There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.” FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.
The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned.
Found by Thomas Wiles via Twitter.
More F. U. D. to stir up the “Base”.
Conservatives can go to hell. We need the Fairness Doctrine for radio and TV broadcasting (not the internet, that’s just conservative fear mongering).
The wealthy and the powerful now control the corporate media. It’s time to destroy that stranglehold.
Got to agree with #1. This is not going to happen.
There is nothing “fair” about limiting free speech. This is very anti 1st amendment. This is a very bad idea. Lib talk radio doesn’t work because libs don’t like fair and open debate.
#4 GrimJack said:
“… libs don’t like fair and open debate.”
Ooh, that looks like fun! Let me try one:
“Daddy, why do Democrats hate America?”
How’d I do?
How about most democrats just don’t listen to AM radio, fair and balanced sounds an awful lot like separate but equal to me, sounds good, but there is an agenda behind it.
Sorry Air America just sucked
So, controlling speech is a good thing? Who are going to be the appointed censors?
#7 Paddy-O, Yup you got it!
Who’s going to determine what is “Fair”? Fox News maybe? After all, they are “Fair and Balanced”.
Only intellectually dishonest people who have let their hate of talk radio override their common sense are in support of the “fairness doctrine”. Why do I say this?
Simple. If you are in support of freedom of press then you have to be in support of freedom of the airwaves as well.
“But wait” my liberal friend says, “The broadcasters are using the ‘public airwaves’ to do their business, so the government should be able to control their content”
The problem with this entire “public airwaves argument” is that if you follow that line of thinking then you are also saying that the government should have the right to regulate the content of published materials as well, since that material has to use the “public roads” to get to your house. Same with the internet, since you have to use the “public right of way” to get to your house as well.
The governments responsibility when it comes to the spectrum should be to grant spectrum (as unbiased as possible) and prevent interference, not to control content.
What’s been the liberal message at least since the late 60’s? “Everything sucks – vote for us so we can fix it.”
That’s not what most people want to hear on a regular basis. There’s no big corporate conspiracy. If the libs put on a show that had a message people liked, they’d listen and the show would get ratings.
Not to mention I see balance already. Libs own pretty much all mainstream media, Hollywood, and emotion driven websites. Conservatives have a majority of talk radio and fact driven websites. They’re still outnumbered by libs. A true “fairness” doctrine would actually create a lot more conservative content.
BCF that’s hilariously naive.
First of all, there are successful liberal talk shows. The Stephanie Miller Show has garnered great ratings in almost every market it is in. The problem is that it is not in very many markets because program directors have no idea how to “sell” a liberal talk show.
Corporations own the networks, and/or pay billions in advertising. In exchange, news agencies often do not report stories harmful to advertisers interests. Network news is not “liberal”, and except for Fox its not “conservative” either. Its all dumbed down news if you ask me, which is why I never watch it.
As for the Internet, its the great equalizer. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell obviously does not know the internet very well if he says it might be subject to the “Fairness Doctrine”.
The Fairness Doctrine was solely over the publicly owned broadcast bands.
Since broadcast bands were limited and exclusively licensed, it seemed fair that neither political party should dominate them.
The doctrine never applied to print media or other privately owned forms of communication, such as cable television.
Is Internet isn’t’ anything like broadcast TV and radio which is highly limited and exclusively licensed to use bands owned by the public.
I forgot to add that this smells like right wingers trying to scare the on-line community into opposing a fairness doctrine.
Since when do “bloggers” at the Heritage foundation have any sort of status to be instructing the FCC?
>> BigCarbonFoot said, on August 13th, 2008 at 8:51 am
>> What’s been the liberal message at least since the late 60’s? “Everything sucks – vote for us so we can fix it.”
No, you’re confusing liberals with the conservatives’ “Contract with America” that was promised to fix a country that had totally gone off the rails in every regard.
Holy smokes, they made it worse. Those days seem pretty great now.
>> GrimJack said, on August 13th, 2008 at 3:05 am
>> Lib talk radio doesn’t work because libs don’t like fair and open debate.
90% of talk radio stations are conservative and many communities have no “lib” station at all.
What’s fair about that? What’s open about that?
The conservatives love being the only one with a microphone in vast swaths of America, so they can lied their heads off, unchallenged.
Just more proof that they don’t understand how the internet works or maybe they understand to well. 😉
I saw the video and I think the FCC chairman was actually talking about net neutrality and was giving a very poor analogy regarding ISP’s and the fainess doctrine, he was trying to connect dots that just were not there.
Even so, do we really need a fairness doctrine for anything? I just turn it off or change the channel unlike those poor slobs in N. Korea that HAVE TO leave the ‘radio’ on in their homes.
Contrary to these misleading assertions, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with empowering the FCC to regulate content (aka Fairness Doctrine). Net Neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet, and has been part of the Web since its inception. It says that no one — government agency or corporate giant — should be able to tell consumers what legal content they can access and share online.
It is absurd to equate Net Neutrality — a principle that promotes and protects free speech on the Internet — with any effort to regulate speech.
Sen. Kerry FCC Commissioner McDowell’s World
In reality, the FCC’s decision is not about regulation; it’s about law and order. If someone is caught red-handed committing a crime, their punishment is not regulation. It’s justice. Comcast was caught illegally blocking free speech and the free market on the Internet and now they are being punished for their crime. Punished not with a fine, but with a reasonable request. The FCC simply told Comcast to stop.
“Conservatives can go to hell. We need the Fairness Doctrine for radio and TV broadcasting (not the internet, that’s just conservative fear mongering).”
People who see things anywhere close to this view are pure, “useful idiots.” I’m a conservative and I couldn’t go to Hell even if I tried, its already overflowing with tool liberal sheeple.
Bring on the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” and then see what immediately happens to the ultra-liberal Main Stream Media which includes the networks, CNN, etc. Suddenly, conservatives will have more national outlets than ever before even if it is forced upon the MSM by Supreme Court ruling to enforce the “Fairness Doctrine.”
Soon enough, libidiots everywhere will realize that they have opened a Conservative Pandora’s Box and will be beaten to death with their own arm.
Not one person who supports this proposed censorship has answered the question of how the censors would be chosen…
I like it when people use terms like “libidiots” and “Chimp-in-chief.” It makes it really easy to see who I can ignore.
Then we just go back to phone modems and BBS’s . where is the problem?
As one who remembers the fairness doctrine, I notice many on these pages don’t seem to know what it was. It was eliminated in the Reagan administration, so I’ll explain it to you ‘youngsters’ out there.
All the doctrine did is require broadcast stations to provide equal time to groups or individuals who took exception to something the station broadcast. That isn’t censorship, its courtesy. Talk radio was young then, and it was much more civilized (although not completely) because you always faced the possibility you would be challenged.
Since all the right wing hosts these days tend to just parrot the Republican talking points and the Drudge report, literally everything they say would be subject to challenge. Yes they have a reason to be worried, because they might actually have to WORK for their salaries if there were a fairness doctrine.
On a side note, did you ever noticed that the conservatives like to lump all liberals into the same bag? “Air America Sucks”. Yet you never hear them say “Clear Channel is great.” If you are going to attack liberal radio, at least name a host so you at least create the illusion that you actually have listened to one. This may come as a shock to you, but there are successful liberal hosts who don’t work for Air America.
And they would be subject to the fairness doctrine also, but none of the ones I’ve heard have a problem with that.
Chris
>> Sinn Fein said,
>> What is fair about it is called the Open Market Place of Ideas where people buy and support ideas and arguments that they happen to find themselves in agreement with…on August 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
But that’s the problem. There ISN’T an open market of ideas when conservative media monopolies are allowed to shut out political opinions they don’t like, with the collusion of a conservative government.
… and to do it with publicity owned airwaves.
>> Paddy-O said, on August 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
>> Not one person who supports this proposed censorship has answered the question of how the censors would be chosen…
Maybe it’s because it’s a parody of our viewpoint to call fairness censorship.
We don’t want censorship, we want ALL KINDS of political opinions on the radio waves… not just 100% conservative, 100% of the time like in many US markets right now.
#12 –“First of all, there are successful liberal talk shows. The Stephanie Miller Show has garnered great ratings in almost every market it is in.” – Proves my point, put something on people want to listen to and you get ratings. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
#15 – I’m talking about a steady drumbeat from the drug addled hippies on forward. But, once in a while things really are broken. The problem with Newt’s crowd is that they didn’t follow through and also had to try and push everything past a Democratic President.
Never fear though – all that is good will end soon with the election of O’Vomit.
nothing is fair. Life is not fair. Government can never make up for the fact that life is not fair. Fascist elements have tried to nanny and police and failed miserably. The religion of politics can make us feel warm and cozy at night knowing government loves us and wants to take care of us for the rest of our lives, but it cannot make anything fair. This issue is not about who is getting more time and what is being skewed to the left or right. It is a flawed proposition to ever begin with. As far as I can recall China is doing rather well at moderating media though…we should really look up to them.