The House of Representatives will most likely not debate a Republican proposed bill to outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine." The FCC stopped using the Fairness Doctrine, which attempted to ensure equal airtime for different perspectives on controversial issues, during the Reagan Administration. Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Tuesday that Democrats would rather revive the federal policy of forced evenhandedness.
Critics of the Fairness Doctrine argue that it violates the First Amendment. Instead of facilitating complex debates, equal opportunity resulted in no opportunity for controversial discussions. Some of Speaker Pelosi's opponents worry that if the doctrine is revived, this chilling effect would extend to commentators like Rush Limbaugh. Small stations, which cannot afford a counter to Rush, would simply not talk about tough issues.
Should the Fairness Doctrine be put to rest, as there surely is no lack of space in the radio and cable television sphere? Can we rely on the viewers to judge a station's bias — and how bias is too bias?
Nicole Farhi
Ludd
Azzaro
How about allowing stations to discuss what they want to discuss? You know, freedom of choice? How can anyone support controlling what people say?
1I'm with cine, the fairness doctrine is a well-disguised violation of the first amendment. The FCC has way too much control over what is said on radio and TV as it is.
2I think there needs to be some control over what is said on the radio, or shown on TV. The gist I get from the fairness doctrine is trying to limit the one-sided voice the right has with regard to talk radio.
3"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE VIEWERS AND LISTENERS, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in 1969
Unfortunately, because companies like Sinclair Broadcasting, which had planned to force its 62 stations to carry an anti-Kerry documentary in 2004, exist and because there is a limited number of frequencies available, some sort of Fairness Doctrine is necessary.
4Oho. No no no no no. Hell to the no. The government should not be regulating what political viewpoints are and are not allowed to be broadcasted, or in what quantity.
I hate to be alarmist and bring up the worst-case nightmare slippery-slope scenario, but I would very much not like to live in a China-style society where access to certain viewpoints and certain voices are blocked.
"Can we rely on the viewers to judge a station's bias"
Probably not, but that's none of the government's business.
"and how bias is too bias?"
Once again, none of the government's business. Even the far, far left and the far, far right have the right to air their viewpoints. That's called...free speech.
Jeez. I honestly can't believe this is even on the table.
5Isn't there freedom of choice in the over 500 channels available?
When I started going to college in the Los Angeles area in 89 there was a radio station called KFI with a rainbow assortment of talk show hosts which included Rush Limbaugh whom I did listen to. Once a year they would host an event called the meeting of the mouths where all the hosts would come together for the whole day and debate various issues. It was a riot. I'll never forget Mother Love trying to turn on Rush, LOL!
6I've been listening to a lot of talk radio lately, because my commute has magically become about 15 minutes longer than it used to be, and I actually find myself really enjoying talk shows with a slant quite different than my own views. It's interesting to hear how the "opposite side" interprets the issues.
Hypno, I think KFI's still around--I'm pretty sure I end up tuned in to them occasionally.
7You choice the channels to watch or listen to, but as those broadcast channels are licensed, someone else determines who gets the licenses - and companies like Clearwater then end up determining what you'll hear.
The Fairness Doctrine doesn't tell people what to say: it requires that stations devote a certain amount of airtime to controversial topics and that opposing views be aired. It DOES NOT require that every show be internally balanced or equal time or that a station's programming be 50/50.
8That should be you 'choose' the channels.
9See, though, I don't even think a broadcast station should be required to devote any amount of time to any specified topics or viewpoints. That's still too much government control of the media for my taste.
10But the government controls the licensing, shouldn't it at least have a rule that licensees pay lip service to varying viewpoints in the community? Otherwise, it's very easy for a powerful broadcast company to customize all its news and shows to one segment of the community - for instance, broadcasters in Florida could simply not report on the voting issues there and on the fact that people may want to find out if they are incorrectly listed as a felon on voting records and thus not allowed to vote. What people don't know can hurt them and radio and television are the way most people get their information.
It's setting a minimal standard, it does not dictate content.
11I don't think we can set a standard without stepping on our communal freedom of speech.
12But I do think that requiring a broadcaster to devote X amount of time to the "opposing viewpoint," whatever that may be, is dictating content.
broadcasters in Florida could simply not report on the voting issues there and on the fact that people may want to find out if they are incorrectly listed as a felon on voting records and thus not allowed to vote"
I absolutely see your point, stephley. I just don't think requiring stations to come up with any amount of content that they otherwise wouldn't broadcast is the answer.
There are definitely dangers to a lot of the extremely partisan broadcasters on the airwaves, that's true. But as far as I know, nowhere are those the only options for getting one's news and commentary. It's up to the individual to know that one station or broadcaster's take isn't the only one, and to be open to other viewpoints as well--and anyone who would believe that X radio station or whatever really does give the only viewpoint and news that they need aren't going to be much enlightened by a few minutes of forced opposing-view talk, IMO.
13I'm not sure how people would know to look for news that they don't know they aren't getting... I did work in news under the Fairness Doctrine and will say I never noticed it because it requires such a minimal effort.
14But what the heck, next year when Obama's president...
"But what the heck, next year when Obama's president..."
Heck yes! Can't wait
"I'm not sure how people would know to look for news that they don't know they aren't getting"
15I don't want to sound too harsh, but I think any reasonably educated and moderately intelligent adult should be aware that they aren't getting all the news from any partisan broadcast station. If someone doesn't realize that, that's not the broadcasters' or the regulators' problem.
the government needs to butt out and leave us alone. Stations shouldn't be told what to air and what to show. Let them do what they want to do. The government can't control everything nor dictate what should be "talked about." Thats insane.
16They just want to kill talk radio for one. They want more control.
Like Jude said, next stop, China.
But the airwaves do belong to the American public, not the broadcasters - they pay for the privilege of having a license.
17I'm thinking of taking a crack at talk radio myself but I would want to do it with a partner in crime I need some one to work off. Maybe yesteryear would be interested. Since my voice changed in High School everyone has been trying to heard me into broadcasting or voice over’s. I remember when I got up in front of my Literature class and seeing my teachers jaw drop as I recited a passage of Shakespeare. A few people have told me that they found them selves surprised to turn and find me speaking because they thought it was the radio, LOL!, and when I answer the phone at work people proceed to leave a message. Who know's maybe one day you'll all be cursing me instead of Rush, LOL!
18*herd
19You should at least try voiceovers, it could help pay for college without a lot of heavy lifting. I did a couple of on-air reports but I hated it - I sound like Minnie Mouse.
20You should at least try voiceovers, it could help pay for college without a lot of heavy lifting. I did a couple of on-air reports but I hated it - I sound like Minnie Mouse.
21I think that would be fun.
22My brother had a friend who voiced a couple of national Volkswagen commercials - lived very nicely for some time on it. If people think you have the voice for it, you really should try it. It's not something that would take up so much of your life that you couldn't do anything else, and could make it possible for you to do more.
23"Some of Speaker Pelosi's opponents worry that if the doctrine is revived, this chilling effect would extend to commentators like Rush Limbaugh. Small stations, which cannot afford a counter to Rush, would simply not talk about tough issues"
Actually, this is the big worry about the fairness doctrine. On XM, Air America is that opposite viewpoint. The problem is that Air America is going backrupt because no one listens, which means no one wants to advertise on that station.
24Is the he the old german guy who looks like a beetle in the new VW commercials???
I love that guy!
25The reason Air America was not a success before it ever got off the ground is because it was called Air America. No one is going to listen to something called Air America. This isn't 1958 with Russian troops marching on the Baltic’s! Take the partisanship off the packaging deliver it with charisma and when ever the opportunity avails itself bank hard to the left. Who ever designed the idea needs to retire yesterday.
26No, bro's friend never appeared on air.
The Fairness Doctrine doesn't require if you air Rush you have to give equal time to Air America - if you air Rush during the week during prime time, you would have to air a liberal viewpoint sometime during the week during primetime. Not minute for minute. It's purpose is to ensure that the opposing view is heard, not given equal time.
27I do what Jude does--on my commute I sometimes listen to radio commentators on the "other side". My reactions range from amusement to fury.
28Jude I am totally with you on this one. Except of course about Obama being the next president
29That's interesting - I can't abide radio commentators on either side. If I'm driving I like cooking shows or music, some news but no yakking.
30I love real jazz (not "smooth" jazz) if I am driving in the countryside.
31When I was in sales and I was in the car all day I used to listen to talk all the time... Music gets so boring hour after hour, esp since regular radio plays the same songs over and over. Finally I got Sirius and that made a huge difference!
Steph - do you listen to Martha radio on Sirius? Thats a fav of mine. Though sometimes it can be so boring I feel like I might fall asleep at the wheel!
32Nope - if I'm in a car it's a rental and don't have Sirius, so it's whatever American or National Public Radio have.
33NPR has some of the most ridiculously boring programming out there. I remember listening to a show a while back; they were interviewing some author, and the woman went on and on for twenty minutes talking about her last visit to the nail salon. Seriously.
34That kind of stuff I get rid of right away. If I want a 'slice of life' I'll turn off the radio and deal with my family:o
35Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.