StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
777 said:
So then you want the "far left" media to continue spreading their "lies?"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Democrats Push to Silence Conservative Talk Show Hosts
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
- Status
So then you want the "far left" media to continue spreading their "lies?"
The Galatian
Active Member
As observed earlier, the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine did just what people predicted, meaner politics, and a polarized electorate.
Which is what some people want. But they don't have the best interests of America in mind.
Turns out that the FCC moved to end the Fairness Doctrine in (you guessed it) 1984. How appropriate. :laugh:
Which is what some people want. But they don't have the best interests of America in mind.
Turns out that the FCC moved to end the Fairness Doctrine in (you guessed it) 1984. How appropriate. :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure, but this might help you find it:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html
Daisy said:
"Supporters of reviving the fairness doctrine base their argument on the very same three faulty premises that the FCC and most judicial rulings have rejected.
Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.
Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.
Supporters of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Yet, just because the spectrum within which broadcast frequencies are found has boundaries, it does not mean that there is a practical shortage of views being heard over the airwaves. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only 2,881 radio and 98 television stations existed. By 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. Likewise, the number of radios in use jumped from 85.2 million in 1950 to 527.4 million by 1988, and televisions in use went from 4 million to 175.5 million during that period. ("The Fairness Doctrine," National Association of Broadcasters, Backgrounder (1989).)
Even if it may once have been possible to monopolize the airwaves, and to deny access to certain viewpoints, that is impossible today. A wide variety of opinions is available to the public through radios, cable channels, and even computers. With America on the verge of information superhighways and 500-channel televisions, there is little prospect of speech being stifled.
Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.
Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.
The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)
Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.
Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.
Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.
Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Even liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo has argued that, "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." (Mario Cuomo, "The Unfairness Doctrine," The New York Times, September 20, 1993, p. A19.)
Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial."
Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.
Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.
Supporters of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Yet, just because the spectrum within which broadcast frequencies are found has boundaries, it does not mean that there is a practical shortage of views being heard over the airwaves. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only 2,881 radio and 98 television stations existed. By 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. Likewise, the number of radios in use jumped from 85.2 million in 1950 to 527.4 million by 1988, and televisions in use went from 4 million to 175.5 million during that period. ("The Fairness Doctrine," National Association of Broadcasters, Backgrounder (1989).)
Even if it may once have been possible to monopolize the airwaves, and to deny access to certain viewpoints, that is impossible today. A wide variety of opinions is available to the public through radios, cable channels, and even computers. With America on the verge of information superhighways and 500-channel televisions, there is little prospect of speech being stifled.
Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.
Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.
The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)
Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.
Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.
Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.
Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Even liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo has argued that, "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." (Mario Cuomo, "The Unfairness Doctrine," The New York Times, September 20, 1993, p. A19.)
Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial."
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
So you're against a fairness doctrine because the media is overwhelmingly far right. I thought you guys argued that the media supports the liberals. Which is it?
The Galatian
Active Member
The Fairness Doctrine, rather than silencing anyone, requires that all voices be heard.
Neocons feel that they are being oppressed if all viewpoints are heard.
It's a Trotskyite thing. You wouldn't understand.
Neocons feel that they are being oppressed if all viewpoints are heard.
It's a Trotskyite thing. You wouldn't understand.
The Galatian said:
Be honest, if possible. Ummmm...Never mind.
The only reason liberals want the fairness doctrine back is so they can force broadcasters to give them free what conservative commentators have to pay for. Rathar than give this time away broadcasters will self censor and avoid controversial subjects.
Who loses the most? Listeners and viewers miss out on the free an unhindered exchange of information. In the end, that is the liberal objective. To return to the days when they controlled the airways. With the internet available, it's impossible. But the internet will be the next target. Liberals despise free speech.
The Galatian
Active Member
Barbarian observes:
The Fairness Doctrine, rather than silencing anyone, requires that all voices be heard.
(carpro reviews his options)
That's our carpro.
(In neocon speak, allowing only one point of view is "free and unhindered exchange of information") Leon Trotsky couldn't have put it more succinctly.
(Neocons think that if all viewpoints are heard, then the liberals will "control the airwaves.)
(to neocons, restricting free speech is free speech)
A little window into the mindset of those who worship the government.
The Fairness Doctrine, rather than silencing anyone, requires that all voices be heard.
(carpro reviews his options)
That's our carpro.
(In neocon speak, allowing only one point of view is "free and unhindered exchange of information") Leon Trotsky couldn't have put it more succinctly.
(Neocons think that if all viewpoints are heard, then the liberals will "control the airwaves.)
(to neocons, restricting free speech is free speech)
A little window into the mindset of those who worship the government.
Last edited by a moderator:
RockRambler
New Member
My question is though...how are those voices being silenced now? Any liberal that has the money can buy the radio time, sponsor their own talk show, sell the advertising, and be heard.The Galatian said:
Why is a government regulation needed?
The Galatian
Active Member
There's already government regulation, because the broadcast media don't belong to private firms. They are using public resources, on a temporary basis.
The public has a right to insist that all viewpoints be heard. If the licensee wants to silence any particular point of view, then he needs to find a different medium, one that is his, not ours.
Then he would have a perfect right to suppress opposing views.
Neocons find a free exchange of ideas offensive, because they think the government exists to control thought.
The public has a right to insist that all viewpoints be heard. If the licensee wants to silence any particular point of view, then he needs to find a different medium, one that is his, not ours.
Then he would have a perfect right to suppress opposing views.
Neocons find a free exchange of ideas offensive, because they think the government exists to control thought.
RockRambler
New Member
But it is the private firms that build the radio stations, purchase transmitters, build the antennas, etc.
If you are talking about a public radio or TV system, NPR or PBS, then I would completely agree. Every time a conservative point of view is presented, then equal time given to a liberal point of view.
But with a privately held radio station, subject to the whims of the general public and free market principles, why should there be any requirements for equal time? There is already "equal risk"...risk your money, see if anyone listens to your programming.
Should newspapers also be subject to "fairness" doctrines? In many markets there is only one daily newspaper now. Should the editorial and opinion pages be subject to equal time?
If you are talking about a public radio or TV system, NPR or PBS, then I would completely agree. Every time a conservative point of view is presented, then equal time given to a liberal point of view.
But with a privately held radio station, subject to the whims of the general public and free market principles, why should there be any requirements for equal time? There is already "equal risk"...risk your money, see if anyone listens to your programming.
Should newspapers also be subject to "fairness" doctrines? In many markets there is only one daily newspaper now. Should the editorial and opinion pages be subject to equal time?
Pirate radio stations are not allowed to broadcast. It is not enough to have the equipment, they must also have permission to use a portion of a limited, publicly owned resource.RockRambler said:
With newspapers being so frequently conglomerated and with the subsequent concentration of ownership, and just for the public weal, maybe so. The best ones already do this.RR said:
The Galatian said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR
Should newspapers also be subject to "fairness" doctrines? In many markets there is only one daily newspaper now. Should the editorial and opinion pages be subject to equal time?
daisy said:
Galatian and Daisy are at odds, then. Galatian is in favor of the "fairness doctrine" (a 1st amendment breach, IMO) on the public airways because they are, well, public. But he said that the publisher should find a medium that is "his, not ours" to avoid having to comply.
Daisy, by her admission, would wish some newspapers to comply. These are privately owned entities...no claim of "public domain" can be made.
To me, this illustrates the slippery slope of messing around with the First Amendment. It starts with Galatian's plan, and moves to Daisy's...government rarely gives up power once it acquires it.
poncho
Well-Known Member
This isn't fair but neither is Bush's "free speech zones". Neither party, corrupt and unaccountable as they are can afford to have citizens and or the independent alternative media speaking and writting freely about that corruption and demanding investigations into it.Bro. Curtis said:
Last edited by a moderator:
RockRambler
New Member
Daisy said:
But why must they use pirate stations? If you can raise millions of dollars for a political candidate, then the liberal point of view should be able to raise millions of dollars for radio stations and compete in the free market.
Again, how is the liberal point of view being silenced during radio broadcasts? If you buy the time, you can espouse whatever liberal viewpoint you want.
- Status