|
|
#1
05-04-2007, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
description of bill
Liberal congressmen are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and force large media companies to divest some of their broadcast properties. I don't have too much to comment on this other than I think the Fairness Doctrine concept is stupid. I hope the bill doesn't pass. But even if it does, Bush will veto so I'm not overly concerned. For those who don't know, until the mid 80's, broadcasters were required to give airtime to multiple viewpoints when discussing political issues. I don't know how much time was required or how it was decided which alternative viewpoints received air time. But basically an AM talk radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh all day every day would no longer be able to do so. They would have to give some airtime a liberal blow hard as well. 
|
|
#2
05-04-2007, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
I agree, this is a dumb idea.
Who gets to determine what qualifies as alternative? If a station that broadcasts a guy who says we should kill all canadians by dropping bombs on them suddenly is forced to also broadcast a guy who says will should kill all canadians by starving them to death, I wouldn't consider that much of a difference. However, that's about the level of nuance that represents the "extreme polarization" in the US today.
|
|
#3
05-04-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
[ QUOTE ]
description of bill Liberal congressmen are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and force large media companies to divest some of their broadcast properties. I don't have too much to comment on this other than I think the Fairness Doctrine concept is stupid. I hope the bill doesn't pass. But even if it does, Bush will veto so I'm not overly concerned. For those who don't know, until the mid 80's, broadcasters were required to give airtime to multiple viewpoints when discussing political issues. I don't know how much time was required or how it was decided which alternative viewpoints received air time. But basically an AM talk radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh all day every day would no longer be able to do so. They would have to give some airtime a liberal blow hard as well. [/ QUOTE ] The original law was called an "equal time" law because thats what it required or was interpreted to require. However, applying that law in the context of an entertainment/opinion show would go well beyond the equal time laws, which were specifically targeted to statements by political parties/politicians themselves. The only good thing I can see coming from it is we might not have to suffer through another Clinton saxophone performance if it means giving McCain equal time for a Beach Boys medley.
|
|
#5
05-04-2007, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, this is a dumb idea. Who gets to determine what qualifies as alternative? If a station that broadcasts a guy who says we should kill all canadians by dropping bombs on them suddenly is forced to also broadcast a guy who says will should kill all canadians by starving them to death, I wouldn't consider that much of a difference. However, that's about the level of nuance that represents the "extreme polarization" in the US today. [/ QUOTE ] The real problem of course is that any station that broadcasts the opinions of one powermad buffoon who supports a giant bloated government, high taxes, restrictions of freedom, inflationary monetary policy and an interventionist foreign policy with an R behind he name must then inflict upon its audience the opinions of another powermad buffoon who supports a giant bloated government, high taxes, restrictions of freedom, inflationary monetary policy and an interventionist foreign policy with a D behind his name for an equal, and equally excruciating, amount of time.
|
|
#6
05-04-2007, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem of course is that any station that broadcasts the opinions of one powermad buffoon who supports a giant bloated government, high taxes, restrictions of freedom, inflationary monetary policy and an interventionist foreign policy with an R behind he name must then inflict upon its audience the opinions of another powermad buffoon who supports a giant bloated government, high taxes, restrictions of freedom, inflationary monetary policy and an interventionist foreign policy with a D behind his name for an equal, and equally excruciating, amount of time. [/ QUOTE ] POTD
|
|
#7
05-04-2007, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem of course is that any station that broadcasts the opinions of one powermad buffoon who supports a giant bloated government, high taxes, restrictions of freedom, inflationary monetary policy and an interventionist foreign policy with an R behind he name must then inflict upon its audience the opinions of another powermad buffoon who supports a giant bloated government, high taxes, restrictions of freedom, inflationary monetary policy and an interventionist foreign policy with a D behind his name for an equal, and equally excruciating, amount of time. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think that's significantly different from what's happening now?
|
|
#8
05-04-2007, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness doctrine is little different than expecting a state university to host different opinions. The airwaves are a public resource, like a public university, and anyone who wants to rent our airwaves should have to play fair.
Of course Borodog is right, it was insufficient in the past to open discussion beyond a narrow range of the status quo. But I don't know why we should make a principle of handing everything over to the rich. Fox is pushing the other networks from statist to fascist.
|
|
#9
05-05-2007, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
Why should they have to "play fair" as defined by an ever changing group of bureaucrats? They pay for the broadcast rights, why shouldnt they be able to broadcast whatever they want? the market is quite capable of sorting out what is and isnt acceptable use of the airwaves.
|
|
#10
05-05-2007, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: HR 3302 - Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
[ QUOTE ]
The Fairness doctrine is little different than expecting a state university to host different opinions. The airwaves are a public resource, like a public university, and anyone who wants to rent our airwaves should have to play fair. Of course Borodog is right, it was insufficient in the past to open discussion beyond a narrow range of the status quo. But I don't know why we should make a principle of handing everything over to the rich. Fox is pushing the other networks from statist to fascist. [/ QUOTE ] I for one am appalled that the government is even considering the idea of requiring political radio programs to espouse certain beliefs. As a refresher, Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
