Another rant on THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[eagler]

With the recently renewed interest in the subject of the Fairness Doctrine, there has been a mountain of commentary in newpapers and on RW stations across the country. I guess this is to be expected because RW radio would be the most affected by its reintroduction. Now I don't claim to be an expert on the FD, but I did do my graduate thesis on Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Personally I feel that much of what is being said demonizing the doctrine is hogwash and claims that it violates the 1st Amendment and would result in a "chilling effect"on the media are defensive lies. I do feel however that the FD would need to be revised to fit today's media. I don't think that anyone would want a doctrine that crushes almost all political opinion. Another lie that is being circulated about the FD is that it requires "equal time" for opposing viewpoints to be presented. That was never the case with the doctrine, but RWers are doing everything they can to promote this lie. One thing is quite obvious though - Listeners are only hearing THEIR side of the argument. This fact to me is quite telling. Nat Hentoff,a writer whom I admire but don't always agree with (especially here), recently wrote an anti-FD article. It is a good example of the scare tactics that are being used against any any attempt to bring back the doctrine.
<http://www.delcotimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17781245&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18168&rfi=6>

In defense of a new FAIRNESS DOCTRINE I am reminded of a few of the things which were NOT allowed to happen because there was no more FD. John Kerry was swiftboated (a smear against a real American hero)but he was unable to defend himself to the same audience who heard the endless smears against him. The Clinton's plan for universal healthcare was attacked relentlessly but its potential benefits were never allowed to be be generally heard. Eyewitnesses to Bush's AWOL were never allowed to speakout. The story was generally squelched until it became too big to be contained. And even then it was greatly downplayed. Max Cleland was trashed on talk shows- another hero unable to adequately defend himself. The list goes on and on. One last rant. There were many groups of Muslims who attempted to speak out against terrorism and yet so often it is reported that the Muslims were silent on the matter. Their side of the story is never heard over the airwaves. Oh Well! that's enough for now on the Fairness Doctrine. I support it wholeheartedly. We need a new revised version that allows opposing viewpoints to be heard by the same audience that is hearing nothing but Right Wing quasi- government propaganda day after day.

[AndyA]

1. I agree that the Fairness Doctrine (a revised version) would undo a lot of lies told by the

Reicht Wing.

When I ask people to name conservative talk show hosts, they can always come up with Rush, Laura, Glen, Bill, Sean, etc.

Then I ask them to name the liberal talk show hosts. Some can name Keith, but that's it. A few will say Chris is liberal, and I usually give them that one, although I don't think he is.

So they can name all these conservative hosts, and only one or two so-called liberal hosts.

I tell them they just made my point for me. There is no liberal media, there is a corporate-owned, conservative censorship media, and one of their first duties was to convince everyone that the media was liberal. And they did.

Of course, the facts don't support their stance, but they never do and it works anyway.

[samfishX]

2. I agree, too

the basic foundation for a new Fairness Doctrine is pretty simple, really.

You're either a news outlet or a commentary outlet.
If you're a news outlet, the old Fairness Doctrine basically applies to you, regardless of whether or not you're a cable channel.
If you're a commentary outlet, it doesn't apply.

Plain and simple.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Really?

You want to apply the Fairness Doctrine to cable outlets? On what basis?

It could be applied to radio and broadcast television, because they used the public airwaves. But Cable doesn't.

Would you also apply it to newspapers?

And how would you get around the obvious First Amendment objections?

[eagler]

4. The Fairness Doctrine was never meant for cable, but

only for media broadcasting over the nation's airwaves which have always been recognized as public property But only a small segment of the public is allowed to be heard over their own airwaves.