The W
Views: 145972245
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.12 1103
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - For the ACLUites Register and log in to post!
(1760 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 41

Posts: 221/330
EXP: 468223
For next: 11926

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 5621 days
Last activity: 4688 days
#1 Posted on 12.9.03 1428.57
Reposted on: 12.9.10 1429.01
This is a question for the ACLU members here: Do you support the attempted reinstating of the fairness doctrine? Isn't such a law a direct violation of the first amendment?
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 2353/5410
EXP: 31996305
For next: 471222

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1414 days
Last activity: 289 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 12.9.03 1440.09
Reposted on: 12.9.10 1440.43
I hadn't heard anything about this. Do you have a link or anything for the details on this. Right on the surface of it I would say I'm generally opposed to such a thing being passed, but would like to see all the info before I could make a full response.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1402/2042
EXP: 7419347
For next: 49594

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 4822 days
Last activity: 1077 days
#3 Posted on 12.9.03 1521.19
Reposted on: 12.9.10 1524.00
Um, yeah. You're not talking about the rollback of the FCC's proposed new media ownership regulations, are you? That has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine per se.

Radio and television differ from other media (print, the Internet, etc.) in a very significant way -- they are _limited_ resources due to regulation. Anyone can start up a newspaper, a magazine, or a web site blasting the target of their choice; if you want to broadcast over the radio or television airwaves, however, your signal had better reach no more than five feet, or the FCC will bring a shithammer down upon you.

The FCC already regulates radio and TV content concerning "obscenity" and "indecency," and artificially limits the number of permitted stations in an area and how strong their signals can be. Eliminate THOSE restrictions, and I'm more likely to get on board with avoiding _political_ content management.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 41

Posts: 222/330
EXP: 468223
For next: 11926

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 5621 days
Last activity: 4688 days
#4 Posted on 12.9.03 1621.37
Reposted on: 12.9.10 1623.59
What I'm speaking of is the law that was abolished in 87 that basically requires any opinionated Radio show/TV show to provide exact amounts of time to opposite viewpoints. It sounds nice in practice, but such restrictions really limit options in the long run. Before this doctrine was eliminated, there were only 75 radio AM talk stations, and now there are over 1300. Let me give you an example of the fairness doctrine: Rush Limbaugh has a 3 hour show in the morning that 20 million people listen to. If someone calls up and claims that it's unbalanced, the station would either have to give them specific allotted time to respond or possibly lose their license. There is no shortage of viewpoint in the media today. If you want conservative, you can check out Fox News or listen to some of the conservative radio pundits. If you want Liberal, you can check out CNN, or any of the 3 networks. The elimination of the fairness doctrine lead to a huge diversification of ideas being shared on the radio, and frankly it reaks of politicians passing laws to silence their critics. In 1993 it was only Liberals doing it to try to silence Rush, but now conservatives are in on it too, which is very scary.

"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."

Is Rush Limbaugh really so scary that we have to silence him and thrash the constitution?
antizeus
Linguica
Level: 22

Posts: 60/73
EXP: 50148
For next: 8203

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 5819 days
Last activity: 5819 days
#5 Posted on 13.9.03 1316.01
Reposted on: 13.9.10 1317.51
The airwaves are considered a public resource. The government grants certain groups a monopoly on broadcasting over these frequencies (in a certain area), and is thus justified in imposing regulations upon those monopolies.

I'm all for removing such regulations on the broadcasters as long as I'm allowed to broadcast on those frequencies. But this won't happen because the resulting chaos would severly limit the usefulness of broadcasting.

By the way, I do not consider CNN to be "liberal", except maybe in the limited US sense of "liberal", which is considered "conservative" in most of the industrialized world. When Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are regular guests on CNN, then I might change my mind.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 41

Posts: 226/330
EXP: 468223
For next: 11926

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 5621 days
Last activity: 4688 days
#6 Posted on 13.9.03 1325.21
Reposted on: 13.9.10 1325.34
When did Liberal change to leftist? John F Kennedy used to be considered liberal. By your standards, he would be a right wing zealot today. It is just so laughable that people on the left go crazy over Fox News when conservatives have had to deal with CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC for years. The reason fox news is so terrible to you is that you're used to having the news swing in your favor, so it's twice as bad for you. It's like saying "until Fox News has Milton Friedman on regularly I won't believe they're conservative." Noam Chomsky is not a Liberal, he's a leftist. The difference used to be more distinct. The "fariness doctrine" is just a way of politicians passing laws to silence critics. By the way, what would happen to the New York Times if this was passed?
antizeus
Linguica
Level: 22

Posts: 63/73
EXP: 50148
For next: 8203

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 5819 days
Last activity: 5819 days
#7 Posted on 13.9.03 1339.43
Reposted on: 13.9.10 1339.49
I don't consider JFK to be either "liberal" or a "right wing zealot". I consider him pretty much indistinguishable from most recent presidents. He did, after all, launch Operation MONGOOSE (a large terrorist operation aimed at Cuba), and COINTELPRO activities really took off under his administation. There is a popular image of him as being The Great Liberal, which is reinforced by the mass media, but I'm not buying it.

Frankly, I don't see the point of your New York Times example. As far as I know, the New York Times is not broadcast over the airwaves.

P.S. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's pretty rude.

(ed: spelyng)

(edited by antizeus on 13.9.03 1141)
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 97

Posts: 180/2335
EXP: 9047635
For next: 269723

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 67 days
Last activity: 62 days
#8 Posted on 13.9.03 1352.56
Reposted on: 13.9.10 1353.35
    Originally posted by Michrome
    When did Liberal change to leftist? John F Kennedy used to be considered liberal. By your standards, he would be a right wing zealot today. It is just so laughable that people on the left go crazy over Fox News when conservatives have had to deal with CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC for years. The reason fox news is so terrible to you is that you're used to having the news swing in your favor, so it's twice as bad for you. It's like saying "until Fox News has Milton Friedman on regularly I won't believe they're conservative." Noam Chomsky is not a Liberal, he's a leftist. The difference used to be more distinct. The "fariness doctrine" is just a way of politicians passing laws to silence critics. By the way, what would happen to the New York Times if this was passed?


And Fox News is not conservative, it is reactionary. In fact, Fox News having Milton Freedman on might make them a little more credible. They have swung so far to the right, that most conservatives I know dismiss Fox News.

CNN, at best, may have some liberal leanings, but they (and the other networks, for that matter), are more middle road than anything else. Rarely do they go out on a limb with regards to editorials or stories that will really criticize any administration. They are by no means the other end of the spectrum compared to Fox News.

JFK was a liberal on social issues - and in the middle of the civil right's movement it would seem like an appropriate position to take. But you'd have a very hard tmie arguing that JFK's foreign policy was all that liberal.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 69

Posts: 655/1084
EXP: 2868894
For next: 864

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 4776 days
Last activity: 4773 days
#9 Posted on 13.9.03 1620.16
Reposted on: 13.9.10 1622.11
I hate when the conservatives try to argue about this.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 130

Posts: 2084/4700
EXP: 25526520
For next: 204126

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3058 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#10 Posted on 15.9.03 0607.28
Reposted on: 15.9.10 0607.29


WOW! I can put up a bunch of horseshit and dismiss all sorts of stuff...

(oy)

EDIT: Like the protesters in Cancun; why don't they show the whole picture from this massive protest:
(image removed)


(edited by Grimis on 15.9.03 0809)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 1404/2042
EXP: 7419347
For next: 49594

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 4822 days
Last activity: 1077 days
#11 Posted on 15.9.03 1042.44
Reposted on: 15.9.10 1043.38
    Originally posted by Michrome
    The elimination of the fairness doctrine lead to a huge diversification of ideas being shared on the radio, and frankly it reaks of politicians passing laws to silence their critics. In 1993 it was only Liberals doing it to try to silence Rush, but now conservatives are in on it too, which is very scary.
    ...
    Is Rush Limbaugh really so scary that we have to silence him and thrash the constitution?


Once more, with feeling: What are you talking about? What conservatives are taking action? To what, specifically, are you referring? What in particular is threatening Rush Limbaugh?

Please provide a link or something that describes this current and imminent threat to airwave freedom, so we can discuss it vaguely rationally.


ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 865/1498
EXP: 4660233
For next: 122756

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 523 days
Last activity: 511 days
#12 Posted on 15.9.03 1239.20
Reposted on: 15.9.10 1239.38
Here's a link:

http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20030606/NEWS/206060340/1003/NEWS01

From the article:

"Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, said he is drafting a bill that would include restoring the Fairness Doctrine, which would require TV and radio stations to provide discussion of conflicting views on some public issues. It would also cap radio ownership and bring the limit on TV households back to 35 percent."

This apparently (though it has been in the works for a while) led to a editorial last Friday in the Wall Street Journal with a warning that Republicans may unwittingly help such legislation pass, which in turn led to a big rant on the Rush Limbaugh program on the same day. And that in turn probably led to this thread.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 61

Posts: 171/810
EXP: 1808845
For next: 67762

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 1895 days
Last activity: 1398 days
#13 Posted on 15.9.03 1531.31
Reposted on: 15.9.10 1531.37
And, here's the WSJ editorial in its entirety:

The Stop Rush Campaign

709 words
12 September 2003
The Wall Street Journal
A10
English
(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Republicans love to complain that they don't get a fair shake from the elites running the nation's airwaves and newspapers. Which has us wondering why they're helping their political opponents muzzle the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Ever since the Federal Communications Commission's June decision to allow broadcast TV owners to own a few more stations, liberals have been channeling George Orwell -- claiming Big Brother broadcasters are a "threat to democracy" that will stifle "diversity of view." With the aid of many Republicans, they've already blocked the new rules in the House and may pass a resolution on Monday to do the same in the Senate.

We've addressed the substance of this issue several times, but the truth is that this crusade has little to do with the merits. Anyone who channel surfs or roams the Internet knows America isn't suffering from any lack of news sources. What's really driving the politicians is the desire for revenge against their media enemies.

On the left, this means returning to the days before deregulation opened the airwaves to the populist political right. Liberals know what has happened since the FCC abandoned the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. That rule required radio and TV stations to provide "balanced" news coverage. In practice, it discouraged stations from touching controversial subjects, so that in 1980 there were a mere 75 talk radio stations.

Today, thanks to the end of that doctrine, there are 1,300 talk radio stations. But to the horror of the political left, the hosts who have prospered on radio are the likes of Don Imus, Laura Schlessinger and Sean Hannity. The most popular of them all is Rush Limbaugh, no doubt because of his humor and optimism, with 20 million listeners a week.

Meanwhile, because cable and satellite aren't over-regulated the way broadcasters are, we've seen successes like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. The cable channel has blown past CNN in the ratings in just seven years, and its different take on the news drives liberals up the wall. So obsessed are they with Fox that Al Gore and friends are trying to finance their own liberal cable network.

The only reason these new media voices have succeeded is because people want to hear them. There's no public clamor for the top-down regulation Congress wants, beyond the crowd that donates during National Public Radio pledge week. Americans like their media choices and would rather not go back to the days when Walter Cronkite was their main, scintillating news source.

Liberals, on the other hand, are almost transparent in their aim to do precisely that. During July's House floor debate, Michigan Democrat John Dingell explained that once they roll back the FCC ownership expansion liberals can then move to reverse another recent FCC decision to allow companies to own TV stations and newspapers in the same market. They may then go to town on New York Representative Maurice Hinchey's proposal to revive the Fairness Doctrine and complicate life for both Fox and Rush.

What's amazing is how oblivious Republicans are to this stop-Rush game. So eager are Senators Trent Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison to paste a defeat on their local media enemies that they're willing to punish all media companies. For their part, House Republicans have fallen for the lobbying of local TV and newspapers that want Congressional protection from takeover bids; Members are too frightened by what kind of coverage they'll get next election to just say no.

At least the White House seems to understand the stakes, and President Bush has suggested he'll veto any bill that rolls back the FCC rules. But House Republicans are said to be about 40 votes short of the 146 or so needed to sustain a veto. If Republicans can't rally behind their President on something so clearly in their own interest, they deserve to suffer the bias of Dan Rather and Katie Couric.

And, hopeless as this point might be, they might also consider that standing up for free-market principles and deregulation is one reason they came to Washington in the first place.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 69

Posts: 656/1084
EXP: 2868894
For next: 864

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 4776 days
Last activity: 4773 days
#14 Posted on 15.9.03 1815.24
Reposted on: 15.9.10 1815.44



Then please do.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: If They're Anarchists, how can they be a "team"
Next thread: The only way to read a Bush speech
Previous thread: 9/11: Two years later
(1760 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - For the ACLUitesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2019 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.105 seconds.