in place to correct false statements of fact and set the record straight on personal attacks (at the very least) would go a long way toward reestablishing some credibility that I think any objective observer would find to be egregiously lacking in the American corporate media these days.

I'd go even further and provide much tougher licensing renewal standards.

Or would it just push more people to cable TV and satellite radio? Is there a strong market for genuine, balanced news and opinion? I tend to think people will simply seek out the programming that matches their own opinions.

Bottom line- America's become a culture of lies, where people can't even agree on what the basic objective facts are!

How on earth do you expect to solve the nation's problems without some sort of mechanism for winnowing out the blatant fabrications?

This- more than any other single thing is responsible for America's long decline.

Is that there is no "mechanism" that will be effective at winnowing out The Truth so long as people have the freedom to not listen to it. If you try to use the FCC to force people to hear facts they don't want to hear, then I think ultimately they will switch to other modes of communication, which is readily available these days with things such as cable TV and satellite radio. That was my point.

It's called the marketplace of ideas and it's one of the fundamental premises supporting free speech.

and controls damn near every channel on the public airwaves- to the point where in most communities around America there's a level of bias, deception and uniformity of political "thought" based thereon that's usually found in totalitarian countries.

Nice try though and thanks for playing.

or how it relates to First Amendment theory.

about the merits of reviving the Fairness Doctrine, or is anyone who disagrees with you on this issue a "dumbass 'freedom' fighter?"

and yet the fact remains that the American corporate media readers and hosts now look you right in the eyes and lie to you on a daily basis.

It's the root cause of most of America's problems- and prevents you from ever dealing with them as other more responsible nations do.

when it comes to regulation of speech?

The lack of a toothy Fairness Doctrine is a large part of what keeps funneling these modern GOP pinheads into office.

In fact, as it obvious, it was in place when the GOP pinheads that wanted it repealed it were elected.

As noted above, I think the repeal was a bad thing. But I don't think its reinstatement will change things as dramatically as some seem to believe.

The Fairness Doctrine, and all the other post-WWII FCC regulations, were designed to keep the integrity of the media and to avoid becoming victim of the tactics that Hitler and Stalin used to bend the media to their will and pollute the information stream in order to carry authoritarian policies to victory.

It's reinstatement would change things dramatically, since the Bush Faction took over the Republican Party has used CIA-authoritarian tactics to parasitize and neutralize the post-WWII M$M into, well, pretty much the same media that Hitler and Stalin used, just with more Plausible Deniability and better marketing.

Authoritarianism is bad. Whether it be the Leftist Authoritarianism of the Soviets or the Rightist Authoritarianism of Bushies and Nazis. The Fairness Doctrine and those other FCC regulations were drafted to prevent our media descending into authoritarian misinformation and disinformation.

What's left of both parties in the wake of that disaster is woefully inadequate to the tasks at hand.

The collapse of the Fairness Doctrine contributed directly to the collapse of whatever ethics remained in the Reagan-era GOP.

I do not know what in the heck was wrong with them. It would have been easy. All they needed was an up or down vote. And they should break up the monopolies the republican corporations have on the media.

All day all the time regardless of the the butts like Palin say this MSM is republican owned and operated. Democratic policies that are good for the American Public are not even discussed. Nothing gets out hardly about republican corruption.

And they even spread outright lies about Democratic policies and President Obama. I guess the congress doesn't care as long as they are filling THEIR pockets.

needing attention, indicating that it is probably by design and anything but a mistake. Regardless, it is still quite obvious that Limbaugh, Hannity and others have little or no competition over the public airwaves. they are the only ones being afforded "free speech".

BeKKK has shifted into high gear. He is now advocating the overthrow of the US government by force.

It's not a free speech issue. The framing is always presented as the free speech of broadcast corporations to say what ever they want. This is false. It's an ownership issue with the American people being the owners. Broadcast airwaves are a limited natural resource just like national parks. No one would ever entertain the notion that not allowing Hooters to operate franchises all over Yosemite and Yellowstone was a matter of free speech. It's government property and the American people decide how it will be used. Not Hooter Inc. Likewise broadcast airwaves are government property and if the American decide we want nothing but foreign language lessons and Zydeco music we can do that. We don't have to ask permission of Clear Channel.

Todays democratic party is not any more interested in the interests of the people than the pukes are.
Both partys are beholden to the interests of their corporate owners.

I worked in broadcasting during the days of the Fairness Doctrine...and it only pertained to two types of broadcasts...political commercials and public service. The rule prevented a station from favoring one candidate over another and requiring the station to offer all candidates the same low rate. It never covered news or "entertainment" programming which is what most hate radio classifies itself.

When one speaks of "fairness", who decides on such matters? Do we have a "fairness police" or require everyone who sits in front of a microphone to be wired to a lie detector? "Fairness" is a very subjective term.

The problem is the monopolization of our public airwaves by a handful of predominately right wing corporates who have turned 91% of the radio dial into a hate cesspool. They replaced local content...personality and information with cheap satellite hate spewers who now dominate the airwaves with little chance for anyone to seriously compete as they dominate the strongest signals.

The FCC is slowly moving toward addressing the ownership matter and may yet revise Telcom '96...the real culprit that allowed the broadcast spectrum to become "privitized". Increase the access and encourage diversity in ownership and watch how things can change.

monopolies that control the media (and thus information) as well. Our welfare and freedom is at stake.