More on The Fairness Doctrine

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

[EDIT-post removed]

I will take your word for it that the ranting caller participating in the Hannity show had his values mixed up. But were his values any more mixed up than what you just expressed?

I just re-read the First Amendment and I found nothing about it that directly addresses Free Market, Capitalism or Opportunity. The First Amendment talks about the government not getting involved in the establishment or favoritism of religion or the absence of religion, and not getting involved in muzzling free speech.

A portion of the original colonial peoples were religious zealots who were refugees from political regimes that muzzled their freedom to explore things related to The Deity(deities?) in their own way. The were willing to take on indentured servitude and/or communal living if need be to be able to speak their own mind on things of religion. That strikes me as the ultimate demand for fairness. Let me be who I say I want to be! Explain to the slaves brought to this country that the Constitution and it's First Amendment guaranteed to THEM opportunity, Capitalism and Free Market.

You will probably find some resource other than the First Amendment to support your position.

The final challenge to your post: Did Air America do poorly because of poor message, or was it poor choice of talent and spokesmen?

 

[daithi]

The Fairness Doctrine

You just made my point. The First Amendment talks about the government NOT GETTING INVOLVED in muzzling free speech.
Look at it from a common sense point, people. Who determines what is "fair"? "Fair" is a subjective term. There can be no objective discussion of what is "FAIR." Good, gawd, I think you people have lost your minds. Any time the government gets involved, it only ends up with less freedoms for the people. I cannot believe that anyone who works in radio would honestly suggest or demonstrate any support for CENSORSHIP.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The Fairness Doctrine

You just made my point. The First Amendment talks about the government NOT GETTING INVOLVED in muzzling free speech.
Look at it from a common sense point, people. Who determines what is "fair"? "Fair" is a subjective term. There can be no objective discussion of what is "FAIR."

There can be objective discussion of the meaning of Free Speech. There has to be objective discussion of the meaning of Free Speech if we are going to, as a civilization, protect, encourage, tolerate, embrace Free Speech.

An objective decision was made many years ago that the engineering facts about radio spectrum required that somebody, some group would parcel out the places on the dial to "trustees" who would be empowered to fill a given spot on the dial with audio. Thus we license radio stations. The "somebody" in this case is the FCC.

It was a subjective observation that one who is granted a broadcast license was not authorized to totally hog that place on the dial with the limited personal views and ideals of only the licensee.... that the licensee was to be a trustee, a fiduciary of that audio channel and the trustee should take in the topics that are of public interest and the needs of the community.

If there is censorship going on, it is by those government sanctioned licensees who choose to present raw, harsh political message of only ONE point of view, hour after hour, day after day.

What our country needs is an OBJECTIVE discussion of how we can make sure that various voices can have their freedom.

What is SUBJECTIVE here is your view that what is going on is good, pure, innocent and appropriate. In the end, after we have full and subjective discussion, we may conclude that the present system is the best we can hope for. But it is possible that after objective review we may conclude the present way the broadcast system is working SUCKS.

This detour in the thread started when you said: "I heard some Dem Commi ranting and whining about it on Sean Hannity today." I took that to mean that in your mind Democrats should not be allowed to express themselves in public. I took that to mean that you are not really interested in Free Speech.... except for your own. That's called subjective.

 

[fredcantu]

The Fairness Doctrine

It doesn't have to be "fair." That's why it's called the First Amendment!

The idea of the fairness doctrine is to present all sides of issues of public interest to the same audience. If your station caters to one politcal side, you are denying the freedom of speech of others who want to offer a differing view to your audience.

I keep hearing the argument that it's impossible to be ''fair'' so why even try. That's usually said by people who don't want to try.

 

[copydesk2]

The Fairness Doctrine

Besides that, it's bad radio. Look at all the people fleeing the AM band.

 

[daithi]

The Fairness Doctrine

Um, no, actually that's wrong. The shows wouldn't be on the air if people didn't want to listen to them. Air America had its chance. Was it bad talent that sunk their entire network? No, I would say the people just weren't interested in listening to them. And it is ABSOLUTELY correct that there is no such thing as "fair." Do you not understand the definition of "fair"? It is a subjective term, meaning there can be no objectivity to "fair." This country wasn't founded on fairness. Good gawd, people, you are losing your minds. If you want "fair" pick any communist or socialist country to move to and let them brainwash you. On second thought, sounds like you already are brainwashed. You act like a bunch of whining school kids who don't want to play the game simply because you aren't good enough or smart enough or, doggone-it, maybe people just don't like you. Waaah. Get over it and stop giving the government control over our lives. If you want "fair" go start your own station and create the shows you want to listen to but don't let the government force me to have to listen to your point of view - that's not fair, IMHO. :'(

 

[daithi]

The Fairness Doctrine

It doesn't have to be "fair." That's why it's called the First Amendment!

The idea of the fairness doctrine is to present all sides of issues of public interest to the same audience. If your station caters to one politcal side, you are denying the freedom of speech of others who want to offer a differing view to your audience.

I keep hearing the argument that it's impossible to be ''fair'' so why even try. That's usually said by people who don't want to try.

And, no, actually the people who don't want to try are the ones crying for the government to intervene and make everything fair. And that's just sad.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The Fairness Doctrine

This country wasn't founded on fairness. Good gawd, people, you are losing your minds. If you want "fair" pick any communist or socialist country to move to and let them brainwash you. On second thought, sounds like you already are brainwashed. You act like a bunch of whining school kids who don't want to play the game simply because you aren't good enough or smart enough or, doggone-it, maybe people just don't like you.

My dear friend daithi.... several of us have presented points of logical thinking that appear to dispute your claims. You choose not to enter into discussion of this thinking, you bypass the opportunity to present logical thinking that would stand up against what we have said. Instead to go off like a bottle rocket showering useless sparkles with more claims that leave you ripe for us to give additional logical thinking to quench your bottle-rocket brilliance.

This country wasn't founded on fairness??????? The King of England was treating the colonies UNFAIRLY so we created a nation where people could live in a land of "fairness". Every age has a problem defining what is fair. We have spent over 200 years trying to properly define and implement a civilization that is FAIR.... as best we know how. And when those 13 original colonies came together to achieve independence, they created a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that attempted to assure all citizens they could expect life to be fair.... as best as we can define it and implement it. At that time they realized that many of the colonies(states) had adopted or was dominated by what amounted to a STATE RELIGION and each colony had it's own unique way of allowing or suppressing free political discussion... thus was born the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.... the cry from the souls of men that THIS NATION will embrace FAIRNESS.

Are you really so naive to believe that moving to a Communist country is going to provide someone with fairness?

 

[arnoldevns]

The Fairness Doctrine

It doesn't have to be "fair." That's why it's called the First Amendment!

The idea of the fairness doctrine is to present all sides of issues of public interest to the same audience. If your station caters to one politcal side, you are denying the freedom of speech of others who want to offer a differing view to your audience.

I keep hearing the argument that it's impossible to be ''fair'' so why even try. That's usually said by people who don't want to try.

Fred, here's my basic problem: who decides what is fair? The government? You really want the government dictating what is fair comment on the air? I don't.

Fundamenally, this is about keeping the airwaves devoid of discussions of controversial issues. Congress can't regulate what newspapers publish, but they can regulate what broadcasters broadcast. In my view, the first amendment protects broadcasters and publishers equally. The fact that broadcasters have to get a license to use public airways is irrelevant in this discussion. I think a "fairness" doctrine is inherently unconstitutional. If a broadcaster wants to push one editorial viewpoint over another - like newspapers do all the time - I have no problem with that. Many members of congress are uncomfortable with that. If they're uncomfortable, that means the broadcasters are doing their job.

I look at this argument this way: if fairness is so important in the media, the fairness doctrine should be applied to all broadcast and cable programming (entertainment or news), books, magazines, newspapers, music and the internet. How big a big brother do you need to do that?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The Fairness Doctrine

In my view, the first amendment protects broadcasters and publishers equally. The fact that broadcasters have to get a license to use public airways is irrelevant in this discussion. I think a "fairness" doctrine is inherently unconstitutional. If a broadcaster wants to push one editorial viewpoint over another - like newspapers do all the time - I have no problem with that. Many members of congress are uncomfortable with that. If they're uncomfortable, that means the broadcasters are doing their job.

I look at this argument this way: if fairness is so important in the media, the fairness doctrine should be applied to all broadcast and cable programming (entertainment or news), books, magazines, newspapers, music and the Internet. How big a big brother do you need to do that?

Have you not noticed that newspapers, WITHOUT a mandate from the government, tend to have OP-ED pages? Do you know what that term means? I am highly impressed how the newspaper industry seems to know what is good citizenship and they practice it whether the government tells them they have to or not. Yes, many newspapers are known for their editorial bias which they proudly proclaim rather than hide. And then on the day they publish a hard, biting editorial, you see on the opposite page, or even right beside their editorial, a response written by a legitimate representative of the opposing view. The paper has gone to the writer of the response and said: We are going to publish OUR VIEW, would you like to write the opposite view which we will post right beside our own?

What we are talking about here are some players on the radio side of the media mix who want to proclaim: "We don't have a bias." Then they devote their broadcast day to a very identifiable bias. Then when people complain about the abuse of the airwaves, they act so innocent and hurt. They sit there with tears coming out of their eyes and the snot rolling down from their noses saying: Why are you people picking on us? We have rights, you know! How childish.

 

[TheBigA]

The Fairness Doctrine

What we are talking about here are some players on the radio side of the media mix who want to proclaim: "We don't have a bias." Then they devote their broadcast day to a very identifiable bias.

Everyone has a bias. Even the government. Most people try to keep them to themselves. It's the polite thing to do. You don't tell someone to their face that they're a nutbag. But it makes for some very dramatic TV or radio. And that's what this is all about.

Sure radio can deliver straight news, without bias, and just stick to the facts. And you can also listen to crickets. In a world where broadcasting is sponsored, and competes against millions of other sources of information, it is inevitable that broadcasters do what attracts the most listeners. Simply put, that is the situation now.

 

[fredcantu]

The Fairness Doctrine

No such thing as fair?
What about your right to a fair trial?
I hope that's not subjective!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The Fairness Doctrine

In a world where broadcasting is sponsored, and competes against millions of other sources of information, it is inevitable that broadcasters do what attracts the most listeners. Simply put, that is the situation now.

So radio does not seek to serve the right listeners, or the gracious listeners, or the truth seekers, or the decent listeners, or the need-to-know listeners.... radio seeks only to serve the MOST listeners. So that makes radio what.... a licensed brothel?
Radio does it... only for the money.

 

[Tom Wells]

The Fairness Doctrine

Thank you Goat Rodeo Cowboy for bringing us directly to the heart of this issue.
Radio will give it up if you've got money, and that's the only requirement.
So naturally this is what it sounds like.

I think newpapers were far less likely to give big/equal space in contentious matters back in the teens and twenties before the
FCC started the FD. Newspapers were understood to be owned by "interests".

Radio was to be kept above such influence.
And the FD should be optional in the way it was back then.
Do not tread in those areas where fairness (editorial opnion) come into play, and you don't need to give anyone any time.
But if you're going to, you are on the hook for being America's inquiring mind informing truthfully even when bringing
divisive news.
It is not to be taken lightly, that's why many stayed away from such issues and had fluff filler community sevice shows.

Like coronary surgery, you ethically can only do your very best job, every single time.
The standard radio held itself to once was just like this. I miss radio that was as "believeable" as it was then.
I must now presume all information on commmercial radio is a commercial, and I have to keep my "bias analyzer task" mentally
running in the background, trying to figure out who's trying to sell me what..

I've little use for salesmen. I figure out what I need and make my decisions often on matters they're not considering as salients sales points.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: The Fairness Doctrine

No such thing as fair?
What about your right to a fair trial?
I hope that's not subjective!

I don't know....ask OJ Simpson.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: The Fairness Doctrine

So radio does not seek to serve the right listeners, or the gracious listeners, or the truth seekers, or the decent listeners, or the need-to-know listeners.... radio seeks only to serve the MOST listeners. So that makes radio what.... a licensed brothel?
Radio does it... only for the money.

I don't know if "only" is correct, but it IS a business.

And yes, radio seeks to serve the MOST listeners. It is a mass medium. By definition, mass media seeks to serve the most.

 

[arnoldevns]

Goat, you miss my point completely. Newspaper op-ed pages are exactly as you describe. I also don't really care about them. The equal viewpoints that are sometimes expressed on those pages is not reflected in the biased news coverage on the front page, metro page, business section, etc. Newspapers are allowed to do that by the constitution. I believe the constitution extends those same rights to broadcasters as well. It's up to us to decide what we read, watch and listen to. The "fairness" doctrine will limit our options by eliminating talk shows.

Oh, and don't tell me talk shows won't go away - they will. I'm not talking about just people like Rush and Hannity either. Howard Stern and Jerry Springer will go away. So will Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSBNC. If this "fairness" doctrine comes up for a vote, you can bet your bottom dollar that basic and premium cable along with satellite radio will be included. The owners of those places simply won't want to risk it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Goat, you miss my point completely. Newspaper op-ed pages are exactly as you describe. I also don't really care about them.

Good evening, tested. There are multiple threads running currently on the Fairness Doctrine and I tried to limit myself to 'playing in the sandbox' for only three of them. That was one too many.

It's not so much that I miss your point, apparently, as it is I disagree with your point and I offer my version of your point, and you disagree with that. So here we are... all dressed up and nowhere to go.

I would hope that you would grow to care about the op-ed pages as time goes on. How do you know if your favorite Opinion Sources are correct and are staying correct if you don't get out your mental sextant once in awhile and check your own personal course. What if your favorite talker gets so wrapped up the topics of the day that he/she gets a little bit wacko and walks off a cliff. And what if you follow right off the same cliff.

In our extended family we have coined a term: "What foaming-at-the-mouth socio-political book are you currently reading?" Let me share with you the one I am currently reading. You will hate it. It reads like a college text book. But it says some things I need to ponder. The author's father also did a lot of writing and was a prominent economics thinker 40, 50 years ago. The author first trashes a lot of conservative thinking. Then he trashes some liberal thinking. (The author IS a liberal, by the way. And then he (lovingly) trashes some of the writings of his own father.

Go by your library and get "The Predator State" by James K. Galbraith. It's a painful read... but good medicine never tastes good, does it?

I believe the constitution extends those same rights to broadcasters as well. It's up to us to decide what we read, watch and listen to. The "fairness" doctrine will limit our options by eliminating talk shows.

I think our whole discussion here is probably moot. Whether they install a Fairness Doctrine or not, talk radio as it is practiced today will change significantly or it will die. As the old fable about the little boy tending the sheep tells us, You can only yell WOLF so long before the people begin to ignore you.

I am on a rotating schedule and tomorrow morning is my Sunday to teach a class of adult people in Sunday School. It will not be a lecture but will have a lot of participatory discussion. I can almost guarantee you that someone is going to lob a bomb right in the middle of the discussion that is a quote from some radio Talk Show and I will have to rein in the stampeding horses for we are a diverse group. And when I get all the horses calmed down and back on topic, the 'bomb thrower' will come to realize from his discussion with his peers that he doesn't really agree with the Talk Show guy after all. And people here keep proclaiming that people who listen to talk radio are already loyal believers in what the host teaches. My experience is: "Tain't always true."

 

[daithi]

Re: The Fairness Doctrine

This country wasn't founded on fairness. Good gawd, people, you are losing your minds. If you want "fair" pick any communist or socialist country to move to and let them brainwash you. On second thought, sounds like you already are brainwashed. You act like a bunch of whining school kids who don't want to play the game simply because you aren't good enough or smart enough or, doggone-it, maybe people just don't like you.

My dear friend daithi.... several of us have presented points of logical thinking that appear to dispute your claims. You choose not to enter into discussion of this thinking, you bypass the opportunity to present logical thinking that would stand up against what we have said. Instead to go off like a bottle rocket showering useless sparkles with more claims that leave you ripe for us to give additional logical thinking to quench your bottle-rocket brilliance.

This country wasn't founded on fairness??????? The King of England was treating the colonies UNFAIRLY so we created a nation where people could live in a land of "fairness". Every age has a problem defining what is fair. We have spent over 200 years trying to properly define and implement a civilization that is FAIR.... as best we know how. And when those 13 original colonies came together to achieve independence, they created a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that attempted to assure all citizens they could expect life to be fair.... as best as we can define it and implement it. At that time they realized that many of the colonies(states) had adopted or was dominated by what amounted to a STATE RELIGION and each colony had it's own unique way of allowing or suppressing free political discussion... thus was born the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.... the cry from the souls of men that THIS NATION will embrace FAIRNESS.

Are you really so naive to believe that moving to a Communist country is going to provide someone with fairness?

Are you really so naive that you believe anything in this country is fair? Is affirmative action fair? Is the fact that your mom and dad had more money than my mom and dad and gave you everything you wanted fair? My dear friend, there is no such thing as "fair." Once again, "fair" is a subjective term. It is fair that those with the best ratings and those that generate the most revenue for their station are on the air. If you don't like what you hear on a particular station, change the channel. The term "fair" in The Fairness Doctrine really is just more of a movement towards socialism and towards the government controlling our lives. And, my friend, that is just plain unconstitutional. :-*

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: The Fairness Doctrine

Are you really so naive that you believe anything in this country is fair? Is affirmative action fair? Is the fact that your mom and dad had more money than my mom and dad and gave you everything you wanted fair? My dear friend, there is no such thing as "fair." Once again, "fair" is a subjective term. It is fair that those with the best ratings and those that generate the most revenue for their station are on the air. If you don't like what you hear on a particular station, change the channel. The term "fair" in The Fairness Doctrine really is just more of a movement towards socialism and towards the government controlling our lives. And, my friend, that is just plain unconstitutional.

Yes, I am so naive that believe that good citizens, patriotic citizens, caring citizens support actions and policies that work in the direction of fairness.

Maybe your mom and day had more money than did mine. Last night my brother e-mailed me a photo from his sixth birthday. I thought a lot today about how poor we were. Was that fair? As long as my dad and your dad were allowed to seek the best opportunity possible to earn a living, then it was fair.

I'm a Centrist, a Down-the-middle kind of guy. To someone as glued to the radical right as you are, I probably look like a liberal to you. But there is no reason that you and I cannot find areas that we can agree on about how to make our society fair to the maximum number of people while making it unfair to the least number of people.

We don't have to do that through government... which seems to be your hang-up. We can do it through a Rotary Club project. We can do it through a church sponsored charity organization. We can do it by working as poll watchers on election day. We can do it by volunteering to be tutors for children who are having a tough time at school.

But we do it through government also. We have speed limits to keep you from driving through the neighborhood of my grandchildren at 90 miles an hour. Building codes are fair. You house should be built with safety rules followed so it does not explode in the middle of the night and destroy my house next door in the process.

You are all worried about a Fairness Doctrine. Read this editorial and sleep better tonight. The Atlanta newspaper is considered to be a LIBERAL leaning newspaper. And writer Jay Bookman in considered one of the two most liberal members of the editorial board. GoHere:http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2008/11/24/bookmaned_1124_2DOT.html and let a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal explain how you are getting your chain jerked on the Fairness Doctrine scare.

Jerked by your own friends. Now, is that fair?