Fairness Doctrine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
Granted, this is pretty limited research on the Internet, but what do you think I am missing here. It appears that this is a pretty archaic form of regulation from the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's to because of an abundance of applications for licenses and a shortages of broadcasting frequencies. The point was to keep any one group from taking control of a frequency and broadcasting one side.
It appears that this rationale no longer is an issue with the seemingly unlimited numbers of cable stations, radio stations, and satellite radio stations.
I really can't see why the government would want to walk all over a basic foundation of our free society.
Besides, the liberal contingent pretty much has control of the major networks, namely, ABC, CBS, and NBC. They had no real competition against their versions of, well, anything until FOX arrived on the scene.
It seems to me that, to revive an archaic doctrine out of the liberals' fear that too many people are paying attention to conservative talk on TV or on Radio, does not serve the original purpose since there are so many available frequencies.
This seems to arise from a fear that the conservative stations are becoming successful with higher ratings whereas the liberal talk shows are having trouble selling commercial time. and keeping their ratings up. Looking at Arbitron ratings, the conservative talk stations on the FM consistently are in the top of the ratings for talk radio.
Program/Audience (Millions)
1 Rush Limbaugh 20.8
2 Michael Savage 17.0
3 Glenn Beck 13.4
4 Laura Ingraham 9.4
5 Sean Hannity 9.2
6 MANCOW 7.5
7 George Noory 6.3
8 Dennis Miller 6.1
9 Neal Boortz 3.8
10 Bill O’Reilly 3.8
Survey Period: 7/1/2007 - 9/30/2007 (July, August & September)Unique ListenersSample Size: 60,548MethodologyAdults 18+Source: TalkStreamLive.com
I don't see what you are arguing with me about. If the Congress legislated that any radio stations had to carry any particular radio show, no matter how unpopular it might be, in any of their time slots. That time slot would be lost to some other station that was carrying a good solid conservative talk show. That hour would lose ratings, and would subsequently lose commercial sponsorship. Therefore, the Congress is legislating that the station would lose money. The freedom of the First Amendment would be lost.
How can you, as a liberal or a conservative, argue in favor of any legislation that will subvert the freedom of the First Amendment? Or do we have a double standard when the liberal point of view is getting trounced in the ratings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm not sure why it is needed either, especially considering these numbers you left out:
Obama 53%
McCain 46%
I don't think you understand how it has changed the landscape of the media. Now you can tune in to whatever channel suits your ideological bent and NEVER hear the other side of a story. It is not a service to democracy to divide ourselves into two camps and repeat something until our camp believes it and never be presented with the other side. Also, with the change in the rules of how large a single media owner can become creates the situation that I think you were complaining about that your hometown paper didn't report any local news. There is no climate for media to be responsible to the people. It is ONLY about the bottom line. And, that leads me to another issue, with all of this deregulation and deriviative markets, and see where that has gotten us. Even you as a government employee must see the need for SOME government oversight and regulation. Believe me I don't like big government either.
I'm not arguing.
It is not so much about forcing radio stations to air unpopular programs; it is about airing both sides and taking into account what the local area needs. For example, some areas need very specific weather reporting and with the Fairness Doctrine said that since the airwaves belong to the people that something of their interests had to be aired. I know this sounds big time SOCIALIST but it's not.
Now, what we have, and probably has something to do with Fox's argument that the News Distortion Rule does not apply to them. Anyway, I'm just frustrated that we have a condition where tv, radio, whatever, airs their ideology in such a way to create a fervor in their audience with no regard as to the absolute full telling of a story. Aren't you scared and frustrated by that? Wouldn't you rather know all the facts instead of the ones that O'Reilly decides he wants to feed you, or Keith Olbermann?
It depends on where you look for your idea of liberal media getting trounced in the ratings. Not always the case, my friend. I watch and listen to everyone from O'Reilly, Hannity, to Olbermann to NPR to Joel Osteen, the preacher, etc. DO YOU? I wish everyone would be as diligent in seeking out BOTH sides. It is very interesting to see who leaves out what, etc.
Ah, you cite the Obamination election where the mainstream media sold out to get their guy elected. The media gave up any objectivity they had left to make that happen.
I cannot embrace socialism or communism; therefore, the "other side" holds no interest for me.
Someone else cited the Obama election results. That was not me. Your narrow minded ideology is what has put the United States in the place it is now. You are the kind of person who has been duped and you are so blind that you think it is the rest of us who have been duped. Just go on listening to the ONE side and believing what Fox news tells you and your preacher and you can die imagining that you'll go to heaven. Good luck.
Post a Comment