So, the Chronicle is arguing against more speech? Rein it in??? Doublespeak. The air waves are regulated by the government, have been as long as I can remember.
Today's quiz: Can you name the country whose new leaders want the government to impose strict government controls on broadcast speech?
Nope. Not Venezuela. Not Cuba. Not even Putin's Russia.
It's the country formerly known as the United States of America.
Some Democrats, who now control Congress and are pining for the White House, want to bring back the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," in which the federal government monitors all broadcast speech in the name of "fairness" and decides if stations need to have more opposing viewpoints heard.
Shouldn't the free market decide that?
And has the free market ever done a better job of it?
The Fairness Doctrine was in force from 1949 until 1987, when it was deemed outdated due to the proliferation of consumer choices and, yes, different viewpoints.
The problem is, most of the viewpoints that have flourished since then have been conservative ones. With the explosion of talk radio, the Internet and cable news, conservative views have seen expression as never before -- certainly more so than when three liberal network news operations and the New York Times set the nation's news and analysis tempo.
So, some liberals want the government to step in and demand that successful conservative broadcasts are counterbalanced by an equal amount of liberal views -- because they can't achieve that balance competing on a level playing field.
Again, why not let listeners decide that? Isn't that what they do in a free country?
It is more than a little frightening that such figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi support the reimposition of government manipulation of the airwaves under the Fairness Doctrine. She admitted her support in a recent interview. And she refuses to allow a floor vote on a bill prohibiting the doctrine from coming back.
Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama has said he "doesn't support" the Fairness Doctrine. But that's different from opposing it. It's possible the tepid "doesn't support it" could change or simply yield under pressure from his Democratic colleagues. And, as columnist and Phoenix radio talk show host Austin Hill notes, Obama once was a huge proponent of spending limits under public financing of presidential campaigns -- until he found he could raise a lot of money and spend it with no limits.
Might he also change his position on the Fairness Doctrine?
Back in broadcasting's infancy, an argument could be made that the limited number of broadcast outlets required some government watchdogging. Now, however, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would be an attempt not to allow more speech, but to rein it in.
That should scare all of us, regardless of our political views.
Comments
So, the Chronicle is arguing against more speech? Rein it in??? Doublespeak. The air waves are regulated by the government, have been as long as I can remember.
The fairness doctrine isn't arguing against "more speech." It is arguing against forced speech. If the fairness doctrine covered printed words, it would REQUIRE the ac to print an opposing viewpoint to you, grouse....not just allow it, but REQUIRE it.
It seems to me the liberal democrats are the major ones that always want more free speech. But if they can't seem to get the majority of people to support their liberal agenda on talk radio, then they want to cry foul and squash it. They already control most of the TV, radio, and printed news outlets, plus most of the college professors and classes, but that isn't good enough for them, they want to dictate and control it all. "Fairness Doctrine", what a farce, they don't know what fair is, fair to them is for them control all speech and prevent the conservative viewpoint from being heard or seen .
I support the return of The Fairness Doctrine. It simply states that broadcasters must give equal time for opposing points of view. This was the state of affairs before repeal of The Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s which led to the rise of right-wing talk radio. Unless one is in favor of brainwashing, why are Americans subjected to only the radical-right's point of view over public-owned airwaves? There was more comity in public discourse when The Fairness Doctrine was in effect. Today there are no liberal or responsible main-stream broadcast outlets on radio or on TV (over the airwaves or on cable). One only has to tune in to CNN's Glenn Beck & listen/watch him propose that his "solution" on how the U.S. should treat detainees at Guantanamo is to "shoot them all in the head" without charges & without trials. Most people get their news from TV & radio. A balanced electronic media is protection against this nation becoming a fascist state. I & others fear it is already too late as the military-industrial-governmental-media complex now drives the agenda of this country rather than fully & accurately informed citizens. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin & other far right extremists cannot handle accurate & informed rebuttal to their fascist propaganda.
The left wing liberals already tried to have their own talk shows, but they couldn't garner enough support from "their own" to make a go of it. I'm surprised they didn't use tax dollars to keep it going. So they want to suppress Limbaugh, Boortz and the others, simply because they can't get their own liberal left wing thinkers to support a liberal show of their own.
Cain, what an uninformed and slanted comment. Have you never heard of the three broadcast networks? NBC, ABC, and CBS all have exclusively far left news programs where conservative ideas are never mentioned. (I won't bother to list all of the reporters) On cable, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and the comedy channel "news reports", that most young Democrats listen too, are all liberal pov shows that never have a conservative point of view (except for the token Glen Beck...the most watched show on CNN) And talk about extremists, have you ever heard of NPR or PBS? Karl Marx would be VERY proud if he ever got to listen to that fine network. Your insanity stops you from seeing that the only reason FOX and talk radio control half of the news shows, is because ALL of the rest of the news programs are EXACTLY the same....far left extremism.
Excellent post, PT, wish I could have said it that well.
It seems alot of Americans are unaware of the expiration or lack of enforcement of this. There are still people who believe that the radio and tv stations will have to present both candidates if they are of opposite viewpoints in accordance with this doctrine. Honestly, I don't think this is purely a political ideal, this is more of a lobbyist issue. Any Liberal/Conservative pundit that stands to lose money by showing both points of view would obviously be against this fairness doctrine.
Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats. A damn broken record.
A missing piece here is that the air waves, the elctronic spectrum over which broadcast TV and radio is transmitted, belongs to the public and is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The broadcasers have a license to use a given portion of the spectrum. REgarding the people deciding what is on the broadcast, seems to me it is really the sponsors who decide. They pay for what sells, especially if it suits their interests.
Originally it was intended to increase free speech and many SCOTUSs ruled in favor, however a concern was that if it limited free speech then it would have to be addressed. The last SCOTUS (1984) was against it because it was reducing free speech. Editorials in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have noted this a Dem ploy because of the huge success of conservative talk radio. Actually the personal attack rule and equal time for political editorial rule of the doctrine have remained till 2000 when they were repealed. My bet if Congress passes it with the Dem intent the SCOTUS will find it unconstitional for hindering free speech given the broad menu of electronic communications available now. Personally the attack and equal editorial rule seem like a good idea, but the Dem intent is much more insidious. The Dem are no different than the Rep in wanting to restrict our freedoms so they can control.
Right on firefighter. It's not the quality of free speech, it's the QUANTITY! Conservative bullies are responsible for global warming. The quantity of hot gas they spew over the air waves has nearly melted the arctic. It's every polar bear for himself.
"Conservative bullies are responsible for global warming." What a fallacious statement, well maybe they put out more hot air, but no greenhouse gases -that is all Dem flatulence. hee,hee,hee. So together they both increase global warming.
NBC is buying the Weather channel. That should even things up.
It would be interesting to see Fox, CNN, ABC, etc uphold the Fairness doctrine. I think the idea would backfire from the Dem intent because a NPOV would have to take place with a real debate. I don't think most ultraconservatives or ultraliberals could win a debate to be honest because they are so rabid they have lost perspective. Maybe that would be a good thing to see moderation. Then both Rep and Dem would lose all their base and power. hee,hee,hee.
So, the liberals control the media and slant the news, yet liberal broadcasting is rejected by audience, according to the noters. How can it be both? So much hypocrisy!
would it just be for radio & tv? What about these "rag magazines"- would it affect them as well?
Exactly, Biz.
I can see the point Republicant. I just don't trust the Dem (or Rep) that their intent is open debate but just a venue for more rhetoric and propaganda. Both parties have become propaganda machines with the sole intent of building the party at any cost.
grouse, have you seen the ratings? They are rejected by the majority. That is why a law is needed to prop them up. NY Times can't let people go fast enough.
We are moving closer to a Communistic form of government here in the States. The Socialists are in control of DC and we should expect no less.
NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the people's communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
cain...nobody on this planet gives a damn what you think,nobody.
as far as no outlets for your left wing country destoying philosphies, there are hundreds of them, but they are small and obscure, and there's reasons for that.
as far as the detainees , they should have been shot in the head a long time ago, and the bill for feeding them presented to the united nations for payment.better still, we should take over the oil fields of iraq and deduct the payment, i mean, we are at war.....
The fairness doctrine only applies to talk radio. It's not like the stations won't give the Dem's the opportunity, the Dems don't need talk radio when they have t.v. There is no radio audience for Liberals.
no one's forced to listen,,, which reminds me - why do i still have comcast's 70 (?) channels when we only watch 4 or 5 regularly ??? looks as if listeners decided air america wasn't their choice,,, cain probably doesn't listen to rhodes much, either,,, free speech is under attack based on the ussc's decision on campaign spending, etc.,,, otoh, explain public $$$ for pbs ?
The Fairness Doctrine would likely limit Cain's ilk and eventually they would fall into the shadows along with the ultraconservatives and their need for reduced threats and uncertainties in life. Maybe a big dose of this doctrine would bring moderation back into vogue and hopefully kill both poltiical parties as they presently stand. If the Dem can bring forth a bill that is actually "fair" I would support it. The last time the Dem brought forth a bill it was from Maurice Hinchey an ultraliberal.
Ok- the gov't paid an indepedant corp to review the "safety" of our air traffic- took a couple of years and they made a huge report. Does anybody realize the the gov't said publicly that they would not release the report to the public, because it would frighten us? Yup- thats right- we paid for a report that we do not have access to because the gov't thought it would be too much for us to handle. This kind of stuff has been going on forever.
Gottabquiet they should have had a Congressional investigation like the 9/11 report so they could manufacture a report that both parties could live with and they could feed to us. hee,hee.
Cain, there is a reason why Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin & other far right extremists are in business, They are supported by the listeners. I guess that idea scares you ehh?
Doesn't Alan Colmes have a radio show? I know he used to cause just like the conservative ones I've listened to (including Austin Rhodes) they always hang up or cut off people with opposing view points. They are all quite comical to listen to.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
