Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

So-called "fairness doctrine" gaining traction

660 Views 10 Replies 8 Participants Last post by  AeroShooter
This article is showing that the discussion on reinstituting the so-called "fairness doctrine" is gaining traction in Congress following the recent defeat in the Senate of the immigration bill.

Political powerhouses on both sides of the aisle that were vested in the latest immigration measure are calling for its reimplementation because they want to keep the voice of the people silenced, or at least curtail our organization on issues we disagree with them concerning. It is no secret that talk radio and its listeners were the driving force behind causing at least 14 senators to change stance regarding a vote on cloture and the political honchos now want to punish these outlets by putting them under a bureacrat's pervue.

Personally, I don't want the government involved at all in regulating any of my natural rights, to include my first amendment rights. I don't want some bureacrat somewhere deciding what is a right leaning issue and what is a left leaning one. That is direct control of what the media disseminates and should not be under the auspices of the government in a free country.

Now if we truly wanted real reform when it comes to our public airwaves, the government would break up the huge media powerhouses, such as Clearchannel and others and implement a hard ceiling as to how many media outlets any one person or corporate entity could own. That would guarantee diversity in our media and at the same time would protect the public from media giants, like Rupert Murdoch who control a large portion of our access to information.

For those of you who like the old Jimmy Stewart movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, our current media setup is similar to that faced by Jimmy's character when confronting the illegal activities of the protaganist, the media mogul Jim Taylor. The only difference, is today we have the internet which is not as susceptible of censorship. Then again, if you look at the article, many people are calling for that too ... censorship of the internet via the fairness doctrine.

Educate yourself on this subject, and in turn educate others. It is truly an us versus them situation as our elected officials seem intent on taking away our access to information and ability to effectively organize because it is detrimental to their interests.
See less See more
1 - 2 of 11 Posts
The so called Fairness Doctrine requires broadcast stations to allow people with opposing points of view a chance to respond. It isn't necessarily a bureaucrat determining content, but it has that same impact as it will kill syndicated talk radio as we now know it.

What I would like to know is if it would apply to satellite radio. If not, it would probably be a boom for Sirius and XM (or the merged single company) as some of the big names that aren't currently on satellite would then be signed, and their huge listening audiences would then subscribe to a satellite service.

Limbaugh isn't currently on either service. Boortz has said that he hasn't gone to satellite because it wouldn't be fair to his affiliates; however, if the syndication thing dies he wouldn't have that issue. Hannity is on as his radio show is owned by ABC, and ABC News Talk is one of the talk channels.
Thorsen said:
legacy38 said:
The so called Fairness Doctrine requires broadcast stations to allow people with opposing points of view a chance to respond. It isn't necessarily a bureaucrat determining content, but it has that same impact as it will kill syndicated talk radio as we now know it.
But you see legacy38 it actually is determining content because it will be government imposed determinations of fairness that will end up prevailing. If this doctrine is allowed to be reinstated it will be but a short step from a government body being established to oversee its functioning. Therefore, if a 50/50 left/right ratio were to be determined to be in the interests of fairness, radio stations would be forced to follow the dictates of some non-elected governmental body, said body determining what was fair and what was not. To me, that is pure censorship. The only thing more direct would be if government forces stormed the stations and took over the programming directly.

As to whether or not it would be applied to satellite radio, well some are calling for its application to the internet (how that would be possible I have no clue). If application to the internet is feasible to them, why wouldn't application to satellite? However you look at it, application of censorship to any of our national media source points, be it radio, newsprint, television, or the internet is a recipe for disaster for the American people.
Please read my post again. I stated that it had the same impact as controlling content, but it isn't a bureaucrat actually approving or rejecting content. It also doesn't apply to individual shows. If a station wanted to carry Boortz, it still could, but it would have to allow anyone that wanted to oppose Boortz's opinion to respond.

Make no mistake, I think it stinks.

As for satellite radio, people like Stern are doing their thing outside of FCC regs for stuff that can go out over general broadcast airwaves. That's why I am curious to know if the so called fairness doctrine would apply to satellite radio.
1 - 2 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.