"fairness Doctrine"

[Socrates]

([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=89157&view=findpost&p=1746669"]Continued from thread in Open Mic[/url])

[quote name='Hassan' post='1745733' date='Jan 8 2009, 12:04 AM']I do, however the government has a right to regulate the public airwaves.[/quote]
Regulating on basis of political content is contrary to the entire spirit of the free speech clause of the first amendment, which was intended to guarantee free [i]political[/i] speech against government regulation and censorship (which was actually a revolutionary idea at the time).



[quote]I don't like racists and bigots, it's not his show I object to, its his ability to pollute the public airwaves with racist ranting which I object to.[/quote]
If he was really so racist, it seems he would have been pulled by now - note how one racially-insensitive slip-up apiece got Don Imus and Doug "Greaseman" Tracht respectively yanked off the air.[quote]He's on the public airwaves[/quote]
The internet's also "public" - as in its accessible to the general public without special payment.
Would you support similar government regulation of political websites and blogs?


[quote]It's not the fact that there are contrary views which I object to. The intelligent, rational debate of controversial issues is healthy for any society and Michael Savage were someone like George Will I'd have no problem with him. My problem is that he is granted access to the public airwaves, not to offer a cogent, intelligent analysis of the world from a conservative perspective, but that he is granted them to express his racist, hateful views that demonize large segments of the public.[/quote]
We'll grant for argument's sake that Savage (whom I'm not that familiar with) is every bit as vile and offensive as you claim.
That still doesn't make the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" right on principle.
The FD isn't about censoring racism, but specifically about regulating the political content of programming - ensuring that every programming voicing political opinion must also contain opposing views or go off the air.

The FD wouldn't just take Michael Savage off the air, but [i]every[/i] conservative (or liberal, for that matter, at least in theory) talk show host. Thus the FD being nick-named the "Hush Rush Bill" in the '90s. (And no, unlike you, I don't consider all conservative talk-show hosts to be racist bigots.)

I don't have a problem with the FCC censoring offensive or racist language per se, but I [i]do[/i] have a problem with government regulation of the political content of radio and television programming

[quote]The FCC is appointed by the President who is a reelected official, generally, responsive to the will of the people. The public at large has a right to determine the content on their airwaves.



If it were applicable to books, private media outlets etc I would agree. But the idea that the public cannot regulate their own airwaves is silly.[/quote]
The public already has the power to regulate content by what they choose to listen to. Talk radio simply fulfills consumer demand. Rush Limbaugh, etc. became big in talk radio because a lot of people liked listening to him. Commercial radio's based on ratings. If people like to listen to a show, ratings will be high, and it stays on the air. If the people don't want to listen, ratings will drop, sponsors will withdraw, and the show will be off the air.
Free speech through free markets is in fact much more "democratic" and responsive to public demand than having government officials dictate what political content can and can't be on the air.

Your idea of the "will of the people" seems to come straight out of Soviet Russia.


[quote]If the democrats use it simply to enact liberal propaganda I'd be the first to oppose it (by the way, Bush [i]did [/i]try to do that with PBS). Curbing angry propaganda is what I would support it for and because I believe the people have a right to regulate their own airwaves. If Keith Olberman had a radio show on the public airwaves I'd feel the same way.



If they were on the public airwaves and spreading hatred of conservatives then yes.[/quote]
Who determines what is "propaganda," what is "hatred," and what is "angry"? (Geez, is the [i]emotional[/i] content of radio programming now also to be regulated by the government?)

Obviously, we, and many other people will strongly disagree on this very subjective matter.
Perhaps it's for the listeners, not the government, to make such decisions.

And do you really trust government officials to be completely unfair and unbiased in their own decisions?
If so, I find your naivete charming, if sad.

Quite frankly I do not want Obama, or his appointees, determining what political programming is and isn't fit for me to hear. (Any more than you'd want the Bush adminstration determining the same for you, I'm sure).
And I'm sure millions of talk-radio fans would strongly disagree about the USSC representing the "will of the people"!

[quote]The USSC has reviewed it and they did not find it a suppression of freedom of speech[/quote]
Obviously, I disagree with the decision of the USSC.


[quote]What hypocrisy?[/quote]
Liberals are usually the first to defend "free speech" (usually if involving offensive sexual content) from censorship of any kind, yet are quick to demand government regulation of political speech they disagree with.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Socrates

[Guest]

then take hiphop off the radio.
there are alot of 'racist" remarks in that.
there dj's are often "racist" to.
heard a detroit dj before ellection say that " not voting for obama makes you a racist "
that's a racist statment right there.

you cant f i l t e r the airwaves
that insane.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Guest

[Fidei Defensor]

The government needs to leave things related to freedom of speech alone.

I may hate what they're saying but they have every right to say it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it looks like it's just a blurry line (if i am understanding the sitaution

if X wants to spew his racist remarks, that seems like something that could be regulated, generally speaking. if he wants to spew it so that society can change because of it, and has ideas in that regards, then it seems like something that cannot be regulated.
if i say "blacks are f*ggots", it could be argued that i want society to be changed, but it's a tenous argument to make, as if that's really free speach that can't be regulated. (albeit not completely suppressed at any rate) someone else would say it's political his ideas on how society etc.
this is a simplistic example, but it could easily become more gray than this.

the USSC said, unanimously, that the fairness doctrine is a good thing. i'm not sure anyone is against it, but i dn't know how you would be. it just ensures equal access with opposing views on a limited medium, like a broadcast frequency. if it's like the newpapsper where anyone can make one, then it's not a limited frequency, according the the USSC. this doesn't necessarily have to do with political or non, just how it's don'e. the political stuff is a separate issue.
it's probably important to understand the doctrine and what it really means before dissing it too much. when people like scalia and thomas (prob that unanimous decision was beore them) is agreeing with ginsberg etc, then there must be something good to it...

also, it's not healthy and more reflects the bias and twisted nature of the prson saying it to say "liberals hate freedom of speech except when it's somehting they like" etc. it could easily be said hte other way. there's prob legit differences of opinion on thse these, and biases, but that large of a paint brush is really unwarranted.
there's liberals who want to suppress opposing views, and theres conservativse too.
both also have lot of people who want to protect political speech etc. it's not correct to think "gee, conservative = right, and protecting polital speech = right, therefore, protecting political speech = conservative and therefore not liberal" i mean, cmon, grow up people.

i doubt hassan thinks conservatives are racist bigots. he did say georg will was a good guy etc. to say he does, is simply more indicative of the immature nature of soc than of hassan, cause he think in "us and them" and artificially otherwise black and white terms politically etc. but i've always said he was probably a cookie cutter conservative (conservative in everything so much that it could almost only be an artificial sheep like thinking that he espouses, given today's conservatism etc is just a snapshot in time (liberal economics before was anything lassiez faire free market related for example, at one point) and by definition nothing that could be inherently true, and there's no reason why a person would necessarily embrace the whole of it so fully, even to the point of having cowboy icons and doing the social stereotypes too), so i'm sorta biased in that sort of statement.
but it's the sorta thing to imply that hassan might think that, that shows bias and twisted nature, and is why politics is so bad, even if the statement is just a "i give up" sort of thing and not really as mean spirited as it might sound.

Edited January 9, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Didymus]

I'm neither, but oppose it because it's unconstitutional and impossible to enforce.

[add]

The media bias of the big three networks is just as bad, if not worse the due to the overwhelming dominance they enjoy, in market share.
Talk radio’s popularity is driven by this lack of balance. for example, the coverage Sarah Palin; the big networks attacked her children, her religion, her prolife stance on abortion, but stayed away from Obama’s family, Obama’s faith, and completely ignored Obama’s ultra liberal track record.
There used to be a time when people could disagree without being rude and hateful, still be respectful, and after the discussion, go about their business without hating the person
The fairness doctrine is more like fairness doctoring (manipulation)

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='apparently' post='1747628' date='Jan 9 2009, 07:23 PM']The media bias of the big three networks is just as bad, if not worse the due to the overwhelming dominance they enjoy, in market share.
Talk radio’s popularity is driven by this lack of balance. for example, the coverage Sarah Palin; the big networks attacked her children, her religion, her prolife stance on abortion, but stayed away from Obama’s family, Obama’s faith, and completely ignored Obama’s ultra liberal track record.
[b]There used to be a time when people could disagree without being rude and hateful, still be respectful, and after the discussion, go about their business without hating the person
The fairness doctrine is more like fairness doctoring (manipulation)[/b][/quote]
This was the time before Cable TV I think you're referring to. =/

[Winchester]

The DJ's statement was not racist--it was stupid. Such stupid statements are common to modern Americans of all strata. The DJ was allowing his emotions to cloud his logic, or he was simply trying to get ratings. The third possibility is a serious defect in his intelligence.

Racism is a belief in the superiority of a race due solely to race, which is biological, not cultural. Dislike of culture is not racism, though the term is often misapplied. Disapproval of a culture may be motivated by racism--indeed, I think it often is--but the two aren't always linked. Making fun of cultural behaviors is not racism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1746751' date='Jan 8 2009, 11:45 PM']That right is firmly established, but the public also has a right to regulate their airwaves. There is an important difference between Michael Savage spewing his vitriolic hatred against minorities in a book (despicable but protected) and the public airwaves to do it, to force that group to subsidize their savage demonization






lol, have you ever listened to him? Forget about racism however about his hateful diatribe about children with autism?[/quote]
Red herring. Michael Savage is not the issue here, dude. And no one's subsidizing anything, other than the sponsors.

The Fairness Doctrine was a 1949 law which stated simply that radio broadcasts would be required to present both sides of controversial issues, which some Democrats and liberal Republicans wish to resurrect to get right-wing talk radio off the air.

It says nothing whatsoever about about "racism," "bigotry," or other offensiveness - it simply requires opposing views to be aired on every program.
(And if it were really to be applied strictly - it would require that a radio program denouncing racism also give the KKK a "fair hearing.")

You're basically trying to use a particular radio host you find particularly offensive in order to justify a law which would effect [i]any[/i] political speech on the airwaves.

You're main complaint about Savage is that you find him tasteless - but I've heard some very tasteless and offensive stuff from radio shock jocks on "non-political" morning shows - which the Fairness Doctrine would have no effect on whatsoever.

The FCC (in theory anyway) already has standards regarding decency and such - which is totally unrelated to the Fairness Doctrine - which would regulate the[i] political content[/i] of on-air speech.
And no "Fairness Doctrine" was necessary to get the likes of Imus and the Greaseman pulled off the air for racially offensive statements.

If you don't like Michael Savage, change the station - no need to seek regulation which would punish political speech in general.


[quote]internet is quite different, and no, no I would not.[/quote]
How exactly is the internet "quite different"?
Simply declaring the internet to be "quite different" is not an argument, and says nothing about why in principle the content of broadcast radio should be regulated by the government.

The difference is simply that the internet took off after a period of government de-regulation of the media, and that internet technology has (thus far) been able to outrun government regulation and censorship, though some wish to change that.


[quote]Yes, it's about protecting the public's airwaves from being used as a means to spew angry political propaganda.[/quote]
And empty statement.
"Political propaganda" is an extremely vague and undefinable term, which often simply means "political speech which I disagree with."
And why on earth should we trust [i]government officials[/i] to determine what is and isn't propaganda??

And what does whether or not political speech is "angry" have to do with anything?
Do people never have a right to be angry?
Is "happy political propaganda" somehow preferable?


[quote]I don't consider all conservative talk show hosts racists, what's with all the assumptions about me and liberals on this thread? Who nicknamed it the "Hate Rush Bill"?[/quote]
I was basing this on another posts of yours, in which you basically said that all popular talk show hosts were racist bigots, including Rush Limbaugh, but maybe I remembered wrong.

I don't know who coined the term "Hush Rush Bill," but that was a common nick-name for the proposal to reinstate the FD during the Clinton years in attempt to reign in conservative talk radio, when Rush Limbaugh was the most popular political talk show host.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1746753' date='Jan 8 2009, 11:46 PM']Racist language is political content. If I went on the air, not XM radio but the public airwaves, should you be forced to subsidize my advocacy of rounding up Catholicons and putting them in concentration camps?[/quote]
First of all, I'm not aware of anyone advocating rounding up anybody and putting them in concentration camps.
That's a strawman.

And while the right to free speech may end at incitements to murder, you would be free to denounce "Catholicons" all you want (whatever a "Catholicon" is - is that some sort of evil robot?)



[quote]Yep, and per the FCC they also have the power to regulate it directly. Why you find this somehow inferior to some indirect, sluggish indirect coercion I don't understand.[/quote]
Yep, government suppression of speech is always much quicker and more efficient than the free market of ideas.


[quote]So if a NBC "30 Rock" show breaks out in angry, hard core gay pornography you'd be fine with it as the public can indirectly regulate the content of their own airwaves through viewer aversion? I doubt it.[/quote]
Happy hard core gay pornography or sad hard core gay pornography I might be able to live with, but [i]angry[/i] hard core gay pornography is totally unacceptable!

Again, the "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with pornography, which is already illegal on the public airwaves. And neither, as I pointed out, does it say anything about racism.

It appears you have no clue what the doctrine you are defending is about.

[quote]Only if you don't understand the difference between the two government structures. One is an elected representative, subject to impeachment and reelection and limited term lengths and responsive to public opinion, and the other is a dictatorship of the proletariat, unaccountable to the public through popular elections, establishing to what it contends to be the will of the people or what is for their own good even if they don't understand how.[/quote]
Just because someone is appointed by a democratically-elected politician doesn't mean they should be given powers to suppress constitutionally-guaranteed rights like free speech.


[quote name='Hassan' post='1746755' date='Jan 8 2009, 11:47 PM']It's a popular judgment[/quote]
Really?



[quote]No, it's for the public at large to decide, not a small subset of the population. The show is not accountable to the popular will, but simply needs the support of enough individuals to make them economically viable, which is a small subset of the population.[/quote]
To be economically viable, a show needs to be listened to by pretty substantial numbers. Sponsors pay big bucks for advertising.
But that's all beside the point. If a majority of 60% wishes to silence speech supported by a minority of 40%, do they have the right to do so, on account them being the majority, and thus representing the mythical "will of the people"?
Does free speech only belong to the majority?



[quote]Are you under some impression that such officials exist in a political vacuum with no accountability to the larger public?



That’s not what they are determining, but the content of the public airwaves.




They do not represent "the will of the people" but a subset of it. If the elected representatives, supported by the larger public, reinstate the FD then by definition it is the "will of the people".[/quote]
By that logic, since Bush was elected by a majority, anything he or any of his appointees does is the "will of the people" and must not be opposed.
Is that really an argument you're prepared to make?



[quote]Why? You don't deny the government has a right to regulate the public airwaves, you simply don't like this regulation.[/quote]
Regulating speech based on its political point-of-view is an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech, whatever you decide to call it.




[quote]And many liberals don't agree with this. I very much disagree with my very liberal Public Policy and the Media professor who very much disagreed with the fairness doctrine.[/quote]
Your professor is being consistent in his reasoning, unlike yourself.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Socrates

[add]

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.


Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.


Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.


Simple Solution
Anyone seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

[add]

in the spirit of fairness
According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."




Resistance is futile