View Full Version : Fairness Doctrine - help me understand
Why is the Fairness Doctrine bad if this is what it promotes (these are Bush's words):
Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides.
President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.
Can someone help me with this (without trashing Christianity). I can not see why having all viewpoints is a bad thing as long as one isn't promoted over the other. as long as the media is unbiased. What am I missing or is this just doublespeak?
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/03/11/bush_fairness_d.html
1000-points-of-fright
03-13-2008, 01:55 PM
OK, let's say you own a radio station. From noon-3pm you've got Rush Limbaugh and you're doing pretty good selling advertising for that time slot. The Fairness Doctrine would MANDATE that you balance Rush with 3 hrs of liberal talk radio... say Al Franken. The problem is that liberal talk radio does not get good ratings in your market and consequently you can't sell advertising for that time slot. So instead of programming something entertaining and profitable like a sports or cooking show, you have to program Al Franken and lose money for 3 hours a day otherwise the FCC fines you.
It's like forcing a business to stock items that they know will not sell enough to make it worthwhile.
PS: I don't understand what Christianity has to do with this.
OK, let's say you own a radio station. From noon-3pm you've got Rush Limbaugh and you're doing pretty good selling advertising for that time slot. The Fairness Doctrine would MANDATE that you balance Rush with 3 hrs of liberal talk radio... say Al Franken. The problem is that liberal talk radio does not get good ratings in your market and consequently you can't sell advertising for that time slot. So instead of programming something entertaining and profitable like a sports or cooking show, you have to program Al Franken and lose money for 3 hours a day otherwise the FCC fines you.
It's like forcing a business to stock items that they know will not sell enough to make it worthwhile.
PS: I don't understand what Christianity has to do with this.
A reference to me.
Why is the Fairness Doctrine bad if this is what it promotes (these are Bush's words):
Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides.
President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.
Can someone help me with this (without trashing Christianity). I can not see why having all viewpoints is a bad thing as long as one isn't promoted over the other. as long as the media is unbiased. What am I missing or is this just doublespeak?
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/03/11/bush_fairness_d.html
I'm actually torn myself on the Fairness Doctrine...
Before the rampaging absolutists come in here, let me offer that the previous response was a good one... however, it has shown that the time slots themselves garner the same listeners, regardless of who is talking.
The reason the ratings for these shows were so high is because they were able to buy into those slots first.
The problem is that the airwaves can't nor should be owned by anyone...
A philosophical idea could arise about allowing anyone to simply compete on the airwaves, than you would force massive towers across the country...
While the government (or the people) control the airwaves to which radio broadcasts, there is a compelling reason for the Fairness Doctrine.
I can go into it more as the flames begin.
I believe that turning this into another tired "free market" argument, it fails to account for the monopoly that has been wrought on the public by the government. It is by the grace of the people of this country that people are allowed to make money off of public airwaves. That propogandists are doing it, with your nod, is outrageous.
My personal feeling is a cyclic situation. The airwaves are given to competing company slots, rotating slots, including a specific block for the public... in this you allow the best shows to make the most money, while not allowing for a total monopoly.
The current system is an abuse of a natural resource, one that you should control... the space around you.
OK, let's say you own a radio station. From noon-3pm you've got Rush Limbaugh and you're doing pretty good selling advertising for that time slot. The Fairness Doctrine would MANDATE that you balance Rush with 3 hrs of liberal talk radio... say Al Franken. The problem is that liberal talk radio does not get good ratings in your market and consequently you can't sell advertising for that time slot. So instead of programming something entertaining and profitable like a sports or cooking show, you have to program Al Franken and lose money for 3 hours a day otherwise the FCC fines you.
It's like forcing a business to stock items that they know will not sell enough to make it worthwhile.
PS: I don't understand what Christianity has to do with this.
Oh, so it is a mandate - every opinion MUST have the counter-opinion presented.
The exact quote from Bush was: “This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.'
The Good News = the Gospel. I am a Christian but I do not believe you can legislate morality or force anyone to believe the Gospel. The way it is written in the quote makes it sound as though the Fairness Doctrine would limit Christian programming - but that's not what it would do, correct?
I am very gun-shy when it comes to Bush touting his faith and equating it to Christianity and attempting to force his views on others.
Sorry if I sounded paranoid.
Oh, so it is a mandate - every opinion MUST have the counter-opinion presented.
The exact quote from Bush was: “This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.'
The Good News = the Gospel. I am a Christian but I do not believe you can legislate morality or force anyone to believe the Gospel. The way it is written in the quote makes it sound as though the Fairness Doctrine would limit Christian programming - but that's not what it would do, correct?
I am very gun-shy when it comes to Bush touting his faith and equating it to Christianity and attempting to force his views on others.
Sorry if I sounded paranoid.
I think you are a fair minded and tolerant person. Bush does make veiled appeals to the faithful, and this is a common, tired, example.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 02:41 PM
The fairness doctrine isn't quite like internet speech regulation.
People can only use certain portions of the spectrum at a time. For this reason, there needs to be some equitable way for the government to distribute, or divest themselves of, this resource.
The fairness doctrine, I fear, is nothing more than an extension of the partisan political issues we see in DC.
In other words, they want to make it so that if Sush Hannbaugh gets on the air and decries the anti-war movement as a cadre of inbred troglodytes parading their ignorance to the disbelieving masses, that Al Franken has the legal right to counter that War Supporters are necrophiliac lawn gnomes with deep seated hatred for the virgin mary and an unsanitary fetish for toilet-bowl drinking.
Other side of the coin, if one company, Bain Capital for instance, decides to go all in, purchases every damn radio and television station in the country, and begins dicussing the possibility of a current Texas Republican member of the house who could have prostitution charges brought against him... ( I mean, anyone could have charges brought against them) And since there is no radio wave displaying a different idea, people begin to call for his resignation.
If i own a radio station, tower, and electricity will the US Gov reimburse me for lost revenue and the use of my property to promote some DC idea of fairness? Who determines what is fair, whoever the majority of congress happens to be?
We need to approach the answer this way, what solution maximizes individual rights of all people involved, both property and speech rights?
I think that Satellite radio, if rightfully left deregulated, will provide the long term answer. Until then, we have to deal with how to fairly distribute last generation's technology. This isn't an issue of the government controlling an industry, its a legitimate issue of interstate commerce.
The fairness doctrine isn't quite like internet speech regulation.
People can only use certain portions of the spectrum at a time. For this reason, there needs to be some equitable way for the government to distribute, or divest themselves of, this resource.
The fairness doctrine, I fear, is nothing more than an extension of the partisan political issues we see in DC.
In other words, they want to make it so that if Sush Hannbaugh gets on the air and decries the anti-war movement as a cadre of inbred troglodytes parading their ignorance to the disbelieving masses, that Al Franken has the legal right to counter that War Supporters are necrophiliac lawn gnomes with deep seated hatred for the virgin mary and an unsanitary fetish for toilet-bowl drinking.
Other side of the coin, if one company, Bain Capital for instance, decides to go all in, purchases every damn radio and television station in the country, and begins dicussing the possibility of a current Texas Republican member of the house who could have prostitution charges brought against him... ( I mean, anyone could have charges brought against them) And since there is no radio wave displaying a different idea, people begin to call for his resignation.
If i own a radio station, tower, and electricity will the US Gov reimburse me for lost revenue and the use of my property to promote some DC idea of fairness? Who determines what is fair, whoever the majority of congress happens to be?
We need to approach the answer this way, what solution maximizes individual rights of all people involved, both property and speech rights?
I think that Satellite radio, if rightfully left deregulated, will provide the long term answer. Until then, we have to deal with how to fairly distribute last generation's technology. This isn't an issue of the government controlling an industry, its a legitimate issue of interstate commerce.
Nobody in their right mind will continue to say that the original cable news companies (ABC, NBC, CBS) were overly bias in their world news reporting during the night.
The most watched prime time, and everyone has access...the fairness doctrine wasn't needed, but those stations remained politicized. Some argued that showing war images of course was "liberal".
That era is over. With a real bias existing now, and now followed in response to Fox News, there is no more unbias anything in media.
The sheer number of people who listen to those lunch hour time blocks is appalling. I would be saying this if it was Al Franken 24 hours.
This argument is much deeper. It isn't about an opportunity to specifically rebut as it is about the opportunity to have equal amount of public airspace.
I do think that satellites could fix this, but not everyone has the means yet, and this too looks to becoming a monopoly of sorts...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.