# Fairness Doctrine



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

From the Chris Wallace show this last Sunday (June 24). It is a long transcript, but here is the pertinent part to the issue of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. The entire transcript is at:



> WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.
> 
> Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened.
> 
> ...


So what are the implications here? Is Diane saying we need to limit talk radio from the right, force broadcasters to subsidize left wing talk radio (as the market will not support it), or have tax payers pay for left wing radio in equal amounts to what the market is willing to support right wing talk radio? What are the First Amendment implications here?

I know people on here that detest the likes of Limbaugh are likely to downplay this, make accusations of paranora, etc. I would just point them directly back to Feinstein's words. She is pretty clear that she thinks right wing talk radio is problematic and is looking at forcing broadcasters to carrying non-commercially viable programs to fulfill her needs. She says so in this interview and she is very well placed to push her views into legislation.

Thoughts?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

I don't know details of "The Fairness Doctrine" , but the idea of government forcing broadcasting to air opposing talk radio is just stupid. 

I'd much rather have government force broadcasters to air "Truth in Political Rhetoric".:icon_smile_big: 

-channel changer


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Every time I hear this nonsense, smoke comes out of my ears. The taxpayers already support left-wing radio, it is known as "National Public Radio." In my area, at least, since about the time of the last years of Bush the Elder it has changed from a largely classical music format to 60% + pseudo-news and commentary programs pushing lefty (excuse me, progressive) political and social agendas.

I refuse to listen to it myself, but my wife does in the morning when we get up so I can't avoid hearing it. The political agenda is so obvious. The last couple of days it has been the poor little illegal aliens (excuse me, undocumented workers) from Mexico and how they are so oppressed and how their families back in Mexico are suffering so much because they can't all move to the United States. All this is done on cue.

The Left largely controls the print media in our country. In my area, you don't even bother to read the morning paper, because you already know what it is going to say. In my opinion, the Left also largely controls the television news as well as controlling Public Television outright.

The reason the "right" is on the radio is that it is the only forum (other than the internet) they can still get reasonable access to. It's cheap, and there are a heck of a lot more frequencies you can broadcast from than TV. 

The "left" is fully free to do it too, but they flop because it is the same old drivel that people are already getting in print and on TV and most people recognize it's nonsense.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Did anyone else notice the irony of the two announcements coming in roughly the same week?

Namely - 9:1 talk radio shows are conservative; 9:1 MSM donate to DNC


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think Limbaugh is a good thing, but to force radio stations to carry Liberal radio that can't maintain an acceptable audience on its own is not right.

This could actually reduce the number of radio stations by making it more expensive to operate them. (Forcing them to devote time that won't produce the income necessary to cover costs is nearly the same thing as imposing an extra tax.)


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

The 9:1 donation report was most likely a response to the CAP report. The CAP report needs to be prefaced with "A recent report, published by the Center for American Progress, funded by George Soros, a billionaire who finances far-left political groups (like MoveOn), and run by John Podesta, a Clintonista, says that government should regulate talk radio to advance leftist ideology." It would be on par with how TV news introduces anything the NRA says (and the NRA does not pay for any studies, ever. So if you hear someone talking about how something is 'just an NRA study', you know they are a liar.)

And the non-leftists (it's more than just the conservative right) have more than talk radio. We have the Internet.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Case in point about the daily newspaper in our town: there was an article this morning covering the most recent Supreme Court decisions. The section about the challenge to McCain-Feingold went on for paragraph after paragraph without _once_ mentioning the First Amendment. Instead, it focused on the (inherently evil, of course) corporate interests getting more access to media and influencing elections. Further down the page, where the newspaper shifted to their coverage of the "bong hits 4 jesus" case, the writer suddenly remembered that there _is_ a First Amendment, and the writer clearly felt that not allowing "bong hits 4 jesus" banners was a vicious attack on said First Amendment.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> From the Chris Wallace show this last Sunday (June 24). It is a long transcript, but here is the pertinent part to the issue of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. The entire transcript is at:
> 
> So what are the implications here? Is Diane saying we need to limit talk radio from the right, force broadcasters to subsidize left wing talk radio (as the market will not support it), or have tax payers pay for left wing radio in equal amounts to what the market is willing to support right wing talk radio? What are the First Amendment implications here?


By my estimation, in light of Fox News alone, the Democratic Party is owed about 90,000 hours of national media time. A fair and balanced news network, run by Roger Ailes. Give me a fu**ing break.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone familiar with Colonial Spanish 'earthquake architecture?' You see it in the Philipines and California, stone or adobe biuldings with lengthy support walls. Feistein is an earthquake architect. Rather than build on the bedrock of our constitution, she would build massive walls of shaky legislation brick by brick; firearm confiscation, immigration reform, fair access. By law, the media is owned by--- YOU and ME. In reality,by an ever shrinking number of individuals or corporations with the RIGHTS of individuals in violation of the first regulations. By law, we are supposed to have access to the media for the public good. We do not. Instead we have Lord Haw Haws and Tokyo Roses. Rush and Michael are not the problem. A fat slob with a big mouth is a dime a dozen. The problem are the thieves of our property, making contributions to the Feinsteins.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fasc...8160636?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182884681&sr=1-1

They can't help themselves...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> This could actually reduce the number of radio stations by making it more expensive to operate them.


That's why scumbags like Feinstein are attracted to the idea in the first place.



> We have the Internet.


Don't think for an instant that said scumbags haven't noticed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> By my estimation, in light of Fox News alone, the Democratic Party is owed about 90,000 hours of national media time. A fair and balanced news network, run by Roger Ailes. Give me a fu**ing break.


I knew I could count on you Francis. I even just about mentioned you by name in my OP. Good job on exactly missing the point and dropping us a straw man.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> By my estimation, in light of Fox News alone, the Democratic Party is owed about 90,000 hours of national media time. A fair and balanced news network, run by Roger Ailes. Give me a fu**ing break.


So, in light of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, (Not to mention 95% of all newspaper media outlets) how many hours would you estimate the Republican Party is due Frank or are you really so naive as to claim that those networks actually are "Fair and Balanced?"


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

rojo said:


> Case in point about the daily newspaper in our town . . .


Case in point about the newspapers in our town. You'll remember a couple of weeks ago a number of terrorists were arrested planning to blow up fuel lines at Kennedy Airport.

Our local papers have yet to print a single word about this. If you didn't read the internet, you would never have known it happened.

However, we'll get page after page of stories of oppression of undocumented workers, how Bush lied and how the Attorney General should resign.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/radio_imbalance_is_in_the_tale.html


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> So, in light of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, (Not to mention 95% of all newspaper media outlets) how many hours would you estimate the Republican Party is due Frank or are you really so naive as to claim that those networks actually are "Fair and Balanced?"


None of those other news networks are run by (and content controlled by) current and former heads of the Democratic Party. And none of those other news networks have a specific political and social agenda.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> None of those other news networks are run by (and content controlled by) current and former heads of the Democratic Party. And none of those other news networks have a specific political and social agenda.


Yet another straw man. A spontaneous one at that!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And none of those other news networks have a specific political and social agenda.


Okay, it is official - Frank is not dealing with reality. I refuse to debate anyone with the intellectual capacity of my dog "Maia," as much as I love her. If you really believe that Frank, well . . . .


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> None of those other news networks are run by (and content controlled by) current and former heads of the Democratic Party. And none of those other news networks have a specific political and social agenda.


Wow, you must get different networks than we do.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Just For Francis...*

I feel that the words of the esteemed Senator might be too much for some to understand without a synopsis or explication. With that in mind, I will briefly summarize her words in hopes that all can participate with the actual topic of the thread:

Senator Feinstein stated she feels talk radio tends to be "one-sided" and that this is not fair. Ergo, she is examining introducing legislation to create "fairness" on the radio waves, namely that equal amounts of left wing radio is broadcast to counter the current "one-sided" situation. She realizes there is no commercial market for the left wing talk radio but apparently has mechanisms to overcome the market barriers.

I hope that is not too "spontaneous" for anyone to misunderstand.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Beresford said:


> Case in point about the newspapers in our town. You'll remember a couple of weeks ago a number of terrorists were arrested planning to blow up fuel lines at Kennedy Airport.
> 
> Our local papers have yet to print a single word about this. If you didn't read the internet, you would never have known it happened.
> 
> However, we'll get page after page of stories of oppression of undocumented workers, how Bush lied and how the Attorney General should resign.


If your local paper ever does any coverage of the arrested terrorists you mention, I'm sure it will be all about how the heartless arresting authorities used quite possibly illegal means to entrap these poor folks, and how their civil rights have been abused if not outright violated.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Beresford said:


> Wow, you must get different networks than we do.


Call me when Hillary Clinton asks Chuck Roberts to be her Press Secretary.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Call me when Hillary Clinton asks Chuck Roberts to be her Press Secretary.


So sad FraudDC. I even gave a simple summary of the topic at hand and you still could not do anything other than offer us a straw man. So sad, but so typical.


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

Would this also require the hiring of conservative teachers and professors to balance what students are taught? I might be for it yet


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

super k said:


> Would this also require the hiring of conservative teachers and professors to balance what students are taught? I might be for it yet


If you wish to protect your kids from the evils of liberalism, move to Iran. You'll get a very good idea of what the alternative is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If you wish to protect your kids from the evils of liberalism, move to Iran. You'll get a very good idea of what the alternative is.


I'll take that as tacit (and spontaneous!) admission that the you feel that post you are answering was accurate then, i.e. liberals are the vast majority of university academics.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If you wish to protect your kids from the evils of liberalism, move to Iran. You'll get a very good idea of what the alternative is.


(Needed for all replies to Frank.)


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

yachtie said:


> (Needed for all replies to Frank.)


 times infinity (as my daughter would say).


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> If you wish to protect your kids from the evils of liberalism, move to Iran. You'll get a very good idea of what the alternative is.


So, on one side are all the good, intelligent, progressive, benevolent liberals, and on the other side is the inflexible, reactionary theocracy? Is there nothing in between? No middle ground whatsoever?

This is how liberals really think. They honestly believe that the Bush administration -- heck, the whole Republican party -- is just another version of the Iranian government, except dressed up in Christianity instead of Islam.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rojo said:


> So, on one side are all the good, intelligent, progressive, benevolent liberals, and on the other side is the inflexible, reactionary theocracy? Is there nothing in between? No middle ground whatsoever?


You are forgetting the best part. Then someone that thinks like this will accuse you of being "too black and white". Always a side-splitter.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

rojo said:


> So, on one side are all the good, intelligent, progressive, benevolent liberals, and on the other side is the inflexible, reactionary theocracy? Is there nothing in between? No middle ground whatsoever?
> 
> This is how liberals really think. They honestly believe that the Bush administration -- heck, the whole Republican party -- is just another version of the Iranian government, except dressed up in Christianity instead of Islam.


In many regards it is. As I've said before, simply read the current platform of the Republican Party. They may not be trying to send us back to the 6th century, just the 19th.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In many regards it is. As I've said before, simply read the current platform of the Republican Party. They may not be trying to send us back to the 6th century, just the 19th.


No fair Frank. You have given up any pretense of rationality and leave me little room for comment. You did leave me one small opening though, no doubt the result of your very fine "liberal" education. Islam was founded in the 7th century, not the 6th. Thanks for tossing me a bone.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> This is how liberals really think.


Liberals don't think. They emote.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Come on Wayfarer, wasn't Mohammed conceived in the 6th century?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No fair Frank. You have given up any pretense of rationality and leave me little room for comment. You did leave me one small opening though, no doubt the result of your very fine "liberal" education. Islam was founded in the 7th century, not the 6th. Thanks for tossing me a bone.


Technically, Republicans are trying to return us to a pre-Islam global environment!


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Liberals don't think. They emote.


This observation will win me no friends, but both thought and emotion are equally necessary components of healthy human behaviour.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

eg1 said:


> This observation will win me no friends, but both thought and emotion are equally necessary components of healthy human behaviour.


Yes, but in balance. Balance is missing on the left.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> This observation will win me no friends, but both thought and emotion are equally necessary components of healthy human behaviour.


Perhaps rational thought and emotion are equally necessary with regard to the totality of one's life, but at the particular times when we are engaged in the narrow area of life we call politics, rationality is preferable.

Logical fallacy and appeals to fear are a large part of the reason that propaganda has been so successful.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)




----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Would a Rosie O'Donnell talk show work? She seems to have some kind of fan base.

Or are Rosie fans not the sort who would listen to talk radio?


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Interesting take on the absence of discussion about The Fairness Doctrine as regards NBC's (and parent GE's) recent love fest with Al Gore's little Live Earth soire.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Very pertinent Mark. Thank you.


----------

