Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

In 1987 the FCC eliminated the fairness doctrine. This doctrine gave the FCC the power to determine whether or not a cable news channel is considered fair. It was a regulation that kept things like "fake news" and "main stream media" from happening. This was a period where Americans trusted the news. There were iconic figures such as Walter Cronkite. The deregulation of media has lead to news sources such as CNN and Fox News. They're horribly slanted, and they fail at their jobs so much that nobody even trusts the news anymore. The only thing that would be worse than right now is if we only had a strongly one sided media (i.e. propaganda). We need to reinstate this regulation. News channels should have watch dogs. Give them government funding if need be, just give us some real, reliable news.

 

I don't think the bolded part is correct. I believe it only applied to broadcast television and radio, and cable TV was not considered broadcast so that HBO could still show boobies and have dirty words in their movies.

Either way, little more than an attempt to kill conservative talk radio.

 

Not a fan of free speech eh? This is Obama's fundamental change.

 

Ever heard liberal talk radio? There was a woman on that said, "we need to replace this black congressman with another black congressman." A person said, "well I don't think they have to be black". I'll let your imagination take you from there.

Point is, it's not just an attack on Republicans. It's an attack on both.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you mean freedom of the press.

 

He's not a fan of conservative free speech. But he was probably a big fan of Randi Rhodes and Air America, maybe their only fan.

 

So was the Great Depression. You want to go back to that?

I remember when I first heard about the "Fairness Doctrine". I first heard Rush for an hour followed by this clown named Christine Craft (if I remember correctly) who was just uninteresting, uninformed, and clearly not up to attracting and holding an audience for an hour.

I marveled at how a station smart enough to launch a talent like Rush Limbaugh could be dumb enough to follow him with wet heap of towels like that. All those listeners, quickly flipping the channel as Screechy Christine followed him. Put a half decent person in the slot following him and you would probably keep 2/3rds of them.

Then I found out about the fairness doctrine.

And you want the Federal Government, through un-elected agencies, controlling programming of small local stations, throughout this great vast nation, in the name of LIBERTY?

Here is the deal:
* You have the right to say what you want.
* You have the right to publish what you want.
* You don't have the right to force other mf's to listen to what you want to tell them!
*** Because they have the right to listen to what they want!

This shouldn't be such a struggle for you to understand and support. I'd heard that in the advent of Trump, that the Left was taking a fresh and long needed look at Federalism. Judging from your post, your portion of the bubble remains uninfected by this dangerous thinking.

 

Freedom of the press does not excuse press organizations from having certain responsibilities. I'm not sure that having some kind of oversight placed upon press organizations would be a bad thing, which is to say the motivation behind the "Fairness Doctrine" is reasonable even if the implementation needs closer consideration.

 

The fairness doctrine was never fair. It was not created for cable news, it was created when we had very limited broadcast channels, and even then, IMHO, it was anti-First Amendment. There are enough alternatives now that it isn't necessary.

Also, the fairness doctrine did not keep the news honest. The main effect it had was to keep conservative voices off the air, as the major networks at that time were predominantly liberal.

Walter Cronkite was an uber liberal, and towards the end, it really showed. The fairness doctrine did nothing to stop his open liberal bias.

 

Right after hell freezes over. There has always been fake news. Your problem is that it no longer only comes from the left side of the political aisle and there are ways to contradict it when the left does produce it.

 

Do you really think MSNBC, CNN, etc, and the liberals that watch them, will accept the idea they have to give equal time and weight to conservative points of view?

"Fake news" is nothing but a catchphrase for the release of information that embarrasses a Democrat.

 

I couldn't tell if you are kidding, or just that ignorant.

In any event, why should we want to reinstate a hopelessly unconstitutional legal vehicle to ensure that government can always dictate to them what appropriate is? Why do liberals always attempt to thwart the tools of democracy first?

- - - Updated - - -

Um. Yes. NPR?

 

If you think the news was not biased in the time of Cronkite, you are sadly mistaken.

 

We survived Hurst's era of Yellow Journalism. We'll probably survive CNN.
If the government can decide what is, and is not allowable "news", how soon before the same government mandates the "truth" when you or I speak out?

I'd rather risk surviving CNN than risk empowering a blatantly corrupt government with the power to regulate my speech.

 

In an era where a President - elect -chooses- to communicate via a medium that any average person can also broadcast to and access for free, where internet radio stations, youtube channels, podcasts, web sites are in fact infinitely numerous, there is no need whatsoever for any fairness doctrine, a doctrine applicable to a time with extremely limited media outlets compared to today. In the past, many communities might only have one newspaper, a couple of radio stations and three channels on the TV, no computer of course. This created the possibility of media captivation by a singular political message, which would be unfair. This is no longer the case and will never again be the case in the country, utterly obsoleting the fairness doctrine.

As others have noted, the call from the left for its reinstatement is a transparent attempt to implement -unfairness- by the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, which would love to be able to leverage its advantage in mass "entertainment," TV and movies where the fairness doctrine is not applicable, and use it as a sword to stifle political opposition in other media.

Not gonna happen, not EVER gonna happen, but keep dreaming Complex denizens... your "benevolent dictator" true colors really shine through the window-dressing on this issue.

 

Agreed. But let me add a few things.

The FCC also held that the airwaves were a publicly owned domain, and that each broadcaster therefore needed to also provide a public service. This requirement was typically fulfilled by airing news and specifically without profiting from it. This position and requirement were also dropped along with the equal-time rule and broadcasters were free to publish biased viewpoints and use "news" that was distorted so it "sizzled" in the public mind all to boost ratings. Also, mega-mergers were allowed and conglomerates were built.

So now we have 5 or 6 major networks competing for ratings by publishing entertainment they call "news" and there is no demand among them from real journalists or journalism.

This is how bogus propaganda starts. And this is why the Constitution mentions just one type of business and protects it: the free press.

If we don't get back to a free press with many competitors all playing on a level field, we will soon lose our Constitutional freedoms (those we have left!) and will plunge into the darn night of dictatorship, American style.

 

Fox and CNN are bad? Try and watch MSNBC without spitting up

 

I watched it for awhile last night. Did not spit up. If it makes you spit up, you should see a doctor (assuming you can afford one).

 

Nope, not nearly like now because there was the Fairness Doctrine until 1987, the equal-time rule, the conviction that the airwaves were a public domain, and networks were many and small and competitive.

 

FCC licensees are still requires to provide public services.

Welcome to freedom and an audience-driven industry.

Feel free to start your own; don't expect the state do to it for you.

 

Then you're openly admitting to watching the most biased rated "news" while ignoring less biased news.

 

Personal attacks and sweeping generalizations come easy. But it is factual statements backed up by solid evidence that is real work. Try it!

 

Now THERE'S an idea! I think I'll just take my $200 billion I have stashed away and start a new network!! Thanks for the great idea!!

 

During the Tet offensive, where the US military crushed the Viet Cong, Cronkite declared the war was unwinnable and essentially over.
No bias there.

 

Sure, I also listen to Rush for the truth. Seriously though, if it makes you spit up go see a doc.

 

Your complaints will do nothing to bring change, only your actions.
So, you can whine about the news industry or get off your rump and force a change.