here's some background. http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=310781418727160 [rquoter]The Right To Remain Silent By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT Free Speech: Republicans are now officially the loyal opposition. But under President Obama and a revived Fairness Doctrine, they may soon need permission to voice that opposition. It gives one pause when a leading Democrat compares talk radio to p*rnography. But that's what Sen. Charles Schumer of New York did on Fox News a week ago while advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine requiring holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues in a balanced way. "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit p*rnography on the air, (and) I am for that," he said. "But you can't say, 'government, hands-off' in one area to a commercial enterprise, but you are allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent." Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, agrees. "I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit," she said last year. "But there is a responsibility to see that both sides, and not just one side, of the big public questions of the debate are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness." The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech but not to a government-mandated forum. As for the profit motive and fairness, there's no guarantee anyone will want to listen to what you say. Just look at MSNBC and Air America. The marketplace of ideas is already open to all. Some ideas win, and some are turned off. Allowing people to speak doesn't mean forcing people to listen. Speaking on Albuquerque station KKOB recently, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told host Jim Villamicci: "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political (spectrum)." Forcing stations "to present a balanced perspective" is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. Neither did they envision allowing the government to regulate the speech of its critics. That's like allowing the emperor to regulate those who say he's wearing no clothes. Talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh, the main target of the Fairness Doctrine, said in response: "Sen. Bingaman, do you know how many talk radio stations there are in America today? Try over 2,000 since the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, and on those 2,000 radio stations are countless points of view, from the extreme communist left to the wacko whatever it is on the far right. They're all over the place." During the campaign, Obama expressed only muted opposition to a formal revival of the Fairness Doctrine. But it's not likely that he'd veto a legislated return to it. Certainly his actions in the campaign show just what team Obama's definition of "fairness" is and what critics have to look forward to. When the National Rifle Association ran ads attacking Obama's position on gun rights, his campaign sent "cease and desist" letters to radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio. In the letter, Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer reminded station managers that "you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.' " The inner quote is a clear reference to government regulations on the issuance of station licenses. When the American Issues Project, a private group, ran ads documenting Obama's long and close association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, Bauer also warned station managers that their broadcast licenses might be at risk. "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity," Bauer wrote. Bauer also wrote twice to the Justice Department, demanding that it "take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute" the group. Team Obama will soon be running the Justice Department with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. It may be a case of speaking now or forever holding your peace.[/rquoter]
I disagree with the Fairness Doctrine in principle as an abridgment of free speech. I also think it's a slippery slope -- why stop at talk radio? Might as well begin to regulate the political balance of newspapers, magazines, web sites ... etc. I do sympathize with the motivation behind it though. Modern conservative talk radio has become nothing more than a cover for indoctrinating millions of people with lies, distortions, fear, hate and division. The rampant disease of isolationism and this "us-against-them, only extreme right wingers like us are real Americans and everyone else is the enemy" attitude was born and continues to be perpetuated by people like Limbaugh and Hannity. I was listening to Limbaugh again -- his show would sound like some farcical parody if his millions of listeners weren't falling for it like fish to trollbait. The latest front on their war is now against moderate Republicans, who they blame for the attacks on their beloved goddess Palin. That's right, they have declared war on the moderates in their own party. It's just absolute madness at this point. That said, I still think the Fairness Doctrine is absolutely the wrong approach to take and is downright unconstitutional. In my opinion, it may take a little while, but it's probably better to allow the new GOP civil war to play itself out and let them destroy themselves. Then hopefully out of the ashes a new Republican party can arise that actually has a pulse for what true conservatism is and isn't completely out of touch with the rest of the nation.
I rather the offending party sue for libel/slander case by case then legislate this as a form of hate speech in the guise of "balance". This sounds bloody un-American and I know the garbage these windbags spew.
Who dictates what's fair? A person on side of the political spectrum has a very different view on what is balanced coverage than a person on the other side. I don't see any way around that.
The Fairness Doctrine is bull**** - because sometimes, people are actually right and people are actually wrong - presenting a so-called "balanced view" creates the illusion of equivalence between opposing viewpoints and stifles outside critique.
Yes, but the people who are "right" don't necessarily produce shows which appeal enough to the lowest common denominator and therefore make the most money: see Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. The people who are "right" do not necessarily share the views of the corporations who put them on the air. Profitability does not a meritocracy make. The fairness doctrine applies only to over-the-air networks, because the airwaves are owned by you and me; corporations just rent them from us. Luckily, our cable and internet p*rnography, all privately owned, will not be affected. The fairness doctrine worked for quite a number of decades, in which the public was better informed; I question how the public is better informed by having Michael Savage spew his venom for three hours a day. Part of broadcast charters used to require that the programming would be in the public interest as a condition of its use. I don't have a problem with the public airwaves filled with straight news, less or no opinion, which is what existed with the fairness doctrine.
^People hear and see what they want. It's not like they're stupid and helpless. You've already listed the alternatives (plus satellite and internet). Radio just happens to work for a specific conservative mindset. Just like how Daily Show appeals to a certain type of audience. The Fairness Doctrine is a very outdated concept. Bringing it back will piss people off more than have any remote shred of gain or good intention.
I absolutely support the fairness doctrine and aghast highlights some of the reasons why. The public airwaves shouldn't be used to spew political hate and propaganda. They should be a medium by which the American people are given the news and the current facts. The American people can then use their brains to judge the state of affairs. As it stands, people don't tune into THE news (a fair representation of viewpoints) they are turning into THEIR news (the representation of viewpoints they already agree with whether accurate or not) and that's becoming a huge problem in this country. If the haters want to continue to spew their nonsense, there is plenty of room on the internet and in satellite for them to continue the dog and pony show. A public trust is inherent in the use of the public airwaves and that's being violated. The American people are less informed, intentionally so, and more bitterly divided by this misinformation, again intentionally so, and it's hurting the country. We can't make informed decisions as a society if we're all tuning into the news we wish to be so.
Those people can still turn their radios off when shows from the other side starts. There isn't a V-chip for that yet. Then again, the v-chip was designed with children in mind...
