Fairness Doctrine

[SmokeRing]

If the Fairness Doctrine does come back, congress should make it apply to ALL programming - including entertainment shows. 

Jay Leno would have to balance his comedy to attack both liberals and conservatives - equally. 

Rants against Republicans on the Simpsons, Family Guy and other shows would have to be balanced with rants against Democrats in the same show. 

Showing a movie like Farenheit 9/11 would have to be balanced with a rebuttle of equal length. 

Christmas programming would have to be balanced with shows of equal lenght from atheists.   

And really, congress should put some teeth behind this.  Have a National Program Content Review Board look at every program before it airs just to make sure it's fair.  Writers and producers who tried to sneak something past them should face jail time and multi-million dollar fines.

A modest proposal if there ever was one.   

[milton77]

If the Fairness Doctrine does come back, congress should make it apply to ALL programming - including entertainment shows. 

We certainly shouldn't just go after "conservative" talk radio. I think every person over the age of 54 should have the right to get the oldies station that "they" want.  It's not fair because they are so old, right?

The week before the Texas-Texas A&M football game, should sports talkers in Austin/San Antonio be required to give equal time to fans of TAMU?

Hypothetically after 9/11 if any host said the events that occurred that day were “sad” or “bad”, wouldn’t a radio station be required to allow equal time as well?

Additionally, I have seen so many books that are biased. The authors should be forced if they convey any opinion, to allow an equal amount of space for an opposing viewpoint. The same should apply for magazines and newspapers. In fact, the Dallas Morning News should be required to devote the same amount of words, etc to an opposing viewpoint, no matter how absurd it is.

Now that this Amnesty/Immigration bill has failed, a lot of people in congress have talk radio in their scope now. The next few years will be interesting for our republic.

[Managing Board Editor]

Some posts have been relocated to Take It Outside


http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,74911.msg542579.html#msg542579

[country24]

The original "Fairness Doctrine" did two things.

1. It required that all liscensed stations provide some time for the discussion of controversial subjects (not any specific amount of time, just some time), and
2. It required that when any controversial subject was discussed, some time be devoted to both sides (not any specific amount of time and certainly not equal time, just some time)

Nobody is interested in bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine."  But some people are promoting a completely different law and pretending it is the "Fairness Doctrine."

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

Overall those entrenched in talk radio,don't want it,because they are fearful it would cut into their influence,stardome,income,and perhaps actually have an opposing opinion that is more factual and correct than they. Others oppose it,,because they had to spend time to find an opposing viewpoint,and make the time.
 Radio was never meant to be a business,it was designed to be an information tool for the community, that includes more than one opinion on issues. Those that oppose cite governmnet interference. If you remember your radio history,if it werent for the "Govmint" no one would be assigned to any particular freq,and you could run as much power as you so choose. It happened in the 20's ,and the FRC was too weak to do anything ,thus the FCC was born. Now its amputated. Now you have a different version of it with one company dominating a given market in ownership,and pretty much controlling the flow of information.
This topic will always be debated. It won't happen unfortunately, as long as the corps toss in the large campaign contributions , plus Rush and company giving free politcal advertisements,with endorsements. They like the power. they enjoy the control.

[firstimelongtime]

I don't know that a Fairness Doctrine could be put back into place. As a conservative it would not hurt my feelings to see the amount of conservative talk radio reduced, both national and local. So much of it is dreadful and has come at the expense of local programming. It doesn't seem that long ago that the noon & 6 PM times were local.

There does seems to be a lot of interest.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/search.htm?searchFor=fairness+doctrine

[GRAYWOLF]

it would not hurt my feelings to see the amount of conservative talk radio reduced,

I agree and would add that I wouldn't care if it went the way of Air America, just as long as it isn't the government forcing it. I would not even care if AA had taken over talk radio...

[GRAYWOLF]

I just came across this somewhere else:

"Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115 By Alexander Bolton June 28, 2007 The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters

[EDIT]


[EDIT-post truncated because originating material appears to be copyrighted.
Unauthorized use of such content is in violation of Radio-Info's TOS.]

[adguy]

Radio was never meant to be a business,it was designed to be an information tool for the community, that includes more than one opinion on issues. Those that oppose cite governmnet interference. If you remember your radio history,if it werent for the "Govmint" no one would be assigned to any particular freq,and you could run as much power as you so choose.

That was true in the 1920's, but just like all new technology, business evolves and today's radio IS A BUSINESS first and foremost.  As I pointed out in several posts throughout this thread (most of which were moved by the "managing bored editor") successful programming that achieves ratings and advertisers stays and weak programming that can't sustain audiences nor advertisers goes away.  The first thing I was taught when I got into broadcasting in 1985 was that this is show BUSINESS.  Any real attempt to reimplement the fairness doctrine will disrupt the free marketplace that somewhat exists today.  Unfortunately the big corps have so homogenized the product that the business it is so very weakened.  All the fairness doctrine will do is force stations to carry programming that will most likely bring no ratings and advertisers.  It could spell the death of AM Talk Radio and further weaken an already weak medium hurt by IPODS and Sat Radio.  All radio enthusiasts should stand up against anything that will further weaken a once great medium.

[Robert Bass]

Radio was never meant to be a business,it was designed to be an information tool for the community, that includes more than one opinion on issues. Those that oppose cite governmnet interference. If you remember your radio history,if it werent for the "Govmint" no one would be assigned to any particular freq,and you could run as much power as you so choose.

That was true in the 1920's, but just like all new technology, business evolves and today's radio IS A BUSINESS first and foremost.

BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE!

Last time I checked, broadcast station licenses are not that much different today than they were back then.  Every station's license states that the station's PRIMARY duty is to serve the city of license.  Nowhere does the license grant permission to operate the station like a bank.

IF the PUBLIC AIRWAVES did not belong to THE PUBLIC, then the bank operation would make sense.  But you people who make such claims about how radio is a business, need to remind yourselves who owns the airwaves.  Why is that so hard to understand?

All radio enthusiasts should stand up against anything that will further weaken a once great medium.

ONCE GREAT indeed, but if anything has changed, THIS is it.  And you can thank clueless radio companies along with deregulation, for destroying the medium.

Jeff Dugan had it right when he said "I promised them a station, not a bank" in the 1970's film FM.

R