Welcome to PatsFans.com

FCC Chairman: Fairness Doctrine not needed

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by STFarmy, Jul 27, 2007.

  1. STFarmy

    STFarmy In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    The real issue is, which neither party is addressing, how do you get alternative viewpoints (right and left) heard? The Democrats and Republicans have never had much trouble being heard, but minor parties have almost no voice in our political system. I'm not sure if a fairness doctrine is a solution, but certainly it would strengthen our democracy if those with other viewpoints had a seat at the table.
     
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    As you know Patters the Fairness doctrine if implimented will be used to limit right wing radio talk and get 'equal representation' the dems for on the radio only.

    The dems don't see a need for a Fairness doctrine for TV, Newspapers, Books or other media ( although Hillary C in the 90's suggested that the government should regulate content on the Internet since there were no 'gatekeepers')

    And Who get to play God and count the words spoken and allocate them amongst dem and pubbies?

    The whole idea of the first admendment was to allow political speech without government interference. Let the marketplace decide regardless of the media. The cheap attempt at censorship the congress wants to create is Un American.
     
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    If the "fairness doctrine" was ever implemented, it would scare the crap out of me. Today we live in a "pull-information" society. Television, radio, and papers are "push-information", they run the stories they're going to run and you have to listen to them. With the internet, people can get information on whatever they want. I can spend a week reading about any candidate if I wanted to. The one thing I do know, is any government program of control will never be used quite how it was intended, no thanks.
     
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    That's certainly what Democratic operatives want, and Republican operatives want people like Murdoch to be able to run as much of media as possible. They want to wipe out the small media and have our media be dominated by large corporations. Both parties have political objectives, and I think you're naive if you don't think the Republicans try to position themselves advantageously as much as the Democrats do.

    I basically agree with you, but it still doesn't address the problem that Republicans and Democrats largely have a monopoly on political thought in the US. Wouldn't it be good if there was a way for more viewpoints to be aired?
     
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Sure, it'd also be nice to live in a utopia, yet government regulation will give us neither a wider view nor utopia. Think about it, Democrats and Republicans together are in charge of the country. If this policy were to go into effect, the two parties would control it. They don't want you to have additional viewpoints to consider, that's why they create difficult ballot access laws so third parties can't run candidates.

    In summary,
    More viewpoints would be nice.
    Government regulation won't get us more viewpoints.
    Therefor government regulation isn't the answer.
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    Any type of viewpoint is available if you want it. I don't want the government being the arbiter of what is put into the public forum. Of course if the fairness doctrine was put in place, it wouldn't be to allow 'other viewpoints' beyond that of the large parties. NO, NO NO!
     
  8. STFarmy

    STFarmy In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Exactly right. I know what you're getting at Patters, but I just don't trust the government to be able to determine what's "fair" for us to hear or not. Our system was basically established so that the onus is on the citizens to educate themselves - something that is increasingly becoming less desirable apparently. They'd rather watch oversexed, inane youth babble and fawn over each other on MTV, trading vacuous dialog and borderline retarded innuendo.
     
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    When, in the history of our lifetimes, has government been able to get anything right? We don't need more regulations and restrictions, we need less.
     
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    It can be part of the answer. As I already said, maybe not the Fairness Doctrine; but possibly more grants to alternative media, continued support for PBS stations, bringing back some restrictions on the amount of control a single media company can have over a geographic area, maybe even changes to libel laws. I'm not saying I have the answer, but I don't think it only likes in Utopia.
     
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, the real issue is why do you think it is the government's responsibility to see to it that everyone has a chance to be heard..?

    Newsflash: We have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to be heard. There's a difference.
     
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    You are right the answer doesn't live in Utopian visions, it lies in FREE Markets, unencumbered by government.
     
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    There's nothing you like about our government? You don't like our legal system? You don't like the way the roads are kept? You don't trust the dollar? You don't trust the capabilities of our military? You think all our schools are bad, including all the public universities? You don't like the damns built, the parks protected, the space program, the FDA, the FCC, the FAA, etc.? Government does a hell of a lot right, and certainly at least as much as private business, which often go bankrupt, engage in fraud, do harm to workers, hire illegal aliens, shift jobs overseas, sell products that do harm, etc. Government's big and makes its fair share of mistakes, but at least open records laws allow us to find and know about those mistakes, while private business apparently keeps people like you in ignorant bliss by not being required to report in full.
     
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    Do you support monopolies?
     
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're being naive to say that any of those steps would help the situation. Who controls the grants? The Democrats and Republicans, so you can bet the money will go to "independent" media... of their choice. Restrictions on ownership? I could support a limited form of that to prevent monopolies, but if there are 3 or 4 major media companies in a given area, and they're not conspiring (as in the Sherman Act), it's tough to say there's a business monopoly. Besides, what if there were 10 media companies and they were all ultra-conservative, would that be any better? Monopolies exist in an ownership sense, not a viewpoint sense. Changing libel laws, I assume to make them more strict, is not only dumb but unconstitutional. You didn't give specifics so I don't know what you mean, but I bet I wouldn't like it.
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    In the age of the Internet monopolies of information are not relevant. We had more of a (Liberal) monopoly in the 50-70, before talk radio and the Internet when there was basically 1 viewpoint being put out in newspapers and on TV.

    Since 90% of reporters support dems do we need a fairness doctrine to ensure an equal # of conservative reporters? How about the monopoly of thought that exist on American college campus's? Shall we have a fairness doctrine ensuring an equal # of Liberal and Conservative Professors.
     
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    A monopoly is when a single owner (or group of owners working together... tecnically an oligopoly) control an industry. 5 ultra-conservative stations that aren't affiliated with each other are not a monopoly.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2007
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    I was talking in general about monopolies. I agree they don't exist in the media, but I was curious whether you support government regulation to prevent monopolies.
     
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    I think it was relevant in the past when the economy wasn't very diversified, in a Global economy it is largly an obsolete concept. The closest things we see these days to monopolies are usually a result of government regulation.
     
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    To some degree it depends how the program is set up. For instance, I doubt if there were any politicians who supported the NEA grants to Karen Finley and other avante garde artists.

    So, you agree that some government regulation can be helpful. Just because you can't think of other ways the government can help doesn't mean that there's not better ways. Just requires someone with a better imagination than you.

    Pujo, my point is simply that there is a legitimate problem, and it's worth making an effort to address it. The Fairness Doctrine does not solve the problem, I agree, but that means the problem is still there. As I keep saying, "I'm not saying I have the answer, but I don't think it only likes in Utopia."
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>