Pull My Finger

Here is what I understand the FD to be:

It is required that both sides of an issue be covered fairly and equally.

The Personal Attack Rule (abolished in 2000): It used to be that if you were going to personally attack someone on air, you had to notify the person, give them a transcript of what was said, and give them a fair chance to respond to the attack.

The Political Editorial Rule (also abolished in 2000): It used to be that opposing political figures be given equal opportunity to 'sell' themselves.

Simplistically:

Those in opposition of the renewal of the FD claim it will curb free speech, constrict the internet, and is unconstitutional.

Those for the FD largely claim the FD will curb the bias in our media, won’t constrict free speech, and constitutional issues can be dealt with on a case by case…

It’s a public poll. For or against the FD?

Peace

__________________
My eyes are always open, habitat gropin'...

Zyphlin

Against.

First, its not "The Media" the fairness doctrine only applies to radio. So right off the bat its a piece of legislature aimed specifically at one type of media that is largely slanted to one side because the market place has spoken in that regards. It does nothing about fairness on TV, Magazines, or News Papers

Second, it places further government restritions on business. To my understanding the Fairness Doctrine generally stated you had to devote some of your airtime to both sides of issues. It forces radio station owners to have to make choices for their business based on government mandates instead of the market. Instead of putting the shows on their airwaves that generate the best ratings and the best advertisements, if they do something political they must put something of the opposite political side on even if it gets much lower ratings and provides far fewer advertisers than another show. This is bad for business and government sticking its nose in a place it doesn't need to.

By doing this, it actually encourages stations to not do ANY political talk more than being "fair". Why you ask? Because now the choice is between

1) Putting something on political that gets good ratings and brings forth good advertisers, while then having to put on something else political that gets horrible ratings and horrible advertiser numbers.

OR

2) Changing formats to something that's not political so that you can put on shows that get good or decent ratings at all times. This also makes you have to worry less about government watch dogs constantly monitoring you to make sure you're adhering to the policy "fairly"

Three, it seems to not account for many shows now that are not political in nature but do diverge into politics at times. Listen to "The Herd" or the old "Stephen A. Smith Show" on ESPN Radio and you'll hear politics being brought up at least once a week generally...so will the ESPN radio affiliates then need to find a way to have a short spot where an opposing view goes in? Here in DC there is a talk station, 106.7 WJFK. It has a syndicated show, "The Mike O'Mera" show whose host, and espicially the news caster, are noticably liberal. While the show is not political in nature, they do verge off into politics at least once a week usually if not more and almost always liberally bent. How do you account for these instances? Will there be more government beaurcracy that does all the monitoring, or do we relly only on watch dog groups of which there are far more trying to watch for "conservative bias" than liberal?

__________________
Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose...

Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

CoffeeMan

I don't think anything more needs to be said. Zyphlin pretty much summed it up perfectly.

obvious Child

A good reason for the doctrine would be if you gave away broadcasting rights for free.

As that ain't the case, buyers should be free to broadcast as they like within reason.

__________________
"Typically, liquidity is called, "profit" - Apdst

meeps

Against

Direct violation of right to free speech. You can call me fat, but I can call you fatty fat fat back...when I'm good and ready to - don't needs clowns in Washington to help me out there.

Slander, libel...use the courts

John1234

Personally For it but would have to vote Against.

I am for it because it sounds fair and like a good way to promote free speech, not thwart it.
It would allow both sides to have the "free speech" instead of only 1.

Once i continued reading and realized it only applies to radio, that made me extremely FOR IT on a personal level.
There is a lot of sickness coming from the radio.
A lot of what is wrong with our nation comes from a constant barrage on the air waves from the fanatical Right.
It is 100% why things are able to occur such as re-electing Bush.
Things that should never be remotely possible, become possible due to a massive barrage of lies, distortions, and sillyness out of right wing radio.

HOWEVER, because i am for Free Speech, and because this does appear to target only the Right... I would have no choice but to place an actual vote of AGAINST. (Even though i do find the prospect of it very exciting personally)

We will have to heal our Nation some other way.

buttonpsi

That Sh!t is communist!

The silenced majority

Why should equal time be given to unequal views?


The left tried talk radio and failed miserably.


The Fairness Doctrine is designed to make it impossible for stations to broadcast political talk & remain compliant with the FD guidelines.

See?

When you can't compete in the free-market of ideas, you get the government to shut down your opposition.

American

That's how you know that the Democrats are a bunch of socialists. That's how socialists get everything they want. And this is how the black representatives will behave when they finally get some authority? Obama in the White House and Conyers in Congress. Try to put the white president in jail? Then try to shut up the only white man that ever spoke his mind against the media elite and prospered (Limbaugh)? Yeah, America will be giving African-Americans no more trust from then on, I'll tell you that. That's how they'll see it my friends. Obama better think about the example he sets if he gets the job.

__________________
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

chevydriver1123

Its against freedom of speech end of story.

__________________
Blog: http://libertarianblue.blogspot.com/
Death to Socialist Liberals and Authoritarian Conservatives