Skip to main content

View Diary: Fairness Doctrine (continued discussion) (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh I think that is fair, however the opinion does (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luftmensch, doinaheckuvanutjob

    play out roughly in the same fashion in other discussions in other venues.

    I also think you have it hosed up a bit as well:

    "return of regulating out of control media" is different than "return to fairness doctrine".

    The former can be accomplished a lot of ways without chilling speech, while the latter is highly likely to do this.

    If we lumped it all into media reform, I suspect we would have a clear majority consensus on that one.

    My only point was that the pro-doctrine case made so far, doesn't meet the burden set by the SCOTUS, meaning we are likely to see better results with other means and methods.

    I knew Droogie, I liked Droogie, I won't forget what the AP did to Droogie.

    by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, I know. I was over selling it. (0+ / 0-)

      It's not up for a vote today, so I have no internal filter right now.

      "(Our) stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

      by Detroit Mark on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:07:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think Fairness Doctrine will have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jagger

      a chilling effect on free speech.  We lived with it quite successfully for decades until the Republicans did away with it.

      There are bagels in the fridge

      by Sychotic1 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We didn't have infotaiment nor the Internet then. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Luftmensch, doinaheckuvanutjob

        Things have changed enough to make the doctrine a regression now.

        Again, if we chill O'Reilly, we chill Olberman, and maybe others.  (and those are examples obviously)

        News / political discussion back then was stimulating only because that's all we had.  Those kinds of programs would never, ever compete in the media environment of today.

        Essentially, big media would charge that their ability to make compelling programming would be chilled, and they would likely win that one.

        Besides, bias isn't a bad thing, so long as it's clear.

        The only reason we are seeing greater acceptance of stuff like FOX is because they lie, distort and hide behind the idea that they are fair and balanced when they aren't.

        If they actually had to take ownership of their bias, they would lose ratings big.  They already have!

        We need to encourage more of that, not legislate it.

        Media ownership is the key to this, not an outdated doctrine.

        Look at what happened when the Democrats snubbed FOX.  MSNBC posted up Maddow and Olberman, and FOX got it's ass kicked.  

        Imagine if there were just more available venues for that kind of competitive programming.  FOX would lose because the facts don't support their commentary more often than not.

        I knew Droogie, I liked Droogie, I won't forget what the AP did to Droogie.

        by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          potatohead, Jagger, Deejay Lyn

          For years we have been virtually shut out.  I am not talking about making compelling programs I am talking about a chance to even say anything that is at odd with the spin cycle.

          See how far to the right we have gone?

          I am going to sigh and go away, maybe next week I will do a diary on this history and educate people on the fairness doctrine.  It was a good thing, which is why they killed it.

          There are bagels in the fridge

          by Sychotic1 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I'm intrested in that diary. (0+ / 0-)

            I've been doing a fair amount of digging on the doctrine, and you are spot on where being shut out is concerned.

            That's changing though.

            Also, there are ways to deal with airtime.  Here are a few:

            Break up media and offer dollars for those doing research on new program forms.

            Restructure the media market, just like what was done with the telecoms.

            (and that looks to be coming up again too, for what that's worth)

            Deal with clarity.  I'm not sure how to do that one, but FOX, et al. work very hard at making the line between fact and opinion unclear and that plays to the conservatives favor.

            Where there is progressive oriented programming, exploit it huge.  We've got the net, and that's a growth deal, particularly with up and comers.

            What I've not had explained to me why we MUST have the fairness doctrine, when media ownership reform can address many of the lockout problems.

            They got talk radio because they were first with it, and removing the doctrine enabled that.  Agreed.  However, they nailed it with media consolidation.

            Roll that back, and it's not a lock anymore.  From there, we have competition.

            I'm gonna be frank.  I can't stand the older style news and politics programming.  I think advocacy is healthy, compelling and the need to not be fair opens the door for some great programming that is entertaining and informative.

            I'm into politics because of that and what we can do on the Internet.

            A return to the old, stale "non-biased" programming would be a killer, particularly to the up and comers, who are gonna point to us and call us old, and want to reform that and we lose longer term.

            I like Maddow, can't stand Limbaugh.  Many of my peers agree!  Opening the door to more of that kind of programming, will absolutely marginalize the Limbaugh programming, and that's fair.

            Sounds to me like you want to eliminate the entire genre of programming, and I don't support that at all.  Nor would the broadcasters, and a whole lot of people, who happen to like talk radio, and info-tainment type programming.

            Look at "The Daily Show".  Is it fair?  Hell no it isn't fair, but it is informative and the fact content is solid, and actually quite clear.  That's way better than "The News Hour", for example.

            I'll wager we can count the number of 18-30 year olds that watch that and CSPAN on one hand.  By comparison, "The Daily Show" is doing quite nicely in those demographics.

            If we are, in fact, the party of ideas, we better damn well be able to support the robust expression of ideas and let those stand on their merits.

            Looking forward to your diary on this.

            I knew Droogie, I liked Droogie, I won't forget what the AP did to Droogie.

            by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:10:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Fairness Doctrine (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sychotic1

              never applied to satire, shows like SNL or Stewart.  It was more concerned with what passed itself off as "news".

              And by the way, the only reason Rush gets away with some of the crap he gets away with ... like using audio from speeches and stuff ... is by convincing the FCC that he is a "news" service.

              The unfortunate effect is that under the Fairness Doctrine, Rachel and Keith would no longer be able to do their 5 minute diatribes on how corrupt the republicans have become.

              But...then it's a chance I'll take, because under the Fairness Doctrine, the republicans will be forced to be slightly less corrupted.

              "(Our) stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

              by Detroit Mark on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:43:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No way man. (0+ / 0-)

                I want to hear the Maddow and Olberman, Stewart and more.

                It's a good thing.

                Restructuring the media market means more programming of this type.  The Limbaughs can only go down.  Think about it.

                We have the total advantage here.  23 percent of us really crave that shit.  The rest are inclined to entertain Maddow, et al.

                Once ownership is broken up, new owners are gonna want to compete.  The potential audience for Maddow, et al is absolutely huge compared to Limbaugh.  If it wasn't, we wouldn't have had the election we just had.

                Why not turn their own game right back on them?

                As an added bonus, progressive programming of this kind is well supported by the facts meaning they don't even have to distort much.  Just tell the stories and entertain with them.

                The other side has to distort, lie, cheat and steal their way, for a built-in handicap.

                Ownership first, doctrine second, if ever.

                I knew Droogie, I liked Droogie, I won't forget what the AP did to Droogie.

                by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:57:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are confusing two products (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  potatohead, Sychotic1

                  One is entertainment.

                  The other is the reason that the Constitution protects us from the "abridgement of a free press."

                  Our theoretical 4th Branch of Government is journalism which sees and reports, so that you can vote informed.

                  That journalistic integrity must be protected at all costs.  Journalism is your eyes and ears into government, and into its activities such as war and the negotiations of treaties.

                  We will always have an appetite for good comedy, and for a good progressive rant.  But we will always NEED to be able to open a paper, or find a story on the internet and know that it is very likely the truth wether we are a republican ... or an American.

                  "(Our) stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

                  by Detroit Mark on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Not true for KO and Rachel (0+ / 0-)

                People seem to not understand where the FD applied and would apply. The FCC only has control over broadcast TV, and AM and FM radio. Not cable channels or satellite TV and radio. A new FD would have no impact on KO or Rachel. It's still a really bad idea.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The FD is a bad thing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            1918

            And I am glad it's dead. We are the party of free speech.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:08:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It did, I was there (0+ / 0-)

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site