The Cellar - Fairness Doctrine Floats Back to the Top

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Fairness Doctrine Floats Back to the Top (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19521)

Fairness Doctrine Floats Back to the Top

Quote:

Sen. Harkin: 'We need the Fairness Doctrine back'

Just this morning, I reported that Sen. Debbie Stabenow has backed off on the idea of holding hearings for radio accountability, something she discussed last week with liberal radio host Bill Press (leading to an uproar on conservative talk radio over the Fairness Doctrine).

Well today, Sen. Tom Harkin appeared on Press's show and came out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.

BILL PRESS: And, thanks for your leadership, thanks for your good work, it's great to have you there Senator. And, great to have you on the show. Appreciate it.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Well, anytime – just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'

BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that's all. You know, we're not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that's why we need the fair -- that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

BILL PRESS: We'll work on that together. Hey, thanks, Senator! Always good to talk to you.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Thanks Bill, see you, bye.

Press told me last week that he's hoping Congressional leaders call for hearings on radio accountability, looking at whether stations are honoring the language in their public licenses. But Press also said he thinks the Fairness Doctrine -- in its previous incarnation, at least -- is outdated.

It seems that a lot of Democrats talk up the issue, but then there isn't any legislation that follows.

For instance, Dick Durbin has spoken favorably of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in the past, but when I contacted his office last week, his press secretary said that he “has no plans to introduce any legislation on the issue, nor is it even on the radar.”

So will Harkin, another advocate, be the one to push the issue forward?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...ine_back_.html

Ok, I though most liberals supported the First Amendment. I could be wrong. The free market is just that, anyone is free to gather the resources, start a show and make money for the radio station, or not. In the case of Air America's failed attempt it would be "or not". There are plenty of smaller radio programs with a bit of liberal vs. conservative slant but for some reason few of them have ever made it big. NPR comes the closest, but I don't consider them to be completely liberal in their delivery, and I listen to it every day, most of the time twice a day and on the weekends. So why the need for government control of the messages on the airwaves. It strikes me as an attempt at censorship.

From what I've heard this does seem to be less than fair. If there is a fixed amount of airtime and it is currently full, then there cannot be any addition without subtraction. If they are going to force or dictate to the stations more liberal or any other type of programming by legislation, than something that is already there must be removed. If that is what they are talking about, I don't like it.

I'll have to wait to see the actual bill itself.

"Fair" is just a buzz word for "we don't like your domination of the market and we don't like what you are saying".

Will this doctrine also apply to television, print and every other media outlet available? I just don't understand it all and I don't have time to look into it right now.

In a nutshell, wiki does a pretty good job of presenting both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I don't think very much of wiki lately - especially after what happened with UT and his updates getting repeatedly removed. Very weak. Sad really.

yea, I can't stop thinking about that either. But I don't think that was wiki per se, but another contributor just like UT thwarting his efforts.

In the end, once I had a citation I was sort of armed, and got the information into the article, though in a different section than I thought warranted.

It didn't have to be an editing war; I could have maybe gone into the talk pages and discussed it there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 533601)

Ok, I though most liberals supported the First Amendment.

Okay. But why were you quoting a bunch of democrat congressmen?

They're about as "liberal" as Bush was "conservative".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 533745)

I missed the whole episode. What were you trying to amend?

As far as the fairness doctrine goes, it is a problem created by first regulation which concentrated power down from thousands of small players to hundreds and then partial deregulation which killed off the remaining small players leaving us with very few enormous players. When the original regulation occurred they recognized one problem, they were limiting access to what had been a free arena. Their solution, the fairness doctrine, served the two major parties very nicely. After partial deregulation the Republicans adapted to the new ground rules and seized hate radio. Now the Democrats want their piece of the action back... fairness has little to do with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 534386)

After partial deregulation the Republicans adapted to the new ground rules and seized hate radio.

Typical bullshit victimhood mentality of Dems. Free market forces drive the popularity of radio, who ever broadcasts it regardless of content.

There is no free market in radio, Limbaugh figured out how to be entertaining and provide cheap content first. He did what he was supposed to do.

Who cares about Limbaugh. That is not the topic of discussion. Radio is driven by one thing, advertising. Once anyone captures a subject that gathers listeners the radio station can sell adverts.

...except that the adverts are sold by Clear Channel not the local station. Limbaugh understood this first. Local radio no longer exists in any meaningful way. Content comes from a few mega-providers.