Could "fairness Doctrine" Be Used To Police The Internet?

[♦ nivek ♦]

THIS bullshit could be used to shut down places such as ExC that do not toe the majority line...

 

Time is gettin' closer..

 

kL

 

 

Could "Fairness Doctrine" be used to police the Internet?

Fox News

 

"Media analysts and bloggers are warning that fresh efforts to bring

back the so-called Fairness Doctrine could go too far, following a

report that one prominent Democrat is looking into ways to apply the

media control standards to the Internet. The Fairness Doctrine is a

policy created decades ago but abolished in the late 1980s that

required broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial

issues. While some Democrats have talked about reviving the policy,

The American Spectator reported Monday that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-

Calif., is taking the call to a new level. The article said aides to

the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee met last week

with Federal Communications Commission staff to discuss ways to not

only enact those policies but give Waxman's panel greater oversight

over the Internet." (02/17/09)

 

http://adjix.com/cjy4

[NaturalSelection]

I think we need the Fairness Doctrine now more than ever.

 

Naturally, Fox news and far-right wing talk show hosts don't want it because without the fairness doctrine they have a monopoly. That enables them to brainwash the masses with their propaganda. -- Since they don't want to lose their monopoly they're going to instill fear into the listening audience while they can in hopes that people will act on that fear to keep the Fairness Doctrine from coming back.

 

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

 

This would have no affect on ex-christian.com as far as I can tell; that imo is just another scare tactic.

[NaturalSelection]

Maybe this will explain why we need it a little better.

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3231...doctrine11.html

[Legion]

Maybe this will explain a little better why we don't want the fairness doctrine.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

That's the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in case anyone is interested.

[NaturalSelection]

Free Speech on the public airwaves is being abridged without the Fairness Doctrine. Public airways should offer both points of view but as is one or two companies have bought up the public aiways and use them to promote what is in the companies interest.

 

About 5 yrs ago in my area of the country I was surfing through the radio stations and noticed that the same program was on every station. It was this way throughout the entire day. So, I started snooping and guess what I discovered....one family owned all the stations. Even though each station had a different call sign so that the listener thought they were getting choices of what to listen to...in actuality one family was deciding what "speech" everyone got to hear. This family...when I tracked it down...was of course an evangenital, family values, far right-wing family. -- One of the things that people may not be aware of is that in recent years the rules for radio station ownership have been loosened so that one family or one corporation can buy up many stations. The same has happened in print media, Rupert Murdock owns many print publications under different names. This is a monopoly and monopolies are not interested, as a rule, in free speech but in getting people to believe and act upon what is in their best interest.

 

Christians are always being told that the Fairness Doctrine is designed to shut down their websites and christian prostelitizing too. Of course they want the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages, and Sean Hannities to have a monopoly because they're all in the same corner (they are, after all the "base" of the GOP and it was the GOP that did away with the fairness doctrine) .....it's not enough that they have thousands of Christian radio stations and churches to promote their worldview but they've sucessfully managed to take over secular society too....via the GOP policies and am radio frequency monopolies which they use not only to promote their beliefs but to squash opposing views by not exposing people to opposing views.

 

There's a lot of information at this site that explains how they did it:

 

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

On the left side, there's a section on the media specifically.

 

 

Who owns the media by corporation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration...#By_corporation

 

While you may have free speech by law, how free is it if nobody gets to hear what you have to say?

 

 

It's easy to win the race when you own all the ponies.

[Legion]

So you don’t like what these talk show hosts have to say and you want to shut them up? Is that about the size of if Natural Selection?

[Ouroboros]

So you don’t like what these talk show hosts have to say and you want to shut them up? Is that about the size of if Natural Selection?

I thought the Fairness Doctrine is the other way around, to enforce that media must allow the other party to respond, or did I miss something? And I thought it only applied to political speech, and not religion. But I could be wrong of course.

[NaturalSelection]

So you don’t like what these talk show hosts have to say and you want to shut them up? Is that about the size of if Natural Selection?

 

I don't want to shut them up. Nobody is saying they should be shut down (that's what they're telling you the Fairness Doctrine would do). I'm saying that in my area, on the public airways, it would be more balanced and in the best interest of the public if say after Rush Limbaugh's three hour show, it was followed up by a liberal radio show instead of Dr. Laura or Michael Savage. They could even alternate, that way people would get the opportunity to hear both sides of an issue. Both sides are not even being presented right now.

 

It's not about shutting anyone down....that's the point.

[NaturalSelection]

So you don’t like what these talk show hosts have to say and you want to shut them up? Is that about the size of if Natural Selection?

I thought the Fairness Doctrine is the other way around, to enforce that media must allow the other party to respond, or did I miss something? And I thought it only applied to political speech, and not religion. But I could be wrong of course.

 

 

It doesn't apply to religion, but the religionists are being told that it does so they'll all get pissed off and call their congressmen and senators and tell them to vote against it. Also, hard-right religionists want only the hard-right view on secular stations to be presented as well. The GOP and the Evangenitals are basically all in bed together politically.

 

And yes it would give the other party a chance to respond...so if one of these commentators decided to engage in a little defamation of character then they would have to give that person a chance to defend themselves publically.....

[Vixentrox]

So you don’t like what these talk show hosts have to say and you want to shut them up? Is that about the size of if Natural Selection?

 

I don't want to shut them up. Nobody is saying they should be shut down (that's what they're telling you the Fairness Doctrine would do). I'm saying that in my area, on the public airways, it would be more balanced and in the best interest of the public if say after Rush Limbaugh's three hour show, it was followed up by a liberal radio show instead of Dr. Laura or Michael Savage. They could even alternate, that way people would get the opportunity to hear both sides of an issue. Both sides are not even being presented right now.

 

It's not about shutting anyone down....that's the point.

Maybe because radio stations are businesses and they don't want to push a product that don't sell? If show A is conservative and listeners lap it up and show B is liberal and a steaming pile of shit, why should a radio staion be forced to broadcast a steaming pile of shit?

[NaturalSelection]

Maybe because radio stations are businesses and they don't want to push a product that don't sell? If show A is conservative and listeners lap it up and show B is liberal and a steaming pile of shit, why should a radio staion be forced to broadcast a steaming pile of shit?

 

 

How do you know it would be a steaming pile of shit? I know that's one of the excuses they use (I used to be a dittohead myself) but here's the thing, these shows are businesses and they are using the public airways for free. The conservative shows have had the monopoly for 21 yrs so that's a whole generation of people who've not been exposed to differing points of view. I think at first, liberal shows wouldn't go over well because most am talk/radio listeners have bought into the far right-wing soundbites on the subject and (like leaving Christianity) there would be a knee-jerk reaction to a different worldview. But, given a little time, more and more listerners will say, "hey, I've never thought of things that way, I think they're right".

 

This is ultimately what scares far-right radio personalities imo. They know that the more the public is exposed to ideas other than theirs (which they have been repeating ad naseum day after day, hour after hour, for decades) then THEY will not dominate the conversation...and people's worldview....anymore.

Whoever controls the information......controls other things, like religion, elections.....laws.........how people view us non-christians. -- Basically, the far-right would lose a lot of power if people are given more information; so they've got to control the flow of information by any means possible.

 

http://stopbigmedia.com/=policy

 

http://stopbigmedia.com/=atstake This one explains, briefly, and better than I can...what's at stake.

 

 

Another example, Sinclair Broadcasting. My parents live close to Nashville and a few years ago on Veteran's Day they had their bowl of popcorn and were ready to watch "Saving Private Ryan"....well, Sinclair Broadcasting made the decision not to air it on their stations. Why? Because a lot of American Soldiers were being killed in Iraq at that time...of course they gave some other excuse but everybody knew that was why. Sinclair Broadcasting also refused to air an ABC Nightline edition that was critical of the war in Iraq. They were trying to sway public support in favor of President Bush and the republicans because Sinclair Broadcasting wanted something in return....they want the FCC to loosen more rules so that they could buy up more stations.

 

Think about it, that's the way it's always worked. Like Pravda in Russia, or Hitler in 1930s Germany, or the Catholic church in medieval times. The more information that is available the harder it is for one party or group to control people.

 

 

Of course, The Fairness Doctrine may not even be necessary if we can reinstate regulations that prohibit monopolies.

[Legion]

Maybe because radio stations are businesses and they don't want to push a product that don't sell? If show A is conservative and listeners lap it up and show B is liberal and a steaming pile of shit, why should a radio staion be forced to broadcast a steaming pile of shit?

What was the name of that liberal show that bombed out not long ago? Air America?

[NaturalSelection]

Maybe because radio stations are businesses and they don't want to push a product that don't sell? If show A is conservative and listeners lap it up and show B is liberal and a steaming pile of shit, why should a radio staion be forced to broadcast a steaming pile of shit?

What was the name of that liberal show that bombed out not long ago? Air America?

 

 

Air America is a station and it's still around on satellite radio. That's where Freethought Radio is mostly heard.

[Legion]

Well I am with Vixentrox. Let liberals and conservatives compete in the marketplace without government intervention.

[Vixentrox]

Well I am with Vixentrox. Let liberals and conservatives compete in the marketplace without government intervention.

Exactly. There seems to be few things that government involvement can't make worse. Those freaking clowns in charge and some would actually trust them to determine what is "fair"? Only an insane idiot would trust the government to not make a mess of things.

[NaturalSelection]

Well guys, if free speech is for sale, then we're screwed....

 

and the real golden rule applies: He who has the most gold gets to make the rules.

[Vixentrox]

Well guys, if free speech is for sale, then we're screwed....

 

and the real golden rule applies: He who has the most gold gets to make the rules.

In your fairness doctorine, where does it end? If there is a Christian vignet or program does there then have to be muslim, hindu, ect ect periods? Does the KKK get equal airtime with the Black Panthers? If republicans and dems get thier turn, then they need to make equal time for the Nazi's, Communisists, and whatever else? It's freaking INSANE.

[NaturalSelection]

Well guys, if free speech is for sale, then we're screwed....

 

and the real golden rule applies: He who has the most gold gets to make the rules.

In your fairness doctorine, where does it end? If there is a Christian vignet or program does there then have to be muslim, hindu, ect ect periods? Does the KKK get equal airtime with the Black Panthers? If republicans and dems get thier turn, then they need to make equal time for the Nazi's, Communisists, and whatever else? It's freaking INSANE.

 

I think you're being a bit extreme. When I read that I'm reminded of how Christians try to say that allowing gay marriage, or condoning homosexuality, would lead to beastiality. -- Fear, Fear, Fear!

 

The Fairness Doctrine was in force for 40 yrs and that did not happen.

 

Here's what it did:

 

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. [From wikipedia]

 

But like I said earlier, if regulations that prohibit monopolies are reinstated then the Fairness Doctrine would probably be unnecessary.

 

Are you in favor of monopolies?

 

 

 

Personally, I think what the far-right has done with the media is reminiscent of what the Nazis did with the media (since you mentioned Nazis).

 

 

FTR - I'm not INSANE.

[Vixentrox]

Far right? You mean far-left. News media is decidly liberal.

[NaturalSelection]

Far right? You mean far-left. News media is decidly liberal.

 

 

No it isn't; that's a myth. Radio is part of the media and as we all know (as you so much as admitted) it is conservative. You can also refer back to the links I provided earlier...the media isn't independent anymore...it's corporately owned and corporations are conservative because when conservatives hold public office and make policy decisions they always favor the "big money" over the average citizen.

 

Now reporters tend to be more liberal (probably because they have a better idea of what's going on) but the reporters do not decide what gets put on the air or the front page...which is another reason why monopolies are so bad for the country. -- One of my friends from HS is married to someone who has a prominent job in the print media and I asked her about this. She told me that the owners are conservative and that they decide what gets the headline in the print media. She said at one newspaper in Texas the owners consistently ran embellished stories or outright lies about a former govenor, Ann Richardson, and would print a tiny retraction buried in the paper later on when the govenor called them on it...but the damage was done...and it worked...and Ann Richardson was defeated.

 

Think about it....when George Bush ran for President in 2000 you didn't hear the media say squat about his brother Neil....remember him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush#Sil...avings_.26_Loan

 

When that male prostitute, Jeff Gannon (Gunkert) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon was posing as a reporter...and going in and out of the white house at all hours you sure didn't see it on the news day after day....but you did see the Monika Lewinky thing over, and over, and over.

 

When Osama Bin Laden made the headlines with the 9/11 attack, did the media inform us about President Bush's connection with Salem bin Laden? or Arbusto Oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy Hell no!...but the media couldn't say "whitewater" enough.

 

If the media was really liberal they could have "buried Bush" alive with truth alone....not having to make anything up or tell any lies....but it didn't happen. His administration finally got so bad and so in everybody's face that even the corporate media couldn't protect him anymore.

 

You have to do some internet snooping for find out this stuff because it's a tangeled web...and the media won't tell you. -- Like you I used to think the media was liberal...I started getting suspicious in 2000...but didn't start to "get the picture" until sometime toward the end of 2003. I ended up changing parties in 2004 after 25 yrs as a republican.

[RankStranger]

Of course, The Fairness Doctrine may not even be necessary if we can reinstate regulations that prohibit monopolies.

 

I'd rather see this option pursued.

 

I don't like the current situation for several reasons, but the Fairness Doctrine is a can of worms that I'd rather not open.

 

 

 

Far right? You mean far-left. News media is decidly liberal.

 

I listen to talk radio pretty regularly (even though I disagree with them about 70% of the time these days), so I hear this line repeated dozens of times a day. But I'm not convinced that it's true. I've heard talk show hosts make "librul bias" accusations LOTS of times for the expressed reason that the media-outlet in question didn't bother to repeat some conservative talking-point that the host thinks appropriate.

 

For fuck's sake... I've heard Rush and Hannity accuse FOX NEWS of Librul Bias. I've no doubt that there is and has been liberal bias in certain media outlets, but I don't think it's anywhere NEAR as pervasive as talkshow hosts make it out to be.

 

Ro-Bear said one time that truth has a liberal bias. When liberal bias is defined by the likes of Rush and Hannity, I think there's some truth to that.