quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
That post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there is already a Fairness Doctrine. It was established by the FRC, then later the FCC.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htmIt was challenged in the Supreme Court with Red Lion vs FCC in the 60's. The SC ruled in favor of the FCC and deemed the Fairness Doctrine constitutional.
NashBama,
Note the increased respect indicated by the Capitalizations.
The article you posted is an accurate history of the Fairness Doctrine. That is the history of a doctrine that maintained a balance in broadcast material that was vital to FULL debate on political issues.
What it, and you, and the owners of the corporate media are NOT saying is that in the absence of such a doctrine, opposing viewpoints are minimized.
Consider if you will, this particular debate. As of this moment, 84 people have viewed this subject, 8 replies have been posted, by 6 individuals. Had the same debate been brought up on the lowest rated radio talk show in Alabama, the numbers would be higher by multiples of hundreds regarding observers, and by whatever number time permitted regarding responses.
The reality is, this debate is not public, it is limited by the nature of the forum. It is a debate among us. No others are exposed to it, and no change will result unless it "escapes" the bonds of the limitation. It is limited ot this forum, and unless the Editors of the sponsoring newspaper take notice, and do some reportage, as you have done, and seek some opinions from authorities on the law and regulation of broadcasting, and publish the results, this debate will never go beyond these posts. In other words, the chances of this issue getting a general airing in public is pretty small.
Under the now defunct "Fairness Doctrine" had this debate been brought to a talk show, on an over the air broadcast station, the right of response, with equal time, would have extended to every citizen. Opposing views would have been aired, regardless of who held the views. If the owner of the station said that the Fairness Doctrine should be restored, ANY individual with an opposing view would have access to that owner's radio frequency for an amount of time equal to the time the owner had used to promote restoration of the Doctrine.
For example, if Rush Limbaugh spent 32 seconds saying that the issue of Equal Pay for Equal Work was a stupid and dangerous plan to weaken the American Economy, EVERY PARTICIPANT in the American Economy would have the right to 32 seconds of air time, on every station Limbaugh made the statement on. The risk would be that station owners would be required to permit people who opposed his political positions to use "his" facilities to access "the people's" airwaves. The result would have been a DEBATE, NOT A DIATRIBE. I think that would be excellent radio, entertaining, and enlightening, and it would force fairness and balance. It was in fact how the talk show system worked before 1987. Guess what, it worked, talk show hosts were challenged by their listeners, and the only excuse for cutting someone off was the time constraint, repetition of a previously presented arguement or obscenity violations. Of course you have to be over about 40 to remember the talk shows of 20 plus years ago. They did generate controversy, serious, wide ranging and topical controversy. You do have to be at least 50, assuming you were listening to Talk Shows at age 30.
FOX news would genuinely be "Fair and Balanced. Presenting an opinion during a news show got demand responses for equal time to respond. No one got away with raw propganda, if a city tried to ban smoking in restaurants, or allow package sales on Sunday, the mere report of the proposal meant that people had access to the air for responses. It was good for the society, and it was not anarchy. If a businessman was quoted as saying that he should be allowed to sell beer by the glass on Sunday in a sports bar. Someone, and ONE person could ask to be allowed to present an opposing view, and would be granted the same amount of time to present that view. More importantly, if a television or radio station allowed George Bush and John Kerry to present their political agendas in a broadcast debate, Ralph Nader, and other QUALIFIED presidential candidates would be on the same platform to present their agendas.