Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Will the FD mean that my Playboy subscription (0+ / 0-)

    could become a sausage farm?

    •  the fairness doctrine applied only to broadcast (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      media, on the theory that the people own the airwaves, and it was a requirement of those licensed to use the wavelength to serve the public interest.

      •  I'm joking - but the abuse of the FD will be (3+ / 0-)

        onerous.  I have heard people complain about the "fairness" of the Weather Channel.  

        No kidding.  Some on the right don't like the coverage of AGW.

        •  Can you imagine the religious right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          with this kind of tool?

          I can.  It's ugly right now with simple decency standards.  They push, push and fucking push all the time.

          They would have a field day with the question of what is fair.

          No thanks.

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

          by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:42:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is something I've also thought about, (0+ / 0-)

            and it's a serious concern. But wrapped up in all of this is my concern that the public's ownership of the airwaves be reasserted. Right now, much of it has been privatized for cell phone companies; the broadcast media have been behaving as if they have no responsibility to anyone.

            So, it's all part of the things we have to think about in regard to this.

            •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

              That's actually an angle I've thought about to approach the clarity problem.

              How can airing distortions and lies 24/7 possibly be a public service, save for affirmation?

              And then the uglier question:  should we be affirming racism, for example?

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

              by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:30:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  So television is included as well... (0+ / 0-)

        and we can look forward to 50 percent of all tv programming being "rebuttal" programming, I guess, if the F.D. is reinstituted. That strikes me as funny, and outlandish. How do you rebut a game show, if you disagree with the message it sends? Or a salacious sitcom?

        God help us that all we look to to guide our lives is crappy radio and tv. I know it's a serious issue, but it makes me nauseous.

        •  Look, I don't want "fairness" - that is what the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          wingnuts want with Creationism taught in public schools.

          I want to win the battle of ideas and despite Bush the Lesser we will do it.

          •  Damn right! (0+ / 0-)

            I'm there too.

            Even with the severe imbalance, progressive ideas are making inroads.  We can improve on that, and highlight the blow-hard, regressive right for what it is.

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

            by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There are clear guidelines... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ...separating news and opinion.

          News is something which can be backed up by objective fact. Opinion is something which is subject to interpretation.

          If Michael Savage were a real journalist with a news program, he would be fired for saying Barack Obama's grandmother died under "suspicious" circumstances, since her death certificate no doubt clearly states she died of natural causes.

          He could not even say there are "allegations" of a "suspicious death," because no one in an official capacity has made such allegations, and again, the objective facts demonstrate there is no basis for such allegations.

          Entertainment programming like game shows and sitcoms were never subject to the FD - only informational programming.

          •  A lot of news is not fact based. (0+ / 0-)

            But yet it appears on the news program. A lot of it is opinions of people who are not speaking in an official capacity, but merely being interviewed by "reporters".

            At one time, it may have been true that people regarded the "news" as fact based. But not today. You just can't turn the calendar back to 1975.

            Today it is just entertainment. It is a game show. And I wish there were some way to rebut it. But there isn't.

            •  That's not entirely true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The job of a journalist (I am one) is to provide information. We are trained to base that information on objective fact.

              Yes, "news" has become "entertainment" (and actually on most local TV stations, it has always been thus - listen to one of my favorite songs, Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry"), and fewer and fewer "journalists" really understand the concept of journalistic standards.

              But that's a separate problem from the FD debate.

              •  IMHO, this is very important because (0+ / 0-)

                it speaks to clarity.

                Again, Maddow vs Limbaugh.  

                Maddow is biased as hell.  She makes no bones about it though, and is careful to differentiate fact from her commentary.

                Limbaugh does the opposite.  He claims little bias, and blurs the line between fact and opinion so badly, it's difficult to even know.

                I think not getting limbaughs was the reason many lamented the non-biased, objective reporting style and the loss of the doctrine.

                Frankly, given only Limbaughs, I agree.

                However, we have Maddows now, and they compete well.

                Perhaps this is something the left can learn to do better.  Conservatives are authoritarian and have good message dicipline, and are not shy about broadcasting their opinion.  They like weak people, dominate them and feel good about all of that.

                We don't usually do the latter, but we can very easily do some of the former.

                Maddow is a strong, considerate, smart and entertaining woman.  She makes politics fun, and informative.  My wife hates news and politics programming, but will watch Maddow any day of the week.

                So, that's good for us, it competes well and is very much in the spirit of the journalistic ethic you write about.  The woman even issues corrections to a commentary show, when she could so totally ignore that.

                It can be done, we can compete, there is no reason to neuter whole genres of programming, just to be fair.

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

                by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  What you do is produce (0+ / 0-)

              compelling programming to counter it.

              And we leverage new media to continue to put pressure on those not doing us a good service.

              Also, being entertained with ideas is not a bad thing, given some diversity of ideas!  Look at what we do here.  What if it had to be fair?  Would it be compelling?

              Probably not.

              And we are not fair, and that's ok.  We don't have to be.  Why?  Because we want to put our ideas out there and win with them.

              Given the large number of media choices we have today, having traditional media air entertainment programming isn't a bad thing, IMHO.

              The only reason why hate entertainment is tolerated is because we don't yet have enough non-hate programming being aired for contrast.  Media ownership is the key to this, not rolling back the clock.

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

              by potatohead on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:24:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe you can counter partisan (0+ / 0-)

                propaganda on the right with anything other than left wing propaganda and poop flinging.

                You can't be constantly on defensive against these cretins, because then you are allowing them the power of the frame.

                Non-Hate programming... that is not going to be entertaining. It won't sell GM cars. Not that Limbaugh has been managing spectacularly well on this score lately...

                Hate entertainment is tolerated because it makes people listen... it appeals to people who are tired, and need to focus, so it is the equivalent of taking speed, or having someone poke you in the side every 30 seconds so you don't doze off at the wheel.

                Mr. Rogers isn't going to make the grade. And I think an atmosphere of constant "reply" from one side to another's latest outrage is a recipe for escalating violence.

                I really think people would do better to contact the sponsors and tell them that they are being targeted for economic sanctions by the community and tell them what station their commercials are being heard on, and what programs they are sponsoring, and what the programs are about.

                •  I don't agree. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  It is completely possible to produce entertaining programming, that does not leverage the lazy, raw emotion of hate.

                  If I am wrong, we seriously need to reconsider a great many things about our Progressive platform.

                  Think about it.

                  Speak or be spoken for. This is the lesson learned over the last 8 years.

                  by potatohead on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:26:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site