Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

The Fairness Doctrine Boogeyman

November 20th, 2008 Conservatives Media 20 Comments

('’)

Share

Democrats are mostly not interested in brining it back, but con talk radio is whipping up a frenzy about it.

Posted in Conservatives, Media |

« Into The Wilderness

All The Mortal Kombat Vs. DC Fatalities »

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

20 Responses to “The Fairness Doctrine Boogeyman”

1. michael says:

   November 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

   If conservatives truly believe that 95% of the media is against them, why wouldn’t they be for this? Is it possible they don’t really believe that?
2. PG says:

   November 20, 2008 at 5:19 pm

   michael,

   That was exactly the question I asked of a conservative recently to get an explanation of why he opposes the Fairness Doctrine. He claimed that when it was in effect, it was enforced in a biased fashion: for example, have two people on to talk about the war in Vietnam, one a Republican and one a Democrat, but actually neither is really in favor of the war. It doesn’t provide a “fair and balanced ™” hearing of the issue.

   I have no idea if this is accurate, because the FD was gone by the time I took a serious interest in politics, and even then I always have gotten most of my information through print media, so FCC regulation of broadcast media like TV and radio is irrelevant for me. Which is nice, because I like some fleeting expletives in my political news
3. timm0 says:

   November 20, 2008 at 5:27 pm

   PG,

   The example your conservative friend gave is bogus and shows how insatiably ignorant so many of these neocons are.

   FD was in place to prevent “news” from being a profit center – from generating revenue due to a focus on incendiary topics instead of the actual conveying of factual information. FD ensured that FACTS and INFORMATION is the “news” – not OPINION (like, “the war is great and we’ll take the next hour to tell you why!”). Further, the facts needed to be able to stand up to scrutiny, otherwise your license could ultimately be at stake.

   In effect, it grounds out 80% of faux news’ prime time lineup because ALL you get is opinions and the “facts” they focus on are dubious at best.

   If Obama doesn’t bring back FD, then he is sewing the seeds of his – and our – demise.
4. Bruce Henry says:

   November 20, 2008 at 6:45 pm

   The Fairness Doctrine was unwieldy and practically unenforceable even back when there were three channels on TV. It’s not a serious option today.
   I confess to a certain ignorance. What are the numbers? Are the ratings growing for Hate Radio, or shrinking, in the last year or two? Despite their best efforts, they couldn’t win this last election, or 2006. Remember Limbaugh’s mockery of Michael J. Fox? That really seemed to backfire.
5. Tim Fuller says:

   November 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm

   Count me as one Democrat that is definitely for a return to the fairness doctrine. If only because it scares the Thugs to death.

   Enjoy.
6. Fred says:

   November 20, 2008 at 9:17 pm

   I say we just keep waving it in front of their ugly faces every now and again and shout – FAIRNESS DOCTRINE – OGGIE BOGGIE!!

   The more they rant and foam at the mouth and demonstrate how completely unhinged they are the more they will be ignored by the average listener.
7. jon says:

   November 21, 2008 at 12:06 am

   I’m against a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Not only is it unwieldy, unneeded, bogusly-based on a mythical two (and only two) sides for each issue, and probably unconstitutional as well, but it’s return might stop the Right Wing’s most important tool it uses to hobble itself: the Echo Chamber.

   Really, the longer the Far Right talks only to itself, the better off the rest of the country is.
8. canadian bacon says:

   November 21, 2008 at 12:10 am

   Great idea. Dangle dangle chomp chomp.
9. jr says:

   November 21, 2008 at 1:05 am

   Black helicoptery fun
10. megamoze says:

    November 21, 2008 at 5:14 am

    When are the cons NOT whipping up a frenzy? The Fairness Doctrine is going to destroy America! Gays are going to destroy America! Muslims are going to destroy America! Barack Obama is going to destroy America! Immigrants are going to destroy America!

    Hell, some wingnut today was arguing that saying “Happy Holidays” is what destroyed the economy.

    Has anyone even heard of any Dems seriously considering bringing the FD back? The only time I ever hear of it is from the wingnut echo chamber. And like jon says, let them chase their tails over it. This kind of dumb shit is what relegated them to a minority party (though they remain ironically absent of any minorities!).
11. Parthenon says:

    November 21, 2008 at 8:40 am

    Bruce, here’s one list from 2005 as a comparison to now…
12. Parthenon says:

    November 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

    And here’s the most recent list from the same magazine, although one ought to remember that this one is from an election season, whereas the 2005 version was from just after the election season. I’d assume the 2008 one would show an uptick in listenership, which it does, for the two guys at the top anyway. My guess is that dedicated dittos are holding basically steady.
13. fafaroo says:

    November 21, 2008 at 11:39 am

    This will get really awesome in six months when conservatives claim victory in a fight no one showed up to but them.
14. tom.a says:

    November 21, 2008 at 11:48 am

    This is what I love about Republican’s of late. They get whipped into a frenzy over something most people have never heard about. Then, when the controversy never materializes they’ll look even more out of the mainstream and out of touch. Repeat the whole process. Con radio needs to be taken down a few notches, and they’re doing it to themselves. It couldn’t be prettier.
15. fafaroo says:

    November 21, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    “Then, when the controversy never materializes they’ll look even more out of the mainstream and out of touch. Repeat the whole process.”

    This process is exponential by the way because every time their obscure pet issue isn’t taken up by the hated MSM, it’s proof that the MSM is biased against conservatives.

    So every time they fail, it means they won.
16. Tim Fuller says:

    November 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    I’m sensitive to the notion that letting the rightwing radio nuts have free reign is the best possible means of them undoing themselves, but I’m sick of it. I live in Jackson Mississippi. Would any of you care to speculate what the PUBLIC AIRWAVES (not satellite) have to offer in the way of progressive voices?

    The only reason the Thugs ever got where they are is media manipulation. Sure it wore thin, but don’t expect the mind control experts over at RNC will give up on their favored propaganda machinery.

    Whatcha got against fairness?

    Enjoy.
17. Mike the Mad Biologist says:

    November 22, 2008 at 9:29 am

    One other reason that the corporate cons are whipping this up is because they are trying to link net neutrality to the Fairness Doctrine, and thereby drive a wedge between left and right groups that favor net neutrality.
18. rjpb says:

    November 23, 2008 at 8:27 am

    Haven’t you heard – it’s called the “Censorship Doctrine” now. As every rightwinger knows, it’s not about balance, it’s all a plot to cleanse the public airways of conservative voices completely. Not only do they get to play the victim, but they can claim victory at keeping the forces of government censorship at bay while they alert their listeners to Obama’s plans to confiscate wealth and punish success with this dangerous new graduated income tax idea of his.
19. BuzzMon says:

    November 23, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    Why am I reminded of this particular incident in 2006?
    http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/hp-aa-20061031-lg.jpg

    Seems like none of the wingnuts objected when major corporations conspired to silence libera voices.
20. Tom Johnson says:

    November 26, 2008 at 7:15 am

    The Fairness Doctrine applied to the public airways between 1934 until Reagan repealed it in 1987, and was applied to broadcast radio (It did/does not apply to cable tv). It required broadcasters to devote some
    of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.

    Contrasting views could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. Even just not hanging up on callers who had a different point of view.

    In 1969 United States Supreme Court called it the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest for grant of a renewal of license

    So, what does the Fairness Doctrine NOT require:

    It does not require that each program be internally balanced.

    It does not mandate equal time for opposing points of view.

    It does not require that the balance of a stations program lineup be anything like 50/50.

    With regard to conservative talk shows, they have always flourished, even when this in force. Not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC has ever concerned itself with talk radio.

    While it may be true that it was “a pain to enforce” its main value was in its codification of the principle that broadcasters had a responsibility to present a range of views on controversial issues.

    In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Ronald Reagan and conservative radio swept that land as radio stations saw no need to offer a counter point to these opinions. In 2002, Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene,
    Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town. He found 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. This was in EUGENE OREGON!

    Monks rightly concluded that “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society.