Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[gr8oldies]

Meanwhile my station is going to go bankrupt because the listeners are going to go away. Guess that's a fair trade.

 

[greenboy]

When I hear that people want to bring back the fairness doctrine it makes me worry a lot. The fact that adults would rather have
the government tell them what they can or cannot listen too, rather than deciding for themselves is absolutely frightening! When
are we as adults in a free country going to say enough is enough? The government is rapidly trying to take away our individual
rights every where we turn, telling us it is for the collective benefit of everyone. I know what I like to listen too and what I don't
and I have the choice between conservative talk, liberal talk, NPR talk, entertainment talk, newsradio, sportstalk etc. I have a
CHOICE and I would like to keep it that way.

 

[Tom Wells]

Your only choice today is what style and color of blinders you'd like strapped on.

You don't have a choice to hear a well-reasoned person or group examine crucial yet divisive ideas without their "baggage" and spin.

You'd like to think you have choice.

The choice of the higher quality product with a sensibility of fairness is long gone, and I'm worried that doesn't bother you.
Opinions bandied about in the manner of sports fanatacism is not helping anyone and creating greater division in society.

I accept that there should be narrowcasting as you describe. I think a lot of it is not worthy of AM/FM radio, and maybe ought to be on the web or even shortwave. Broadcasting, on the other hand, is supposed to serve the public, not just those of some particular opinion.

 

[gr8oldies]

Fine, Tom, but you would then have to agree that Jay Leno, David Lettermna, et al would have to be prohibited by law from making any jokes in their monologue that would say anything negative about the President or any other political candidate or office. Saturday Night Live or mad TV could not do any sketches that would lampoon any political figure or candidate. What about some equal time from NBC for the ridiculous "green week" (which was there to influence political opinion) where football fans were subjected to a half hour of political preaching before a game.

What you want is available, through CSpan's talk shows. Now you're going to tell me that by fiat, the only talk allowed on the public airwaves will be a CSpan type talk show. That's ridiculous.

Tom, just admit you want absolutely no opposition to liberalism, and if its there at all, it should be so boring as to put everyone to sleep.

 

[greenboy]

Tom, with all due respect to say I am throwing around opinions like a sports fanatic is truly unfair. This is exactly what worries me
about issues such as the fairness doctrine. Tom, I have read your posts and you seem to be a person who is very educated and
tries very hard to post your opinions without insulting other people on the board with that being said the fact that you can't see
the deeper meaning behind the fairness doctrine worries ME. We are in a period in the history of the United States where are
rights as individuals seems to be deteriorating daily and the fairness doctrine is a symptom of that. This is a thread about
the fairness doctrine so I won't elaborate here, however there is an "off the air" board where I will post specific examples of
exactly what I am speaking about. Please check there soon and see some of the facts that I post there. I hope that will help
you to see where I am coming from.

 

[TexasTom]

Fine, Tom, but you would then have to agree that Jay Leno, David Lettermna, et al would have to be prohibited by law from making any jokes in their monologue that would say anything negative about the President or any other political candidate or office. Saturday Night Live or mad TV could not do any sketches that would lampoon any political figure or candidate.

This really can't be true -- Saturday Night Live did run political sketches back in the old "Fairness Doctrine" days. For example, I remember an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" spoof that ridiculed Reagan supporters as pod people...and this did run during the 1980 election season. While I didn't personally watch the "Tonight Show", but it seems to me that Johny Carson was well known for the political content of his opening monologues long before the repeal of the doctrine.

Outside late nights, many sit-coms in the seventies were loaded with political content. This was especially true of the Norman Lear shows ("All in the Family", "Maude", "The Jeffersons", "Good Times", etc), although it was hardly limited to his programs. The Fairness Doctrine was dealt with by ensuring that at least one character presented the views for the "other" side.

Does all this mean that we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Probably not...I tend to favor breaking up ownership concentration in the media as a preferred solution to getting more voices heard. The Fairness Doctrine has some very definite weaknesses, most notably in setting up the rather artificial assumption that every issue has two -- and only two -- sides that must be presented and debated.

But I do think that it is reasonable to point out that the alleged horrors that would occur if the Fairness Doctrine were reimposed are not founded in fact. Because the fact is that we had the Fairness Doctrine in place for many years, and these things (ie, censoring late night talk shows of political content) just didn't happen.

 

[Tom Wells]

Fine, Tom, but you would then have to agree that Jay Leno, David Lettermna, et al would have to be prohibited by law from making any jokes in their monologue that would say anything negative about the President or any other political candidate or office. Saturday Night Live or mad TV could not do any sketches that would lampoon any political figure or candidate. What about some equal time from NBC for the ridiculous "green week" (which was there to influence political opinion) where football fans were subjected to a half hour of political preaching before a game.

What you want is available, through CSpan's talk shows. Now you're going to tell me that by fiat, the only talk allowed on the public airwaves will be a CSpan type talk show. That's ridiculous.

Tom, just admit you want absolutely no opposition to liberalism, and if its there at all, it should be so boring as to put everyone to sleep.

I remember many broadcasts on radio and TV that presented slanted views not "given time" for rebuttal, especially humorous content.
When things were "serious", however the FD came into play.
Nobody was idiot enough to demand "equal time" to oppose comedic content, but serious commentary did require equal time.

I want honorable opposition for everything! Despite my sig line, which might seem to indicate a liberal, MOST of my views are
quite conservative. I don't have or want CSPAN or cable TV in any way.
I groan when I hear any debatable issue addressed as a closed-book case regardless of persuasion.

Tom, with all due respect to say I am throwing around opinions like a sports fanatic is truly unfair. This is exactly what worries me
about issues such as the fairness doctrine. Tom, I have read your posts and you seem to be a person who is very educated and
tries very hard to post your opinions without insulting other people on the board with that being said the fact that you can't see
the deeper meaning behind the fairness doctrine worries ME. We are in a period in the history of the United States where are
rights as individuals seems to be deteriorating daily and the fairness doctrine is a symptom of that. This is a thread about
the fairness doctrine so I won't elaborate here, however there is an "off the air" board where I will post specific examples of
exactly what I am speaking about. Please check there soon and see some of the facts that I post there. I hope that will help
you to see where I am coming from.

I apologize if it sounded like I am saying YOU throw opinions. You seem reasonable and well-founded.
And I truly agree with the points you make regarding our individual liberties and freedoms.
I don't like liberals or conservatives (on air) speaking as though they were defending a favorite sports franchise.
It is quite OK to have a closed mind if you are a Dolphins fanatic, regarding other football teams.
Taking the same closed-mind stance on truly important issues is not helpful, except as in preaching to the choir.
But they already know what is going to be said.

Outside late nights, many sit-coms in the seventies were loaded with political content. This was especially true of the Norman Lear shows ("All in the Family", "Maude", "The Jeffersons", "Good Times", etc), although it was hardly limited to his programs. The Fairness Doctrine was dealt with by ensuring that at least one character presented the views for the "other" side.

But I do think that it is reasonable to point out that the alleged horrors that would occur if the Fairness Doctrine were reimposed are not founded in fact. Because the fact is that we had the Fairness Doctrine in place for many years, and these things (ie, censoring late night talk shows of political content) just didn't happen.

Bingo on Norman Lear! That's exactly how any "other" side ought to be able to get a "message" in.
Archie was still right there to call Michael a meathead. But y'know what? Michael's message got reasonable airtime, and
we got to see Archie come to the realization there WAS some truth and meaning to what the Meathead said.
And the Meathead usually got to see some explanation for why and where Archie had formed his opinions.
The viewer was left with their own mental debris to sort out, often with no clear "moral' to the story.

An excellent illustration of how "fairness" ought to work.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe that satire was/is protected, and was not covered under the Fairness Doctrine.

What still is undetermined is "who decides what's fair". That's a question that has never been adequately answered, and is at the core of the debate. Does putting on an inept concerned citizen against a polished talk-show host meet the "fairness" requirement? What points of view must be represented? Every nut-job who espouses fascism, anarchy, and everything in between? Do we have to get someone from every religion - from Anabaptism to Wiccan - if the discussion involves spiritual matters?

Life isn't fair, and neither is the broadcast media. Fortunately, it is far from the only source of information. In fact, the broadcast media as a source of information is losing more and more impact.

Welcome to the new millenium.

 

[Tom Wells]

In the old days it was the ownership or board of directors, station manager or whoever held the highest position of responsibility in
answering the the public service obligation compliance with the FCC.

The sponsors undoubtedly held a good deal of sway regarding opinions aired vs not.
Meaning many issues went totally untouched.

For instance, why it was perfectly acceptable for the Kennedy Family become political leaders,
while Mr Capone went to prison for tax evasion? They both just wanted to help people get an adult beverage.
Of course such questions in those days went totally un-asked. And certainly never on -air.


This was a straightlaced conservative time for the airwaves. The FCC checked public service compliance diligently once upona...
Those stations who dared not broach issues or politics fullfilled public and community compliance in the sunday graveyard hours.
Many 50kw AMs, WLS for sure, ran public service ( You're on the POWER-line! ) type semi-religious shows, etc to comply.

Those who chose to compete in the arena of contentious ideas had to be prepared to have their editorial opinion
researched and well thought out before broadcast, and at that time, had to be identified as editorial content.
News was writen then by people who hadn't grown up with slick marketing, spin and dared not color news content.
Radio was exactly like newspapers, and as careful in respecting the hand that feeds them.
Because it requires money to own the capital of radio, the general effect was politically conservative naturally.
This was well understood by the early FCC, which is why the original fairness doctrine was created.

It is easy to say the multitude of other choices for opinion and content makes the fairness doctrine irrelevant today,
but I will advance that the repeal of the fairness doctrine has been a major reason why ( on- air RF ) broadcast has become
increasingly irrelevant. It's no longer a place where ideas and ideals are explored in a helpful way.

Ideas are now on blogs like this. This is something radio and TV gave up, and people now seek it a la carte in diverse places.
What else did radio give up but it's credibility?
For now it's no better than any newspaper, beholden to the owners' integrity (or not).
With the old FD every radio station's owner's right to hold a contrary position on whatever gave them rights to support a
particular candidate etc, perversely and unsuccessfully, then return to "sanity" after their dark-horse lost the election.
They had to give time to the favorite and ultimately winning candidate.

The radio world's just a lot duller for the lack of it.
I even miss the inept concerned citizens. They added far more to radio than credit is given.

 

[R.D.P.]

Now for my thoughts:

There is no need for a "Fairness Doctrine".  This idea would be very dangerous and result in many "Freedoms" being lost. 

For a Government Leader to tell me, that I have to listen to their favorite program and/or radio station or either suffer the consequences, would infringe on my private rights to listen to whatever I wanted to.

I could listen to my local NPR station, if I wanted to but due to my "Political Views" I choose not too.  What I hear on there, is not for me.  I'm against the Liberal ageneda, for I see it leading this nation down the wrong path if they had everything they wanted.

I thank God that I have a seek and scan button on my radio and I can tune out "Those Voices" that I don't want to listen to.  To force someone to listen to a certain person and/or voice is an infringment on our rights to privacy.

I like to listen to Rush and find him to be very educational and informative.  Wish my hometown still had Sean Hannity but due to "Business Reasons" this same station decided to drop him and play that boring Jazz Music. 

Although I'm not happy about that, I'm glad that I can tune out the Jazz music, when it comes on and listen to something else. 

Now if someone wants to force me to listen to Jazz, I'm not even going to do it. 

However if you want me to get high off of Don Wildmon, WLBF from Montgomery Alabama and/or Moody Radio, then you're talking my language and I'll gladly do it. 

Reason why, because I love to spend quality time with God and get high off His Word.

Chances are you may find me singing along, if I know the song(s) they're playing and/or Amening the speaker, if I support what they're saying. 

R.D.P. <><

P.S. For those who want "The Fairness Doctrine" reinstated, would you:

1. Come to my home and "Force" me to listen to your favorite program and/or station, even if my hometown didn't have it? (A.K.A. Air America and Pacfica)

2.Would you demand that every radio remove the tuning and/or seek/scan buttons and only allow your "Favorite" outlet to be heard? 

3. Would you demand that every station that went against your views, be removed from the airwaves forever? (A.K.A. Don Wildmon, WLBF from Montgomery Alabama and/or Moody Broadcasting Network)

4. Would you force any existing radio station to cater to your "Agenda", even if it were to be a failure and didn't work out?

5. Would you keep any new person (A.K.A. Me) from pursuing a radio station, of their own, if their content were to go against your "Agenda"? 

Just some food for thought.

 

[dave388]

the fairness doc. is socialist soviet-era garbage.

 

[Tom Wells]

I don't see where a fascist model is any better.
I am not espousing liberalism or any particular view.
The seek/scan button is the devil's work. I'd much rather radios be TUNED manually without muting.
I don't mind presets where favorites can be set, but a closed mind gathers no intelligence.

RDP, please don't be obtuse. I'm sure we share many positions. We are not in opposition.
Isaiah 40, verse 8.

"jazz" is much too diverse to condemn. Jazz was originally pop dance music, not the stilted intellectual honking or smooth syrup.
I can't listen to jazz either, because almost all jazz stations refuse to play "real jazz", which requires an engaged listener
who does not disciminate based on age of the recording.
I could stand to listen if the presentation of "jazz" did not exclude the early music.
Why isn't there any airplay of real jazz from the teens through the 30's?
Be-bop and newer gets played, but I don't like that any better than you, and I'd tune away just as fast, because I know such a station is not going to be playing any Bix Beiderbeck.

It would be helpful for those responding to indicate whether they are old enough to remember how it was with the old FD.
At 46, I do remember very well.

 

[R.D.P.]

This Jazz program does play the classics, along with the newer stuff. I've tuned in for a few minutes, just to see what they played. Believe it or not, I did hear Mr. Glenn Miller, Ella, Count Basie, The Brat Pack, Duke Ellington and Ray Charles.

This radio station caters to various formats. Talk, News, Sports, Jazz, Various Church Services (Mine Included) and Black Gospel. You could call it a full service station, if you wanted to.

I'm just not into Jazz. Not knocking the format. My musical tastes are not in that area. As of late, I find myself wanting to listen to Classical, Opera and Chamber music. Although I call myself a Gospel music fan, I often listen to those other three styles listed. I'm impressed with the way these Classical, Opera and Chamber performers wrote and performed their masterpeices. Their presentations are just awesome and wonderful.

Glad that we both love Isaiah Chapter 40 Verse 8. It's one of my all time favorite Verses from the Bible. I read from that passage very often.

R.D.P. <><

 

[radioplayer]

Come on, R.D.P.....you said " like to listen to Rush and find him to be very educational and informative" is like saying that you completely leave it up to him as your source related to news and information....very scary and often WRONG (let me tell you-I do know)

Rush is total ENTERTAINMENT at the EXPENSE of TRUTH.....if you believe (as I do) then you're going to need to see the other side and become better informed on matters....not take it from the one guy making Millions at the expense of trashing the professionals who work hard everyday to do the best job possible to inform the public. That is your mandate from scripture. I'd also point out that Rush often mis-quotes and distorts the material he uses from the news media, solely for personal gain. Truth is what's important and we have an obligation to that end.

I challenge you to find one shred of evidence to support the idea that there is a "liberal, drive-by media" that is only interested in perverting truth to advance their "so-called agenda" at the expense of reality. It just doesn't wash. There just is no evidence. there is also no evidence to support the idea that liberals want to see Rush or others like him out per say.

What I want to see is a return to decency on the air. Going personal and trashing others because of a differing political persuasion is uneducated in my view and points directly to the divisiveness that we see in the county today.

What I also think is scary: whenever conservatives find themselves in a pickle, they trash the opposition and the messenger under accusations w/o merit. They then march up Pennsylvania Avenue using this cloak called their "banner of truth". It's a tactic that Joe McCarthy proudly used and Murrow totally exposed him for using it so repeatedly....did the country benefit or suffer from what the News Media did under "Fairness" ??
(note that the Junior Senator got to come on the air at CBS and express his views of the day)

So what we're really talking about right now is what's best for the Public's airwaves, not the corporations. If I have a bent on something it is that I'm frankly tired of all these companies who's sole aim is to make Millions and Millions at the expense of our freedoms and our long-standing institutions like radio. Until de-reg came, we did not see the poisonous atmosphere nor the total lack of informative news programming that we do today on commercial radio spectrum.

Re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine is NOT unworkable. It is entirely possible (if you want to make it work) The sad reality is it's the commercial end of the spectrum that needs help. Striking a balance towards fairness on issues of the day is a step in the right direction.

 

[greenboy]

the fairness doc. is socialist soviet-era garbage.

No matter how many different ways you try and spin this the truth of the matter is what dave388 posted, so I won't
bother repeating it just read dave388's quote.

 

[radioplayer]

the fairness doc. is socialist soviet-era garbage.

No matter how many different ways you try and spin this the truth of the matter is what dave388 posted, so I won't
bother repeating it just read dave388's quote.

While this response to the topic at hand isn't really worth my reply, you did bring up something that I thought should be clarified.

1) That "Soviet-Era and Socialist" implies that the Government would own and control radio stations. (since that is still the case in Russia for the most part)

2) That the Government would tell or decide what the topics were and direct accordingly.


No where ever was the US Govt' involved with either A or B w/the FD....therefore this reply is totally without any substance. I would also be opposed to direct dictates in both #1 and regarding #2. It's a big reason that I'm not all that happy with the latest so-called "localism" doc that came our recently at the FCC either.

If you want to see some good debate and history regarding my point on McCarthy and Murrow, rent a Copy of "good night and good luck". It's a documentary and it's well worth seeing. Let me know when you've had a chance to see it.

 

[gr8oldies]

You know what. I don't think the public airwaves should be used for a bunch of people who can't sing going to an audition and being ridiculed by a guy name Simon. I certainly can't deal with people who would watch this and not "Masterpiece Theatre"....in fact there should be no remotes for TVs because when people are swicthing from one chnnel to the other they should have to land on the PBS station. What about all these reality shows? The televiion auirwaves belong to the public as much as the radio airwaves do, and we know no one is being served by these shows, no how many ignorant people watch them, so they must be removed from the air, so programming more worthy of the sacred trust of the public airwaves may be placed on the air. What would Edward R Murow say about "Inside Edition" after all.

 

[greenboy]

the fairness doc. is socialist soviet-era garbage.

No matter how many different ways you try and spin this the truth of the matter is what dave388 posted, so I won't
bother repeating it just read dave388's quote.

While this response to the topic at hand isn't really worth my reply, you did bring up something that I thought should be clarified.

1) That "Soviet-Era and Socialist" implies that the Government would own and control radio stations. (since that is still the case in Russia for the most part)

2) That the Government would tell or decide what the topics were and direct accordingly.


No where ever was the US Govt' involved with either A or B w/the FD....therefore this reply is totally without any substance. I would also be opposed to direct dictates in both #1 and regarding #2. It's a big reason that I'm not all that happy with the latest so-called "localism" doc that came our recently at the FCC either.

If you want to see some good debate and history regarding my point on McCarthy and Murrow, rent a Copy of "good night and good luck". It's a documentary and it's well worth seeing. Let me know when you've had a chance to see it.

Fine I'll take out the Soviet part, The truth remains that the FD is SOCIALISM simple as that! Spin it and talk your way around it anyway
you want, throw out the typical backhanded I'm better than you type of insult ,such as this topic is not worth my response. The fact remains
that this is SOCIALISM.

 

[gr8oldies]

It is an attempt to legislate the private choices of millions of Americans...which you'll be unsuccessful doing.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I can't believe that people who are on the liberal side of the equation would want to pass this thing and limit their own freedom of speech. After all....if there is an evil vast-right-wing conspiracy out there, are they then not also sophisticated enough to file challenges every time Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes gives out a station ID break? No, the people who are for this are just interested in shutting down talk radio all together, because that is what would happen. In somebody's warped calculus, they must see that as a net win.

Fortunately I do not think that the Supreme Court would allow it to stand this time. After all, they are already backpedalling from McCain-Feingold as fast as they can go, and the prior court only gave initial approval 5 years
ago.