The Return of the Fairness Doctrine?

Slithe writes "Last week at the National Conference for Media Reform, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich (a long-shot candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination) stated that the Fairness Doctrine may be reinstated. Kucinich will be heading up a new House subcommittee that will focus on issues around the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation that required broadcast media to present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner. The FCC repealed it in 1987 — Democrats at the time tried to forestall this move but were ultimately thwarted by a veto by President Ronald Reagan. Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have stated that it was only used to intimidate and silence political opposition. At the convention, Kucinich said, 'We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda. We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.'" In the interest of fairness, here is a Republican, free-market perspective on the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Comments

flamewar comin'

[udderly]

I was going to sit out this flamewar, but I just have to get involved.

Despite quite a bit of disagreement with him, I have a fair amount of respect for Kucinich, if for no other reason than he at least *seems* to be consistent in what he says and does. And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?

<sarcasm>Surely politicians are bought and sold by corporate interests. Surely we can trust committees of appointees to handle things in a "present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner."</sarcasm>

It seems like everyone in the political scene thinks that there is a media bias one way or another, and, for all I know, there probably is but I don't see it being made better by putting the politicians in charge of it.

Re:flamewar comin'

[OECD]

And like him, I am worried that the media is now in the hands of so few people, but who would police this "fairness?

Who will watch the watchers of what the watchers watch?

Re:flamewar comin'

[Total_Wimp]

Even worse, forcing "fairness" often gives misguided, scientifically wrong viewpoints the size and weight of thoughtful, well researched viewpoints. It is, in fact, the exact kind of argument that intelligent design proponents and global warming skeptics have recently been using. They say there must be a "balanced" view presented on "controversial" issues, thus we need to give their quackery equal footing with science.

Although it's often harder to tell which the bad side is, purely political viewpoints can be just as factual on one side and bunk on the other. Yet with "fairness," the bunk will be elevated to the same level as the sound. For example, politics is full of economic viewpoints that are either factually incorrect, or basically just guesses. As soon as someone has one of these brilliant thoughts, now we have to give him equal billing to spread his nonsense?

I hate Fox news. I've rarely seen such a wretched hive of scum and villainy outside of the Rush Limbaugh show. They elevate bad ideas and squash clear thinking on a regular basis. Politics takes the place of science and dogma takes the place of thought. Yet I'd rather have them, and Brother Rush, even expand their broadcasts than to force thoughtful networks with good fact-checking to distribute ill-conceived, factually incorrect bullshit out of "fairness."

TW

Re:flamewar comin'

[Intron]

No. Rush is a wingnut, but I will defend to the death his right to be a wingnut. We have a First Amendment for a reason, and the reason is to prevent the FCC from implementing the "Fairness Doctrine" or any other limit on free speech, including equal time, government oversight, or making him wear a yellow star.

If they want to prevent the takeover of the media by single points of view, why don't they enforce tighter limits on station ownership?

Re:flamewar comin'

[jadavis]

Let O'reilly spew his insane nonsense, just as long as there is a warning that he is a right wing nut job.

The problem is with self-labeling. How is someone supposed to objectively rate themselves on such a simple one-dimensional spectrum?

In the current system, people rate other people. Anyone who cares enough to find out can see the issues through the eyes of quite a few different people. On /., for instance, I see a lot of viewpoints (although not all viewpoints are moderated equally).

If you watch a TV program, the only thing you need to know is that you're only seeing one viewpoint. If that's your only source of information, you are missing a lot of perspectives. Sometimes an entire channel shares common perspectives (Fox News), and sometimes many channels present only one perspective on an issue (the "MSM" is largely fed by the NYT). That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it means that if you get into an argument with someone, you'll probably lose, because you probably haven't considered their viewpoint.

There's no such thing as a balanced perspective. There are many perspectives, and the more you see the more you're immune from political trickery and double-talk.

Re:flamewar comin'

[Viper Daimao]

The meeting was heavily funded by George Soros and had quite an array of the "Who's Who" of the extreme left:

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush's repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the "right-wing oriented media" were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of American Media Caucus" in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the "corporate media."

Got that? He wants the Governtment "to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.". Remember, this is the same govt that will at any given time be led by the political party you are against. Do you want republicans to have this power to alter radio and tv science content? Do you want democrats to have this power to alter radio and tv economic content?

Re:flamewar comin'

[jadavis]

Yet I'd rather have them, and Brother Rush, even expand their broadcasts than to force thoughtful networks with good fact-checking to distribute ill-conceived, factually incorrect bullshit out of "fairness."

Agreed! However, I'd like to add two points:

(1) Having two perspectives, neither of which is restricted by government, is valuable. I have changed my mind before based on hearing ideas from sources I wouldn't expect to agree with about anything.

(2) I think you could probably do without juxtaposing "I hate Fox News" with "good fact-checking". The fact is, one of the largest media scandals in modern history was perpetrated by Dan Rather, when he presented obviously forged documents so close to a major presidential election. He may not have meant to, but nothing about that says "good fact checking". And that's why I'm glad to have so many sources for news.

Re:flamewar comin'

[corbettw]

I'm not sure if you're jesting or not, but what about Mormons and Muslims? I'm no fan of the moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers, but Mormons are pretty decent people. And both religions allow for multiple wives in a marriage. How do you outlaw that without trampling all over freedom of religion? What's more, certain sects of Mormons actually believe that a man HAS to have at least three wives in order to become a god. So their very salvation is at stake, in their minds, yet the government feels it's ok to prevent them from doing so.

I say, let consenting adults do what they want with each other, and keep the government out of our bedrooms and churches.

Re:flamewar comin'

[blugu64]

I could be wrong but I had a friend in college who was a member of the LDS, and he told me that they did away with poligimy almost a hundred years ago or something.

Also "moon-god-worshipping suicide bombers" might not be the best way of getting your point across, but I digress.

Re:flamewar comin'

[h2_plus_O]

He wants the Governtment "to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.". Remember, this is the same govt that will at any given time be led by the political party you are against. Do you want republicans to have this power to alter radio and tv science content? Do you want democrats to have this power to alter radio and tv economic content?

Dear merciful God, no.
Very good insight, and a strong argument against expanding the role, scope, and power of government in this way- because to do so will simply incentivize the abuse of that power without providing a check against it.

The proposal to make the government into the 'fairness police' just moves the power to say what's fair away from the media (which is somewhat distributed) to a more central location- government- where it may be abused by even fewer people. Given that one of the major services the press provides us (in theory, anyways) is to report stuff the current government doesn't particularly want to hear, it strikes me as a VERY bad idea to make the government the arbiter of fair press.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- George Orwell

Re:flamewar comin'

[Wandering Wombat]

On the other hand, it's not like they're not messing with the content NOW. When was the last time you saw a fair, balanced, objective discussion about abortion or gay marriage on television (outside of The Comedy Network, of course).

It's sort of sad that we need a government decree to get people to talk about things in a fair, balanced manner, but unfortunately, people are only humans, and humans, as a group, simply cannot be trusted.

Re:flamewar comin'

[gad_zuki!]

>We have a First Amendment for a reason

The supreme court disagrees with you. the fairness doctrine has been ruled not to violate the 1st amendment.

Re:flamewar comin'

[JavaLord]

I say, let consenting adults do what they want with each other, and keep the government out of our bedrooms and churches.

The fed shouldn't even be allowed to decide these types of issues. They should be left up to the states so that people can govern themselves. It's a lot easier to be heard at a state level, or even local. If gays in California want to marry, they should be able to, and if the mormons in Utah or the moon worshipping throat slashers in Michigan want to marry multple wives then let them if they have enough votes to get it done.

Hell if New York, California, or whatever state wants to set up universal health care, they should be able to.

Having a huge federal government telling you what to do is exactly what our founding fathers didn't want, and it leads to a lack of freedom.

Re:flamewar comin'

[Total_Wimp]

Science is not a belief. Science is a method for determining how things work. It is firmly based in the idea that any belief can be wrong. Religion is belief. Religious belief often refuses to accept the possibility that it could be wrong.

Science doesn't fight religion, religion fights science. When scientists discover something that disagrees with a religion's belief, religion often chooses to simply say science is wrong, without looking fairly at the evidence. If it does look at the evidence, it often tries to argue based on faith and belief, rather than science.

Science, on the other hand, often looks at religion. It does this completely objectively most of the time. But science doesn't use belief or faith it it's work. It uses evidence. If it doesn't find evidence that supports religion, it says so.

You won't get science to use religion's rules. Science will not use faith or belief. If religion can't used science, then we're at an impass. If religion would like to use science, science will very happily welcome it.

BTW, ID doesn't really use science, even though it says it does. This is not a judgment of right or wrong, just an evaluation of their methodology. That's why science disapproves of ID. If ID actually used science to come to its conclusions, scientists would be very happy to look at the evidence.

TW

Re:flamewar comin'

[Megahurts]

> It's sort of sad that we need a government decree to get
> people to talk about things in a fair, balanced manner,
> but unfortunately, people are only humans, and humans,
> as a group, simply cannot be trusted.

Well I'll just go ahead and play devil's advocate for a moment: Did it not occur to you that government consists of humans, in a group? For instance, the quotefrom Kucinich in TFA, "We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," tells you exactly what his intention is: He wants to forcefully spread his own agenda, regardless of the fact that it has failed in both the marketplace and the polls. His allegation of a narrow corporate agenda is patently absurd. If you compare the reports aired on Fox News with those on CBS, for instance, you'll find that either 'the agenda' is not narrow or if either station shows a narrow point of view, there is not one singular agenda at play. His solution is to replace this false perception with conditions in which a single entity would have final say over what could be aired, with the narrowing condition of furthering his progressive/socialist agenda.

Re:flamewar comin'

[Evilest Doer]

This is an assault on the 1st Amendment.

The difference here, oh Rush worshipping fool, is that the radio spectrum is limited. This necessitates the FCC, which distributes licenses for particular bands of the radio spectrum. A more appropriate analogy would be like a public square. You don't give only one set of people access to the public square while denying access to other sets of people. Noone is preventing any of your favorite AM radio loons from writing books or podcasting to their hearts' content. The question is how to fairly distribute what is (or at least was before Reagan) a public commodity. By letting all the right wing nuts (funded by media giants like Clear Channel) buy up all the spectrum, there is nothing left for anyone else to use.

Re:flamewar comin'

[Evilest Doer]

They are balanced, it's just the rest of the media leans so far to the left they don't recognize something that's actually balanced.

Sorry, but "left" in the parlance of the rest of the world usually means "Socialist" or something similar. American media only has "far right" (pseudo- or neo-Nazi like Fox News) "leans to the right" (like CNN or people like the Clintons) or "moderate" (people like Kucinich). This "left" you speak of doesn't noticeably exist in the USA. But, to people like you, leftists are people who say things like "Gee, maybe we shouldn't go around blowing shit up and killing people simply because they have a government that disagrees with us" (think, for example, the attempted assassination of Chavez and Bush's recent decision to start arming right-leaning paramilitary groups in South America again). The rest of the world would consider this merely to be somewhat sane, whereas you apparently consider it to be the ravings of a leftists loony.

Have fun in your little dream world. Don't come crawling to the rest of us when reality hits you in the ass.

Re:flamewar comin'

[Viper Daimao]

By taking freedom away from other people.

Re:flamewar comin'

[tbannist]

Ironically, to promote freedom you always have to restrict it.

That's why I'm not free to kill you for disagreeing with me.

Re:flamewar comin'

[Viper Daimao]

Your choice is irrelevant as people's speech or ability to speak, in no way oppresses me.
The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is "a view" and "an opposing view". That's silly. Let's take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:

1. "It's real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us."
2. "It's real and it's bad, and we're causing it, but there isn't much we can do about it."
3. "It's probably real, and it's probably our fault, so let's do the best we can to mitigate it."
4. "It's real and it's bad, but it's a natural phenomenon and people don't have much to do with it."
5. "It's not real. It's a best a minor fluctuation in climate."
6. "It's real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it."

(Please no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list. Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the Fairness Doctrine.)

If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.

Let's say the topic is Federal Program X. The five possible generic views would be:

• Spend a whole lot more on it
• Spend somewhat more on it
• Spend the same amount on it
• Spend somewhat less on it
• Spend nothing on it - abolish the program

If there's a controversy over the federal program, which views are going to get presented under the Fairness Doctrine? Well, ultimately, that's up to a government bureaucrat. Does anyone really think the "abolish the program" option is going to be one of the two preferred views? A government bureaucrat, or his proxy in the media, is naturally predisposed to believe in government effectiveness, so the bottom two views will usually be the ones that are completely ignored.

In the typical case of a social program, it boils down to a Democrat arguing that we should be spending somewhat more, and a Republican arguing that we should be spending the same. The roles might be reversed, if it's something related to defense or corporate subsidies; though in that case, the "spend less" option would probably get more credibility, and the "spend a whole lot more" option would be considered fringe.

We don't even debate the "abolish the program" option much now. Under the Fairness Doctrine, it disappears completely. And the growth of government goes unquestioned. And that leads to what I consider the really pernicious effect of the Fairness Doctrine. By restricting the range of views down to the mushy middle, the debate becomes utterly boring. No one wants to hear two drones, one of which wants to spend a little more, with the other defending the status quo.

Of course, if the common citizen tunes the debate out because it's boring, that leaves the field to the activists. Most of them are on the left, so the left is just fine with boring policies debates. They don't want dittoheads emailing Congress because Rush got them pumped up about something.

I think a lot of support for the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately based on a contempt for the opinions of the common citizen. You can see it in the blather about "corporate influence". The presumption is that common folks can simply be manipulated into any opinion their corporate masters desire.

I notice that they don't seem to have any issues with how much money George Soros spends on politics. And that's explicitly political spending. Talk radio is a money-making enterprise, and is not an explicit subsidy for a political viewpoint. Yet, because talk radio engages a swath of the common citizens in ways the left cannot, even with Soros' help, the left is ready to throttle it. After all, those ignorant dittoheads don't really deserve a place in the debate, do they? They're just being manipulated into their opinions by corporate influence anyway.

"Liberal media"

[rdwald]

You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.

Re:"Liberal media"

[kilgortrout]

Back in the day, I believe they did just that. IIRC when the fairness doctrine first came out, the networks were scrambling trying to find some conservative spokesmen in order to satisfy the rule. I specifically remember one hilarious episode of All In The Family that had this as a plot premise where Archie was tabbed as a conservative spokesman by a local TV station. On his first show, Archie came out with his plan to end airline hijackings. Archie wanted to give every passenger a hand gun when they entered the plane because then any potential hijacker "would be insane to try anything".

Re:"Liberal media"

[Archangel Michael]

The problem isn't fairness, but who decides what is fair. The likes of most major news outlets think themselves fair, but are not. Who gets to decide what is, and what isn't fair.

When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????

Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.

I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.

So, who actually benifits from this "Fairness Doctrine", why the only people Truly interested in censorship, who gets to decide what is, and isn't fair? Don't agree? Too bad because you don't get a say.

And how does one actually deal with the "new media", the internet and blogging? Does LGF have to hire a leftwing blogger in order to be "fair"?? How about MoveON.org? Do they have to hire right wing wackos?

The only reason why people are looking for a "fairness doctrine" is because they cannot compete in the world of ideas (AirAmerica???); nobody really wants to listen to Al Franken.

I always found it very interesting that it is the liberal, left wing people were the ones needing "fairness doctrine" to get their ideas out. I wonder though if the would allow a third viewpoint (Libertarianism), or if they would rather just keep it Al Franken vs Rush Bimbo.

Re:"Liberal media"

[TheFlyingGoat]

As a Republican, I'm far more interested in keeping government as small as possible than requiring the FCC to try determining what is a balanced news report. People with a decent level of intelligence will realize that most media outlets aren't giving balanced news reports and should be smart enough to get their news from a variety of sources. That's for individuals to do themselves, though, not something that should be regulated by the government.

Here's a little exercise for you: some Republicans fret over the media's use of "insurgents" for the bombers in Iraq. They want the media to call them terrorists, which IMHO is slightly more accurate, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. So, should the FCC step in and require news outlets to call them terrorists? Should they require Fox to call them insurgents too? Who decides if something is balanced? Where do you draw the line.

Besides, with everyone complaining about the FCC being overly cautious after the Janet Jackson nipple incident, you'd think that everyone would realize that we don't want/need the FCC to try deciding things like this.

Re:"Liberal media"

[TopSpin]

You'd think with their constant complaints about the liberal media, Republicans would be all in favor of a law requiring CNN et all to present their side fairly.

Bzzt, wrong. Nice uninformed try, however.

Repeal of the "fairness" doctrine basically made conservative talk radio. Limbaugh has been pointing this out for years. Prior to the repeal, AM was good for commodity price reports (cattle, wheat, etc.,) NPR and not much else. After, hundreds of radio shows ranging from psycho wackjob militia types to mainstream conservatives (yes, there are differences) appeared across the US.

Clinton et al tried the same thing in the early 90's. The Right labeled it the 'Hush Rush' bill. It died on the vine after the '94 sweep of Congress. They're back I guess, and for the same reason.

Legislating "fairness" in political discourse is bad. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, mkay? It's just wrong. If DeLay had tried to pull this you'd be apoplectic with hysteria about fascism. It isn't OK because it's coming from some left wing incumbent like Kucinich.

Re:"Liberal media"

[phantomlord]

You assume that the democrats were elected on their ideas... instead, they were elected because they were the biggest name that weren't republicans. 2006 was more of a revolt against corruption than it was buying into ideas. Since taking office, the dems are already starting to try to ram legislation through without input from the republicans (despite complaining about the republicans doing just that while they were in power), the CBC gave a standing ovation to a Congressman who was pretty obviously taking bribes just a year ago, Pelosi wanted to seat a democrat instead of the republican who won the district in Florida, etc. The next two years, the dems have to do something since they have control - they can't just sit back and complain that everything the republicans do is wrong. Thing is, they weren't elected because of their agenda, so the harder to the left they push, combined with the maturation of their own scandals over the next two years, the harder 2008 is going to be for them to keep control.

Factor in a super-polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton in 2008 and you will see the republican base come out in droves. About the only thing that has a chance to keep the republicans out of power is if the republican nominee is a socially liberal candidate. Even then, a ton of democrats would rather vote for a Rudy Guilliani type over Hillary.

Re:"Liberal media"

[theStorminMormon]

This:

Funny thing, that. In the 2006 elections not a single Republican congressman won against a Democrat.

Has nothing to do with this:

Yet we're led to believe that there's "no market" for radio with a liberal viewpoint.

Have you never heard of the Blue Dog Democrats? The Democrats gained a lot of traction in this election:
a - by moving way to the right in a lot of districts
b - by profiting from the usual 6-year itch.

Give me a break, if this election had anything to do with liberalism then Lieberman would not have trounced his democratic (and liberal) opponent. That was the real message of the election. Blue dogs win. Left-wingers try to take over by bouncing moderates out at the primary level, then get utterly slaughtered at the general polls. Yet some how, left-wingers think that they speak for the democratic party. Like most left-wing democrats you're cheerfully oblivious to the facts. The left-wing of the democratic party only helps win elections when it goes away. I wish you nuts would stop running your raving left-wing lunatics in serious elections, it makes it easy for the GOP to get Bush elected. Twice. As far as I'm considered, that's your fault for not giving serious opposition. The dems did way better than in 2006 by not by running liberals. If the dems take '06 as a license to move farther left you might as well not show up in '08.

Also: You're not "led to believe" anything. No one listens to Air America. And it's no wonder why - I tried several times and it was awful. There's no talent there. And what are the #1, #2 and #3 radio shows in America? Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Conservatives one and all (although Beck is more libertarian than republican). If you call stating the obvious "being led to believe" something, then yes, the country is being led to believe no one really likes far-left liberals. (Not that they love right-wingers either.)

Wake up. Extremists are extreme because most people think they are nuts. That's what it means, by definition to be at the edge of either wing of politics.

-stormin

Re:"Liberal media"

[sfjoe]

I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.

Let me help you out:

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Re:"Liberal media"

[Archangel Michael]

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."

You mean like falsifying federal documents (Dan Rather/CBS)?? You mean like making up stories about homeless people and reporting them as fact??? You mean like blowing up a truck to show how "unsafe" it was?

Or how about paddling a canoe on a street to report on a flood, only to be shown that it was only 4" deep.

The fact is, EVERYONE does it, so news isn't trust worthy, especially if you get it from the same source all the time. Fox is no better, no worse than everyone else. That is my point.

Re:"Liberal media"

[CrimsonAvenger]

Clinton shut down the government TWICE to make the republican congress come back with smaller budgets than they were trying to pass.

Umm, no. Clinton shut the government down TWICE to make the republican congress come back with BIGGER budgets. Or don't you remember the "the evil republicans are gutting the school lunch program!!!" (note: they weren't, they were increasing it both on a total basis and on a per-student basis - both relative to inflation - they were merely not growing it as fast as it had been crown earlier)?

Later on, of course, Clinton and the Republicans were capable of compromise, and we got a short-lived (almost) surplus.

Re:"Liberal media"

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.

Surely you jest.

Mainstream media outlets owned by publicly traded corporations are the "right wing" media outlets. As for journalists themselves, they are mostly centrist, with a right-wing bias on economic issues.

(It is true that, like most educated and cosmopolitan people, journalists tend to be more liberal on social issues. Yes, I'm saying that conservative social positions correlate with provincialism and ignorance.)

It is the control of media by right-wing corporations (a large publicly traded profit-seeking corporation is, by definition, a right-wing entity, favoring capital over labor) that shuts off alternative viewpoints, and makes people wonder if a "fairness doctrine" might be the answer.

While the problem is real, the proposed solution sucks; a better idea is to restrict corporate ownership of media, preventing concentration of the control of information.

Re:"Liberal media"

[dangitman]

America is capitalistic so the socialism tends to camouflage itself as "Think of the Children" and "Save our Seniors from Destitution (after they partied their savings away)."

Eh? What do those sentiments have to do with socialism?

We had a massive experiment with socialism starting with lyndon johnson and it failed horribly. it probably destroyed an entire generation of the poor.

You're joking aren't you? Lyndon Johnson was a socialist? In what way? That you would even consider his policies to be socialist just demonstrates how skewed your perception is, and how right-wing America is. I mean, really. Socialist??? For what reason?

Re:"Liberal media"

[dangitman]

A minor short term safety net is not socialism. What we had was.

No, it wasn't. Did the government take over private industry to enrich the state?

"Think of the children" is an endless wedge they use to expand government at every opportunity.

An expanded government is not socialism. You can expand the power of any type of government, be it capitalist, fascist or libertarian, without it becoming socialist.

I do not like the government taking all my money and giving it to others without my consent.

When did the government take ALL your money? And since when were taxes an inherently socialist thing? Capitalist governments have been taking taxes for a very long time. Seems you just don't like government power and taxes - but I don't know why you call that socialism, when those things are common to all types of government.

It's a version of socialism. Not pure socialism where they take the means of production but close enough.

No, it's not "close enough" by any means.

Welfare is only safe for very short periods. Any kind of long term welfare destroys its recipients.

Do you have any evidence of that? It's certainly not the experience of most countries in the world. America has a huge problem with poverty, quite stunning compared to other modern wealthy countries. Meanwhile, the countries with good welfare systems have much fewer problems with crime and health and other problems relating to poverty. The poor are more equal members of society than they are in America. Contrast this with almost every country without any welfare or safety net, and there are shocking problems.

If you want to help people- DO IT. Don't TAKE MY MONEY or TIME to do it with.

So, I guess the government shouldn't take any of your money to build roads, or fund the army, or help corporations? By the way, the government issues the money, it's not really yours, it's the property of the US Mint. Without any government, you wouldn't have currency in the first place.

But the biggest thing is that it probably costs you more NOT to have that money help people - your standard of living is lower if there are lots of people suffering. And if society falls apart into chaos, then your money isn't going to help you much. It also isn't going to help much if you get robbed or killed.

MY CHOICE. MY MONEY. MY TIME.

So, I guess you shouldn't take advantage of any of the services the government provides, like roads, police, parks and fire departments. After all, those things were created from money taken without people's consent. It's all socialism.

But once again, you have confirmed that you're a pretty hardcore right-winger, so it's no surprise you see any more moderate position as socialism or "left wing." Perhaps you shouldn't live in a democratic society, and more to somewhere without much of a government, where everything is based on who has the most money or guns.

Unintended Consequences

[Kelson]

Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner.

Now every story on global warming will need to be 1/3 saying it's happening and humans are at least partly responsible, 1/3 saying it's happening and it's 100% natural, and 1/3 saying it's not happening at all, and things like arctic melting are just a hoax manufactured for leftist propaganda.

Meanwhile, any show on PBS or the Discovery Channel that deals with evolution in any way shape or form will have to cover not just the scientific consensus that natural selection has been at work for millions of years, but also Intelligent Design and young-Earth creationism. Similarly, anything about geology will have to include both the old-earth consensus and the idea that, for instance, the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood.

Let's see if we can find Velikovsky and von Daniken a place while we're at it.

And let's not get started with making sure the Viet Cong's point of view is presented with equal weight to both the hawk and dove sides of the American point of view....

Re:Unintended Consequences

[Kelson]

D'oh! First rule of ranting: check your sources. I wrote that based on the "equal and balanced" quote in the summary, then pasted in a quote from the actual article which said something slightly different.

"Honest" helps in both cases -- but "fair" requires an arbiter, and we already know what this government considers to be "fair."

Re:Unintended Consequences

[dlockamy]

Have you not watched tv lately?
Getting 1/3 of the discussion to be fact based would be an improvement.

Re:Unintended Consequences

[Kadin2048]

I believe the intent of the fairness doctrine is more to get the facts underlying an arguement out to the general public. Let the "man on the street" think for himself. If you want to include an opinion, then you should probably provided equal time to more than one of the most prevalent sides of the arguement.

The intent of the doctrine is irrelevant. The implementation of any such doctrine would almost certainly mean that media outlets would make every issue, even if it's not really widely controversial, into a one-side-versus-the-other, "equal time" argument.

It's silly.

News outlets exist today for every possible political and social affiliation you could want. If you're liberal, listen to NPR. If you're conservative, Fox News. This is what people want. They want news sources that represent their views of the world, and this is what the news outlets are going to deliver, regardless of what requirements you try to drive down on them from on high.

Re:Unintended Consequences

[Gamefreak99]

Networks show stuff that will strike a balance between them 1) getting new viewers and 2) not losing any of the viewers they already have (all in order to keep the advertisers in line, mind you). That's the way things work. As a consequence, many stations air programs that rile people up and convince them that The Other Side is doing something horribly immoral and Evil. And what happens? People keep watching :)

If you want facts, check the Internet. While many websites stoop to that low, low level, the ability to accrue multiple sources at once within a short span of time (and no stinkin' commercial breaks) hopefully enables one to shift through the bunk. If you want entertainment, however, flip on the telly!

Racism more troubling that "fairness"

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there serious problems with the way controversial issues are presented on the major television channels in the USA. I'm not convinced that the problem is fairness, per se. Instead, the problem seems more related to a tendency to present extremely complex issues in a simplistic binary manner (e.g. that the USA will either "succeed" or "fail" in Iraq).

I am even less convinced that legislation can solve the problem. The only solution that I see is to let people who care about being informed move to other more complete sources of information such as the internet.

The one thing that does bother me is the implicit racism in many of the entertainment shows on the major television channels. I wouldn't mind seeing a rule that the racial/ethnic/religious affiliations of the villians has to be chosen at random. Essentially, if it wouldn't be OK to portray Jewish people in a particular role then it shouldn't be OK to porttray any ethnic group in that role.

Free market - hardly

[Registered Coward v2]

The Republican free market viewpoint presented isn't - a free market approach would be to allow anyone who wanted to provide cable or television without requiring government approval; since that would result in chaos the governmnet licenses rights - once you agree to that you have a new partner - the government.

Exactly.

[SatanicPuppy]

Treating every issue as if it has two sides means that often you have to go out and invent a second side.

This is why debates like global warming and evolution loom so large, because in the interests of "fairness" views that are held by very small minorities of people are given the same amount of play as views that are extensively proven and supported.

Rather than this, I'd rather see a standard of truth applied to non-opinion mass media...Make them cite their numbers, and post the credentials of their "experts", and make them admit to errors of fact that appear on their broadcasts.

Forced, Uninentional Bias

[digitalhermit]

Requiring a "balanced" view can be just as bad as being completely one-sided. For example, say that there's an issue where 95% of the poll participants agree. In order to present a balanced view containing the opposing side, a new journalist may take the majority opinion and a minority opinion. When presented as opposing sides it may give the impression that people are evenly divided. This occurs quite often with scientific, religious and economic issues. It's not a case of intentional deception, but the effect can be the same.

Fairness Doctrine silences right talk radio

[dfenstrate]

Which is why democrats love it so much. The talk radio explosion came after the fairness doctrine ended. Before that if a radio station offered a right leaning talk show, they'd have to offer time to a left leaning one as well.

The trouble is that left wing talk radio doesn't sell ads, because no one listens to it. So radio station operators had to chose between a few hours of right wing talk radio that was profitable, balanced by a few hours of left talk that wasn't, or just filling the airwaves with silly pop songs that generated decent revenue consistently.

You don't have to believe me, you can go check for yourself the respective popularity & profitability of Air America vs Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly, Mike Savage, etc.

Left wing talk radio doesn't sell. So forcing radio stations to carry equal amounts of right wing and left wing radio makes them lose money, so they drop it altogether.

Now like most internet forums, Slashdot is teeming with lefties. I imagine most of you will be fine with this cause talk radio is just a bunch of right-wing hate mongers, right? Eh? No harm in silencing that, huh?

Unless, of course, you happen to think freedom of speech and property rights stands for something.

The obvious counter is that the airwaves are public property, and you're right. You're also ignoring that the leftist point of view permeates most broadcast TV quite thoroughly (Yes, except for Fox). If you don't realize it, it's for the same reason fish don't realize they're wet.

Truth is the elimination of the fairness doctrine made the airwaves more fair, because presenting a right wing point of view became profitable when you weren't burdened with the left wing. It wasn't be the first government policy that had the precise opposite of it's intended effect, and it won't be the last.

If you support the return of the fairness doctrine after actually paying attention to the history of it, you might as well say "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Re:Fairness Doctrine silences right talk radio

[demachina]

Obviously you DIDN'T READ MY POST. Because I SAID hardcore journalists ARE very left leaning. They are also intelligent and well educated and liberalism is well correlated to advanced education and intellect. The key point is the big corprate entities they work for aren't left leaning, many of the editors they work for aren't left leaning, and many of the talking head celebrities that dominate talk TV and talk radio now are VERY right leaning. There is a lot more to the modern media mix than grunt "journalist". You are conveniently choosing ignore that fact and to focus on the only one part of the mix that is liberal and ignore all the powerful parts that aren't.

Its also a fact that many journalists today, especially talking head TV types are going to abandon their personal beliefs in favor of whatever view point drives their ratings the best so most are blowing with the wind, Anderson Cooper being a sterling example. They will also generally do and say whatever their editors and bosses tell them to, since most of them will sacrifice their ethical position personal beliefs to stay employed and to get ahead in a very competitive business.

Not to Burst your Bubble

[allscan]

Too bad this won't do a thing for cable news networks and documentary channels. Remember "broadcast" means free over the air, as in antenna; not cable coming into your house. Now, granted, the Democrats could likely change the wording this time around to include everything and most likely will. Oh well, just another kick in the nuts for free thinking society.

doubtful constitutionality

[Petrox]

While the media has clearly been irresponsible in recent years and all-too accommodating for the abuses of power with which the country must now grapple, I tend to doubt that the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine would be either constitutional or even a good idea.

The constitutionality of the 'fairness doctrine' was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) on the basis that the FCC content-based regulation of broadcast television programming was appropriate in light of scarce broadcast resources and its mandate to act in the public interest for limited broadcast airwave frequencies. In other words, with only so many frequencies to dole out, it made sense at the time for the FCC to have some role in ensuring that a diverse array of viewpoints had access to broadcasting.

In this day and age, where over-the-airwaves broadcast TV is mandated to be replaced by digital TV receivers (where interference and broadcast scarcity are much less of an issue) quite soon, and where cable, satellite, and the Internet have opened up innumerable avenues for mass and niche media and communication, the rationale for Red Lion just totally falls apart. This was essentially the rationale of the FCC in the 1980s when it did away with the fairness doctrine for precisely the reason that it felt it was no longer justified in light of the then-contemporary media environment (an environment that has only become more numerous and fragmented than it was then, and certainly compared to the days where all there was were the 'big three' networks).

Plus, do we really want FCC bureaucrats editing TV programming for political content? That just seems like a system ripe for abuse.

IANAL (though I very recently passed the bar exam and so I'm very close to being one...)

The Fairness Doctrine worked out great last time

[calbanese]

Anyone interested in the results of the Fairness Doctrine from the first time around should check this book out. It was a bad idea then and a bad idea now.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My fellow Slashdotters

[Dachannien]

Fox News is not broadcast media.

That is all.

So, now Slashdot will be required to have dupes?

[Anonymous Coward]

With different headlines????

Quote from TFA

[petehead]

"FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was also on hand at the conference and took broadcasters to task for their current content, speaking of "too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists."

Nice to see this from the FCC chair, but what can he do about it?

All Channels Aren't Created Equal

[ZipK]

The Republican rebuttal argument:

"To say that this is an antiquated concept in a time of several-hundred-channel cable TV, satellite TV, satellite radio, and of course our little Internet, is to state the obvious."

Fails to acknowledge that not all communication media are created equal. Broadcast frequencies, which are easily received by inexpensive, common televisions and radios, are fundamentally different than satellite channels that are vended by select providers, which are in turn wholly different than Internet channels that mostly blend into the wallpaper.

Perhaps a better approach would be to reverse the concentration of private ownership of public frequencies, and to revoke the lifelong leases of public frequencies given to corporations. Why, for instance, can Clear Channel buy and sell these allocations? Why is there a secondary market for public resources? Why doesn't this money flow back to the owners of the airwaves?

What does the Constitution say?

[pentapenguin]

What ever happened to the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

What part of that is so hard to understand for modern politicians?

Re:Regulating Fairness?

[CheshireCatCO]

The Daily Show isn't left of center, either. It's been studied (someone counted the number of jokes made at the expenses of both sides) and it's basically 50/50. Any sense that TDS is "liberal" comes from a skewed perception on the part of the person with that sense, apparently. (Maybe that's telling us that the rest of the media leans right?)

I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[benhocking]

Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on evolution vs. creationism?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on climatologists vs. global warming deniers?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on the "Moon hoax" or Cydonia?
What about Timecube?
The JFK assassination?

I have no idea how this could be implemented and not have it backfire.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[theStorminMormon]

That's hitting the nail on the head. Who determines what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't? A law like this concentrates a fantastic amount of power in the hands of government to dub one issue "controversial" (and therefore say that any kook needs his fair share of air time) and another issue "non-controversial" (and therefore no protection granted to a minority opinion, no matter how reasonable).

I've had enough of "fair and balanced" coverage, thank you.

-stormin

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[JavaLord]

Right, because the current system of 9+ hours of conservative talking heads all in a row on radio and tv is a perfect system.

Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.

There is certain media that the right has a monopoly over, AM radio being one of them. Pretty much all of the desirable media (ie movies, television, network news) is fueled by people who's politics lean to the left. Want to talk about how many college professors lean to the left? Will a fairness doctrine apply to them?

The fairness doctrine is silly, both sides get their messages out in different ways, over different media. Some of it is subtle, some isn't. If you are looking for a democratic talking head at 8pm EST, turn on MSNBC. Are you looking for someone who leans to the right? Turn on Fox News.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[jadavis]

I understand if you can't find all of your thoughts represented on TV and radio; neither can I. However, to say that it's all conservative is a misrepresentation. There are many conflicting viewpoints presented if you change the channel once in a while. You might disagree with all of them, but many people express ideas who would call themselves "liberal".

At best, your comment is an oversimplification.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[jadavis]

My attitudes toward moderates: if I say 2 + 2 = 4, and you say it's 6, does the truth "lie in the middle?"

Hah. When I hear people say "moderate", all I can think is that they don't want to make the effort to determine the better policy, and just default to splitting the difference.

But if I say that the First Amendment protects my right to say whatever I want on my website, no matter how unpopular, is that radical? By world standards, it is. In other countries, like France and Canada, you are not free to express whatever idea you want. Does a moderate in the United States "split the difference" on the First Amendment?

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[fireboy1919]

Who determines what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't? A law like this concentrates a fantastic amount of power in the hands of government to dub one issue "controversial"

So the problem is that the metric isn't well defined. Getting rid of the bill does, of course, solve this problem, but it remains that the majority voice isn't heard.

How about we make it simple? Petition enough people and you get to talk.

Why isn't there a real pastafarian controversy? Because not enough people are serious about it. Why is there a creationist one? Because enough people are. We can deal with the "who decides" issue more formally if lots of little minorities are drowning out the majority and nothing is getting done. That time isn't now.

Right now the majority's view isn't being heard because of the voice of a single minority view (corporate interest).

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[Dread_ed]

Bingo.

The problem is that this law would be a flaming sword in the hands of virtually anyone that wants to pick it up. Combine increasingly partisan and divisive media with itchy-trigger-finger lawsuits and you start to see what kind of mess could occur.

Imagine if every time someone opened their mouth on a media outlet they were subject to threats, lawsuits, fines, etc. Stray one inch into foul territory, or better yet, report truth that ois politically damaging or offensive and watch your career go bye-bye.

In an effort to stay in business broadcasters might even pare down thier language to remove possibly offensive or emotionally stirring terminoligy (a-la 1984). Details would be sparse and certain subjects would be avoided entirely. And God forbid anyone expressing a "party line" viewpoint (especially a minority party!).

I can think of no better way to completely obscure the truth than by frightening people into not talking at all.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[StikyPad]

Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.

When's the last time you watched any of those stations? Ever heard of Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, or Joe Scarborough? CNN International is fairly balanced, but every domestic all-news channel in the US panders to the conservative viewership. Now it may well be that liberals simply don't watch enough TV for anyone to care about their demographic, or maybe the controversial stances of conservatives/ultra-conservatives just make for more dramatic television, but whatever the reason, there has been a clear and steady march to the right among domestic US news stations and shows ever since the debut of FOX "News".

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[dangitman]

What about Timecube?

What about the Timecube? The Timecube is humanity's future, and your denial of it demonstrates that you are ACADEMICALLY RETARDED and subject to the whims of JESUS HOMOSEXUALITY under the influence of the WORLD BANK.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[dangitman]

Who determines what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't?

I do.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[JavaLord]

Utter nonsense. If you actually look at who the guests are, and include all the channels, about 60% are conservative and about 35% are moderate. Liberal voices account for only about 5%.

That really depends on your point of view. To me, Rudy Guliani, McCain, Bush, etc aren't real conservatives. Buchanan, Tancredo and such are. However I have the sense to realize my bias accounts for that, and most people do percieve Guliani, McCain, Bush as conservatives. Unfortuantly, you haven't grown into that point.

Just a hint: Joe Lieberman doesn't count as either a Liberal or a Moderate. Joe Biden doesn't count as a liberal, and Hillary Clinton doesn't either. Barak Obama does, sometimes.

Sure, just don't count O'Reilly, Bush, etc as conservatives then. Deal?

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[tsotha]

Yeah, and you left out NPR, which is partially paid for by my tax dollars. Do lefties even realize the reason Air America failed is they were competing for the same viewers as NPR?

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[tsotha]

What are you talking about? You can hear the majority view in every market, even if you don't count satellite. What issue isn't getting the majority view? I'm suspecting you're conflating your own view with that of the majority.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[bataras]

"controversy" or not. I LOVE the personal attack rule:

wikiped

The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[techno-vampire]

My attitudes toward moderates: if I say 2 + 2 = 4, and you say it's 6, does the truth "lie in the middle?"

Being a moderate doesn't affect your perception of objective reality, unlike how some people on the far-out edge of both liberal and conservative seem to think. Facts are facts and, to a moderate, opinions to the contrary won't change them.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[meta-monkey]

Fair and balanced! Wow, I love how you phrased that.

climatologists vs. global warming deniers?

There's no such thing as a "global warming denier." There are only deniers of anthropogenic global warming. And they're climatologists, too!

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[Evilest Doer]

So, how is he not a conservative?

1) The deficit - money is not being conserved
2) The environment - not being conserved either; Teddy Roosevelt spinning in grave
3) Economy - allowing entities with special government protections (corporations) run roughshod over people who actually work and produce things

Basically, the people who think Bush is a conservative also see him as an ordinary, middle-class Texan, and not an ultra-rich spoiled Yale-educated Yankee frat boy whose daddy gave him every toy he wanted, including his very own country to play with.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan wasn't a conservative, either. He was the beginning in a new line of neoconservative politicians.

Reagan wasn't a neocon, although he had them in his cabinet. Take this quote from him as an example:

The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace.

Reagan choosing neocons over paleocons for certain positions is what started the slight split you see today.

Re:I agree, what does "balanced" even mean?

[hb253]

I think you may be associating non-NPR programs with NPR news. A Prairie Home Companion is produced by American Public Media (APM). APM does not produce NPR news (meaning programs like All Things Considered, Morning Edition, etc). Most likely, you're listening to your local public radio station that airs programs in addition to NPR news. Whatever Garrison Keillor says is not the editorial opinion of NPR.

I had to look up the initialism LGBT (I learned something new on /.!). I can't say I've heard NPR news reports that PROMOTE gay issues. Does reporting on the gay marriage controversy imply an endorsement? If yes, then Fox News is guilty as well.

NPR is the only news outlet I've ever heard that actually provides in-depth news reports. I especially enjoy when they cover Supreme Court cases by reporting on the dialogue between lawyers and the justices.

As for voter fraud reporting, here's just one link I found on the NPR site http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=6444162/.

As far as being left or right, I prefer to think of myself as independent. I don't subscribe to any extreme or narrow minded agendas.

That's hardly a fair counter-example

[cfulmer]

So, the Fairness Doctrine was rooted in the idea that if you're using the public airways, you needed to do so in a manner that benefited the public. It's the same basic idea that forced TV and radio stations to put on public interest shows that nobody watched. It's a bad idea for a number of reasons:

(1) The public has already chosen what they like to listen to and watch -- the market can, and does, give people what they want.

(2) This is really just a back-door attempt to squelch a format where liberals have been unsuccessfully trying to penetrate for years: talk radio. The idea is to FORCE radio stations to pick up the next "Air America" if they're going to continue to broadcast Rush Limbaugh. But, (going back to #1), if nobody listens, is there a benefit? To Liberals there is -- by forcing "fairness," a Radio station will have to silence about half of its conservative voices.

(3) It's not like there's a paucity of available opinions -- the Internet has made it possible for every side to get its message out, with very little budget. Plus, things have changed since the days where CBS, NBC and ABC rules the TV airways. There are now hundreds of television stations.

(4) What about the First Amendment? Sure, the fact that they're public airways means that they are subject to some restrictions, but do we really want to add more limits on speech?

(5) Despite what Commissioner Copps said, it's not going to get rid of garbage TV (I'm thinking NBC's "Fear Factor" as a great example), because those shows don't espouse any political opinions.

The Democrats are beginning the process of making sure they're not re-elected in 2 years. Did any candidate run on the Fairness Doctrine?

Incidently, the differences between the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality are: (1) one is content-based and one isn't and (2) Net-Neutrality regulates the information pipes, not the sources.

Get to the root: Tax net assets

[Baldrson]

People keep targeting the wrong problems since they can't get to the root problem: Concentration of wealth.

There is every reason to charge a use fee for property rights that would not exist in the absence of government and very little reason to tax domestic economic activities.

The failure to tax the right thing results in an accumulation of wealth in the hands of those already wealthiest and this results in increased centralization of ownership of everything including the means of indoctrinating the populous.

Moreover, as people increasingly recognize on both the right and left, it is important to avoid replacing centralization of wealth with centralization of political control. Tax revenues should be evenly dispersed to the citizens without any prejudice in a citizens dividend so they can enjoy the kind of yeoman class independence that created people like Newton and the Wright Brothers.

Problem:

[j3w]

I have come to believe that Fox News and company hav called themselves fair and balanced so much that they actually believe that they really are, and that somehow that crackpot liberals they bring on their shows to harass actually represent the liberal community at large.
So the problem is fairness according to whom.
Bias is inescapable in the media because people are somewhat oblivious to their own bias and will often present the information, which can only be filtered through the lenses of their existing biases, as fact because thats they way the actually saw the event unfold (within the limits of their biased perceptions).
The fairness doctrine is nice in principal but who is objective and neutral enough to be its enforcer?
No One
What would enivitably happen is that this fairness doctrine would become another buzz word of the day issue of partisan politics wasting everyones time slinging dirt back and forth.
People really just need to be smart enough to recognize the biases for themselves and filter out the useful information out of the news that is presented...all it takes is a grain of salt.
Thats my $0.02

Who defines it and who oversees it

[DBCubix]

The Fairness Doctrine applies to 'controversial' issues by applying equal time to opposing views. First, who defines what is controversial and what isn't? Is the hanging of Christmas decorations controversial? Will we need equal article space discussing several sides? What about really whacked out sides or ideas? Do they need presented too or do we need at least 5% of the population subscribing to the idea? What happens if Air America is sanctioned as non-controversial and does not need to balance their broadcasts and Rush Limbaugh is found to be controversial? Who is to say one is controversial and the other isn't? Second, who oversees this? What about their biases? What happens if the oversight committee is out of touch with reality? Do we accept really skewed programming? Does this amount to a form of government-sponsored censorship? This is just too many problems that I don't feel the government is capable of handling.

Re:Get to the root: Tax net assets

[cryfreedomlove]

Citizens already have the ability to enact property taxes. Many states do this. Many choose not to. Its a voluntary system. Are you suggesting that the people cannot decide this one for themselves?

Re:Get to the root: Tax net assets

[drinkypoo]

psst free hint: populous, besides being a game, is a word meaning "populated" or "full of population". The populace is the collected population.

Anyway you have a good point but I take issue with one part of it:

Tax revenues should be evenly dispersed to the citizens without any prejudice in a citizens dividend so they can enjoy the kind of yeoman class independence that created people like Newton and the Wright Brothers.

That wasn't needed by Newton or the Wright Brothers. Instead, we should simply stop taking as much of it away. Of course, if we really wanted to institute fairness in taxation we would need a fairly complicated system. A flat tax is fair in that it does not allow for exemptions, but it is unfair in that the poor must spend a larger percentage of their income on the taxes for necessary goods like clothing and transportation. Thus we would need a flat tax system with rebates which occurred monthly, or with cards (or similar) giving an exemption of taxes for certain types of goods for people under a given income. If the tax exemption model is used, then the government gains access to a list of everything you purchase for which you are exempt from taxes, which raises privacy concerns.

Consequently what we need to do is close tax loopholes for the very rich. I did a little research on this a while back and in the year 2000, the top ten taxpayers were only paying taxes on only 50% of their income! Meanwhile, I pay taxes on 100% of my income. What is this shit all about? The people making the least money barely pay taxes, the people making the median incomes pay the most, and the people at the very top pay less than the people in the middle. The people most able to pay aren't paying even THEIR share.

It's not "Right Wing" that sells...

[StressGuy]

It's "assholes with access to microphones" that sell. "Political Radio Shows" these days are to "intelligent discourse" as "Professional Wrestling" is to "Combative Sports". Rush Limbaugh was not popular because of his knowledge of political matters (which he may well have had), he was popular because he made controversial and obviously inflammatory statements on the air. Apparantly, he was better at it than Al Franken.

For another example - intentionally taken from other than the "talk radio" arena to help emphasize my point, "Judge Judy" might be a well qualified judge...or, she might not. The reason she has a TV show, however, is because she's a "bitch on wheels".

Contraversy, imflammatory statements, and being a general cynical asshole might make you popular to the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't make your point of view better or inherently more popular.

fair it ain't

[wmeyer]

As with so many things created by the government, the name is opposite to its effect. The Fairness Doctrine is not fair at all, but essentially eliminates the opportunity for political editorialization, of whatever stripe. Instead, we must be presented with "balanced" opponents, who are often anything but balanced.

As another comment said, conservatives now have Fox News and tal radio, while liberals have all of CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN. That the liberals could not mount a successful talk radio operation is a primary motivating force for returning the Fairness Doctrine.

The effect of the Fairness Doctrine, overall, is antithetical to free speech, and in the presence of a rational court position, it should be found unconstitutional.

There's a reason those stand out

[benhocking]

When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????

Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.

There's a reason those two stand out in your mind. They're unusual. Do you really think the blogosphere would have stayed quiet if there were a "balance" doctrine or are you just trolling? I hope for your sake it's the latter.

I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.

It's equally hard for me to believe that you don't realize that Fox News is the quintessential "right wing" media. The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected. Of the few episodes I've watched (because I was in someone else's house), I don't believe there wasn't a single one without an error more egregious than Dan Rather's. One lie even had one of the blonde ladies scratching her head. I guess she didn't get the memo that you're supposed to read the stories without questioning their veracity!

Fairness Doctrine = More stupid programming

[alexhmit01]

With the Fairness Doctrine, the party in control of the government was actually sitting there with stop watches making sure that "both sides were presented." While corporate consolidation has in theory limited voices, the reality is the explosion of media sources has eliminated that control.

What would happen is that no radio station would ever introduce a political radio show (incumbent ones with huge audiences would likely stay and be counterbalanced with unprofitable "other side"), because if I want to take a chance on a 1 hour radio program, I need to give up 2 hours, one for the program I am interested in, and one to counter-balance it. The net affect is that stations move away from talk radio, and move towards top-40 pop music, where they know that they'll make money and not need to deal with the FCC.

The way it is structured is designed to destroy political programming, because political programming is only interesting if it is one-sided to some extent. Equal time to both sides isn't entertaining.

Now, this is targeting conservative media, because conservative media uses the confrontational political format. Liberal media of that type has failed in the marketplace, because it's boring... The extreme left-wing websites are entertaining, but they don't translate into the other media spheres because of the self-perception of America's left of being intellectually elite, which requires not entering the name calling gutter that is how talk radio is fun. Compare Rush Limbaugh to Air America... his program is funny, mostly childish making fun of people, bad impressions, punning, etc., it's gutter humor applied to a political sphere. Listen to Air America programming, it's a bunch of people whining about politics. Air America launched when the country, politically, was the exact opposite of when Limbaugh's popularity exploded (1992-1994, during the Democrat "tyranny" of full control of three branches, 2004-2006 was similar with Republican "tyranny"). Rush Limbaugh ran "America Held Hostage" as his theme, mocking the whole process. Air America screamed about how evil Gitmo is. The former is funny and tongue-in-cheek, the latter is up for serious discussion that people don't want during their daily commute.

The "liberal media bias," as it exists, is much more a function of American political distribution than a fundamental approach to the market. Fox has proven that one can insert a "conservative media bias" and compete in the marketplace, albeit with less funding and inferior reporting. People don't choose the liberal media in the open market (Fox proved that by entering, people are split, shocking considering the superior journalism of CNN), they choose media and just get the bias. The bias isn't intentional, it isn't corporate strategy to push people leftward, it's a function of the fact that to run nationwide media services essentially means setting up shop in NYC or LA, and NYC and LA are liberal cities. Further, our journalism schools graduate people that are disproportionately left of center, the field attracts liberals (improve the world, expose evil, etc., etc.), so naturally, the media trends liberal. It does so not out of a conspiracy, but just the fact that the people gathering the facts are more likely to be left-of-center, and inadvertently spin things.

The fairness doctrine would not affect news programming, so liberal/conservative spin would remain there. It would affect opinion/commentary programming, which would dry up and disappear, and we would get more thoughtless brain-dead programming.

I'd love to see a viable liberal talk radio or similar program that survives on its merits, but they need a framework that is entertaining. Things like Daily Kos show that the people do exist, but they need a format that isn't cheerleading for the Democratic Party and it actually entertaining on its merits.

Air America would have been much better off if it was designed as a viable business, attempting to attract an audience, instead of a political effort

Corporate Media

[Eric Damron]

I agree with Kucinich that media is being controlled by a few large Corporations. But saying that they must present controversial issues in an honest, equal, and balanced manner isn't going to get the job done. My God, Fox news is anything but fair and balanced even though they claim to be. If they were leaning any further to the right the US would slide into the Atlantic Ocean!

The solution is to break up the media into MUCH smaller companies that are not controlled by a few and not allow them to be combined ever again. It is incredibly important that everything we see and hear is NOT controlled by a few who will feed us what they want to meet hidden agendas. Currently we have corporate media and it's not a good thing.

Re:Does This Mean

[kinglink]

At least those people are getting news from something PRETENDING to be a news show (the people watching Colbert report are exempt from the following line as well). What I really hate is the idiots who watch the late show, here the newest one liner from Dave or Jay, people who really shouldn't even be on the air. Or SNL's weekend update (see comment about Dave and Jay) and then act like they are informed.

There was a serious problem of these "intelligentsia" running around during the Clinton sex scandal that made an semi complicated thing overly complicated by diverting the attention of the fact that a politician lied under oath into a problem with sex. The original problem was perjury, but after the comedians got done with it the story was all about the affair....

The good news is most of these people are so apathetic that they won't go out and vote, but the place where they get their information is scary.

Re:Choosing Sides

[Shuh]

I never claimed that the media actually has a liberal bias, just that the Republicans claim it does. My personal opinion is that most news outlets do have a left-wing bias, but that Fox's claim to be "fair and balanced" is a running gag that American has fallen for. The only interesting question is whether CNN is as left as Fox is right.

Fox has a market, but it did not create that market. Their market are the people who feel they are not being served well by CNN. It's that simple. As far as "fair and balanced" being a "running gag," I would have to agree with you if Fox had ever been guilty of anything like the trumped up Bush national guard records(CBS), or the trumped up "Downing Street Memo," or anything written by Jason Blair(NYT). But since their record is relatively clean, I can't.

Easier way to do it

[CptPicard]

It's sort of weird to see American lefties coming up with weird ideas that would go totally overboard even here in notorious commie Europe. I don't think anyone here would suggest that there has to be some kind of a vague fairness criterion to fill for all speech that is transmitted in media.. that would neuter most speech that tries to say anything of value. An important quality of public discussion is the ability to take a side, so that your argument may then be countered on its merits.

I am a big fan of the concept of a quality public broadcaster that seeks diversity and is open enough to serve as a conduit for all sorts of views and positions, and also transparent enough so that its functioning can be scrutinized. And no, it doesn't lead to a "state-controlled media", unless "OMG they gave a leftist politician some airtime!" counts as such. The so-called independent actors are also still there to take money from corporations and right-wingers so that the propaganda and other programming suitable for their viewership (reality TV comes to mind) is still perfectly well available.

This is utterly wrong

[Omnifarious]

If the Democrats are really interested in media no longer representing narrow corporate interests they will instead support policies encouraging the democratization of media.

• Stop treating spectrum as property and open up a range of spectrum that ordinary TV receivers can receive that is completely unregulated by the FCC at all.
• Support net neutrality, or municipalities owning their own network infrastructure, or both.
• Loosening copyright law so someone who's producing a documentary doesn't have to get a copyright holder's permission to show a poster that happens to be hanging in the dorm room of a student being interviewed.

Any or all of these would do far more to encourage varied viewpoints in mainstream media than any kind of stupid mandate for 'fairness'. All that does is make sure both mainstream clubs get their say instead of random citizens with their many and varied viewpoints. There are generally far more than two sides to any issue.

The Democrats aren't miffed about corporate centralized control of media, and any protestations to the contrary are shown to be complete hypocrisy by things like the fairness doctrine. They're only miffed that this centralized control has tended to exclude them.

Because they get their news from the AP

[benhocking]

I do have a question for you, why does the national news on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all have the exact same stories being reported, night after night? I mean each night all the networks report exactly the same news. I think it is crazy.

Because they get most of their news from the Associated Press (just like Fox News). I wouldn't call it crazy, however. Just lame. (And the occasional moderate liberal on Fox News hardly makes it fair and balanced, any more than the moderate conservatives on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN make it fair and balanced. For you to claim otherwise clearly marks you as blind to the faults of your own side, and makes your claim of not being on that "side" far less believable.)

False dichotomy

[Kadin2048]

I think his point was that if you say you're "against (state-sanctioned) gay marriage," there is an unspoken assumption on most people's part that you are opposed to the "gay" part, rather than the "marriage" part, of a state-sanctioned marriage. This is because they plot the 'controversy' as one having purely one dimension, with conservatives at one end, and liberals and homosexual advocates at the other.

In reality, the issue is more complex. There are many issues and positions which may be nearly orthogonal to the single axis of 'gay marriage, for/against,' and unless you recognize that, you're going to oversimplify people's positions and pigeonhole them inappropriately.

"Equal time" laws create a false dichotomy where there may not be one. In a room of six people, you may be able to force three into "supporting" and three into "opposing" an issue, but within each three, they may be approaching the issue for completely different reasons, which may be incompatible for fundamental reasons even if they seem to be in agreement on the surface. (E.g., "I'm against gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin," and "I'm against gay marriage because all marriage is wrong and unnatural, regardless of who it's between.") To gloss over these differences and present it as being two-sided is false, and it does a disservice to the viewers of that program, by implying that there are only two opinions.

You OBVIOUSLY don't actually listen to Rush

[Goldenhawk]

>It's "a******* with access to microphones" that sell. "Political Radio Shows"
  >these days are to "intelligent discourse" as "Professional Wrestling" is to
  >"Combative Sports". Rush Limbaugh was not popular because of his knowledge of
  >political matters (which he may well have had), he was popular because he made
  >controversial and obviously inflammatory statements on the air. Apparantly, he
  >was better at it than Al Franken.

I have been listening to Rush for about 10 years. I can tell you with a great deal of experience that people listen primarily BECAUSE they don't get his viewpoint on the mainstream media (MSM) that existed before he came around. Frankly, 3 to 20 million daily listeners (depending on who you believe) wouldn't stick around one person that long just for the hijinks. And it's those listeners who will be lobbying their congresscritters to kill this legislation.

Contrary to your assertion, everyone that I know who ACTUALLY listens to Rush (and I personally know dozens) thinks that he makes high quality arguments that speak truth, and that the average MSM folks are blathering idiots who desparately need to be countered. Sure, we enjoy his hyperbole, and frankly it's refreshing to hear SOMEBODY tease the liberals mercilessly, but that's secondary to wanting to hear what we believe to be the truth.

And before you go ranting about me and my friends being a bunch of hicks, let me point out that I live in a strongly blue state, with a middle to high income, flight test community of military pilots and scientists and engineers who uniformly have one or more college degrees, plus a fair mix of Walmart-shopping wage earners with high school diplomas. In short, it's not exactly average red state stuff.

So get off your high horse about Rush. We conservatives (some of whom DO read /. despite appearances to the contrary on THIS thread) realize you think Rush is a flaming looney, and Fox News is a bunch of conservative nutjobs, and all creationists are idiots. But that's not any more a realistic assertion than the same assertions about liberals. Both sides are rational, thoughtful individuals with a different view of the same data. Get over it and stop insulting each other. Find a way to discuss the issues, not the flames.

Not at all

[Emperor Cezar]

Being in college radio, this will result for us in the situation that occurred the last time the "fairness" doctrine was in place. We just won't air anything controversial. It's much safer than trying to comply to it.

An army would be required

[rjschwarz]

What are the odds that if Rush Limbaugh produced the alternate viewpoint for half his broadcast to satisfy this law the content would be presented in a way Democrats would think was fair and not a bunch of strawmen presented in a humorous manner and fighting the complaints in court and wrapping himself in Free Speach. Do the Democrats really want to be considered the party of censorship for such a short term gain that cannot possibly survive a trip to the Supreme Court?

What you don't seem to know...

[nietsch]

Is that your political right wing (so right in fact they'd be titled neonazi in europe) realised some decades ago that the media did not favour their standpoints. So they set up an orchestrated campaign to get 'their' people in key places in the media. You can just outright buy a paper, but it is much more productive to go slow and support those few journalists that support your political views and use your influence to get these people into key places. Which is what they did. A few decades later, the middle ground has swayed so much to the right, that the rest of the world is afraid you will fall of the edge. Considering how fascitoid your gouvernment/country has become, it might have fallen already.
(your sercret service commands you to attack this anti-american post as hard as you can. Do you pattriotic duty and defend our free nation against those liberal foreigners, support out troups!)

Re:Get to the root: Tax net assets

[dangitman]

Support the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Huma [hutter1.net]

I think your .sig could do with a better compression method.

BULLSHIT

[foreverdisillusioned]

Outside of Fox News, the only time you see a 'conservative talking head' is if they are a guest. CNN, MSNBC news, CBS, etc all lean to the left of American Politics.

Just because those stations aren't DELUSIONALLY, RABIDLY conservative (like Fox News) doesn't make them liberal. Criticizing Bush's invasion of Iraq, for example, is not "liberal", it's "sane." There's a difference.

I know some people in Europe, and they're all of the opinion that ALL of our news channels are quite right-leaning. Then again, you did specify "American Politics"...

Re:BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS on what you are saying...

Criticizing Bush invasion of Iraq is liberal and not-sane.

Criticizing Bush for immigration is sane...

Re:BULLSHIT

[foreverdisillusioned]

How is saying "Dude, this war was based on a LIE and it's costing us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and it's fueling Sunni/Shiite violence and American hatred." liberal? There's not a single liberal thing about that argument. Liberals want to spend MORE government money, not LESS.

Please do not substitute "liberal" for "democrat". Not every single little thing the democrats care about automatically become part of the "liberal agenda" and--though this may sound downright RADICAL--there are actually MORE THAN TWO POSSIBLE POLITICAL POSITIONS in the world.

Re:NPR Covers Air America's Market

[cmholm]

I agree. To me, NPR news is straight forward report and analysis. Car Talk is entertainment, so naturally it's the biggest draw. However, just a little All Things Considered goes a long way. To many GOP strategists (particularly after the Bork and Thomas nominations), NPR is the enemy. NPR not only reports but goes in depth on stories the GOP and their backers would just as soon stay buried... and NPR news listeners tend to be the sort of upper middle class folks who take the time to hassle their congressional reps, etc.

Anyway, my view is that by and large, the GOP and the ownership class tend to view information as proprietary and most valuable when closely held. On the other hand, the proper function of the Republic (and in theory, the business market) requires information and viewpoints to be openly available at nominal cost... which is NPR's news model. In that the ownership class is forced to have discussions they'd just as soon not, they find it convenient to use the Reagan rhetoric which labels the purveyors as Liberal. I think most Americans have bought into this.

Hence, NPR == Liberal, and cuts in on Air America's potential business.

"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" (tm) Dennis Miller, comedian, brown noser

And yet the rabid right, for all its media control

[Travoltus]

STILL couldn't hold control of Congress or many state Governorships.

The American people made their decision independently of Faux News & Rush Limbaugh. As a liberal I oppose the Fairness Doctrine. We don't need such an arbitrary system.

Re:Choosing Sides

[Eskarel]

It's not training, it's a fundamental flaw in the voting process in the US. In most other western countries you have a system of run-off voting whereby third parties can transfer their votes to the primary party which they consider the least unpleasant, or where the voters can determine their order of preference themselves. This allows people to vote for a third party who they actually like(assuming you can find one you actually like) in large numbers without guaranteeing that the major party they despise will be in power till the next election.

That's not the case in the US. If you vote green, or libertarian, or whatever the hell pat buchanan ran under, you're essentially shooting yourself in the foot. The parties know this, the conservatives ran pro-nader ads in 2000. You can't vote third party in the US without getting the opposite of what you actually want.

Outside of a few party line issues, both the democrats and the republicans might be centrist wankers(Bush is much to pro-corporate and pro-big government for a true conservative and Kerry was much to conservative for a true liberal), but until or unless they change the system(or we get some major event like the civil war which got the republicans in as the first ever third party president in the first place), they're the two we've got.

If you want an effective way to actually change American politics, vote in primaries for the candidates which most closely follow your view points. If other people agree with you, maybe in another 50 years your major party of choice might be closer to your belief system.

Re:And yet the rabid right, for all its media cont

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Do not gloat! Liberals have won an election, but we have not, and I believe we could not currently, win the war.

The Republicans lost because they fucked up, not because the Democrats have learned how to win elections. I can make a case for this, and I have written about this in my journal.

Re:Get to the root: Tax net assets

[h2_plus_O]

The failure to tax the right thing results in an accumulation of wealth in the hands of those already wealthiest and this results in increased centralization of ownership of everything including the means of indoctrinating the populous.

If this was actually true, you might have a point.
The problem with your theory is that over 80% of millionaires in this country are first-generation wealthy, and more often than not, their children do not inherit their ability to generate wealth along with whatever wealth they inherit. We live in a society that is unprecedented in the social mobility it affords its members. At no time in history has there been better financial and social mobility than we have now.

There is every reason to charge a use fee for property rights that would not exist in the absence of government

Actually, the constitution enumerates only limited powers to the government; it derives its authority from the consent of the governed, not the other way around. The basis of rights is not that they are caused by government, but that they are inherent in the people themselves. Perhaps you intended to suggest that it's reasonable to charge a use fee for services that wouldn't happen without government, but it came out backwards.

The concentration of wealth is not a problem that harms anybody, it's a non-problem that already solves itself- new wealth is constantly eclipsing the old, and sustained intergenerational wealth transfer is exceedingly rare.

Moreover, trying to 'solve' it politically is expensive and actually harmful. Whenever someone decides that it would be a great idea to use the government to take wealth away from its owners and give it to everyone else, the wealthy will quite reasonably beat them at that game like a pinata- they didn't become wealthy by losing games that involve money, after all. The resulting class warfare is expensive, divisive, and no fun. We have a tax system, for example, that is overly expensive (would you believe it costs us an estimated third of the revenue it generates, just to comply with it?) and unfair for everybody, just because we tried targeting the rich and they're better at buying congressmen (who write tax code) than the rest of us.
This is the danger we face when we try to expand the power of the government to accomplish our social missions: we become subject ourselves to this expanded power. Bringing the government into this game is like bringing a bat to a fight you're having with a better fighter than you: he'll just take the bat away from you and beat you senseless with it, at which point you'll either learn that class warfare is stupid and harmful to wage (because the rich will always win) or you'll go look for another bat to get beaten with.

Going after assets would just cause capital flight and further ensure that any taxing authority that tried it would quickly sink to bankruptcy.

Still no need for a Fairness Doctrine

[Travoltus]

Republican ideals are bankrupt, that's why they lost. The scandals hastened the inevitable.

The problem for Democrats is that they need to learn how to win elections. They don't need a fairness doctrine. They need a solid plan, and right now I think they're doing that. They won a lot of Republicans over (relatively speaking) for the recent minimum wage & prescription drug negotiation votes in Congress. Republicans in Congress are mad at being bullied by the radical Right.

Democrats have the power, now they need to speak softly and carry a big stick and concentrate on giving some relief to those bullied Republicans and not treating them like The Enemy[tm]. If the Democrats also give the working class a few victories, they'll own Congress for another 50 years. If they fail to do so, then no amount of Fairness Doctrine in the world will save them.

By sheer weight of scandals or by losing the war of ideas, you can own the media and still lose elections. That much has been proven.

BTW if the Liberals take more Congressional seats I'm voting GOP for President... God forbid we ever have a 1 party Government again. Ever.