Skip to main content

View Diary: Fairness Doctrine & House Majority (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is (0+ / 0-)

    plenty of literature on how the Fairness Doctrine worked for over 50 years if you are interested in knowing.

    •  It's gone. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I thought we were talking about something new.  

      If so, let's see the language.  Because I'm guessing it won't be workable.

      •  Read (0+ / 0-)

        my post and go to the sources.  There is plenty of literature on the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC and proposed changes from 1960 to the present.

        •  There is no (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          present, serious discussion of standing of  areturn to the Fairness Doctrine, and there will not be.
          National Review or not, this appears to me to be valid:

          Think about this. A congresswoman, believing that “there should be equal time for the spoken word,” is going to have the government step in and regulate what can be said on privately owned communication systems, i.e., cable television and satellite radio. And at no point does it cross her mind that this would violate the First Amendment.
          You're proposing the expansion of content regulation from the public, terrestrial spectrum to privately owned carriers?
          No, thank you.
          There are other ways to level the field besides goverment control of speech.

          "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

          by kestrel9000 on Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 11:51:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  unfortunately, there aren't ways to level the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            field without regulations!   the money is on the side of the right wingers.

            the fairness dotrine worked on a simple principle:  if you give paul ryan and romney "x" amount of airtime (other than paid commercials), then you had to make the same amount of time available to the other candidates - and that included the greens and third parties if they were viable contenders.  

            that made for a better informed populace, imho.  the real impact was that the stations didn't turn over large blocks of political "free advertising" to one candidate only.  if they gave one side unfettered access, they knew they would have to sacrifice the same amount of airtime (for free) to the opposite candidates.

            this wasn't about opinion, it was about candidates and positions taken during elections.  it worked for decades until braindead puppet reagan was manipulated by his "handlers" to remove it.

            history will not look back kindly on reagan - he and his handlers were directly responsible for the massive decline of this nation with his "trickle-down/piss on" america policies.

          •  Youmight (0+ / 0-)

            read something other than National Review and listen to Fox, the Supreme Court already ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was Constitutional.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site