http://www.thehill.com/leading-the-news/fairness-doctrine-hammered-309-115-2007-06-28.html

The House of Representatives has said no to the absurdly named "fairness doctrine" and voted 309-115 to prohibit the FCC from using taxpayer dollars to impose the fairness doctrine on radio broadcasters.

The problem is not so much lack of a "Fairness Doctrine" and more to do witih concentrated ownership of media conglomerates by right-wing businessmen. 

The Fairness Doctrine worked.  Conservatives were not shut-out of the media.  There was never a suggestion conservatives should be shut out of talk radio or anywhere else. 

In the interest of civic health, a democratic society needs media to be open to a variety of points of view. 

When you get a line-up consisting of Rush Limbaugh, Bill Cunningham, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura, and Mark Levin, you have such one-sided programming that it lapses into utter propaganda.  I watched this happen in the early '90s.  What happens when one side with a dogmatic political ideology gets to control a medium is bias turns to misstatements, misstatements turn to lies, lies become composed into a repetitious narrative, hence propaganda.  One of the lies talk radio perpetuates is that the rest of the media is overrun with commie-pinko lefties.  This proposition is beyond faulty, it's silly.  Just a cursory glance at the newspaper columnists in the New York Times and the guest line-up for Sunday political chat demonstrates that, if anything, there is a rightward tilt in the media outside of talk radio.  Yet the "liberal media" lie keeps on rolling along.

Another lie is that it's entirely the will of the "free market."  Even if it was, I would not agree with it, again, in the interest of civic health.

AIR AMERICA RADIO

You're guessing I thought "Air America" was going to save the liberals.  Nope.  I have a problem with "Air America" as well.  Why?  Because it too lacks any sort of balance of opinions.  I just happen to agree with 9 out of 10 opinions Sam Seder or Thom Hartmann expresses, where as I disagree with 99 out 100 opinions Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity expresses.  The issue is not whether I personally agree or disagree.

The bigger problem with "Air America" is it's a "we'll show 'em" reaction to the right-wing hegemony on mainstream talk radio.  It does not "balance" anything. 

A "Fairness Doctrine" would temper the outrage on both sides and make discussions more civil because neither side would feel it was a fight-to-the-death to be heard.

RIGHT-WING DOMINANCE ON TALK RADIO IS HARMFUL TO CONSERVATISM ITSELF
When nation-wide blabbermouths like Rush Limbaugh and regional blabbermouths like Howie Carr of Boston can speak without being held accountable to their statements, discourse degenerates into simply bashing the other side and it matters not if the statements have any merit.  For more than a decade talk radio beat the drum for the Republican party.  Ronald Reagan was a saint and Bill Clinton was the devil.  If they ever criticized the GOP it was a rallying cry for the party to lurch farther to the right.

Well, today you have a Vice President of the United States who claims he is not part of the executive branch.  Where is the "strict constructionalist" raving now?  The operation became absolutely partisan and bereft of principles.  Even the oil companies are starting to take global warming seriously.  Yet, you have FOX News and right-wing talk radio still denying it. 

Propaganda and partisan jingoism---on the Left or on the Right--is anathema to reasonable and even-tempered debate.  Conservatism requires logic and reason to prevail for its principles to work.  BTW, paying right-wing think tanks to make the illogical logical and the unreasonable reasonable with rhetorical smoke-and-mirrors does not count.

SOUR GRAPES?

I can't speak for anybody else.  I do say what is happening is irrational and this country seems incapable understanding rudimentary civics.  Sean Hannity called the Fairness Doctrine "censorship," and there was nobody there to demonstrate how bogus his statement was.  Gradually citizens fail to understand what either "censorship" or "fairness" means. 

Those grapes aren't just sour, they're poison!

You will notice the increasing trend of right-wing figureheads such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh only going on television if there is nobody there to rebut them (Alan Colmes doesn't count).

If they were really sure of their ideas.....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

The problem is not so much lack of a "Fairness Doctrine" and more to do witih concentrated ownership of media conglomerates by right-wing businessmen. 


But would this be the case if nobody wanted to listen to the shows?  Not hardly.  The shows are on the air because people listen to them.  If nobody listened to Rush, it would not be the most popular syndicated talk show on radio.  And no matter how many radio station owners wanted it on the air, it would not be on.  And if these conglomerates all wanted Rush so badly, why was his TV show consistantly regulated to midnight-1am time slots when it was on?  Why do we not see more like him on TV, instead of the Bill Maher's that dominate TV Political Pundit shows?

To me, the "Fairness Doctrine" was a fossil and needed to die.  In reality, it is nothing more then curbing people's 1st ammendment rights.

And in reality, it is way to late to ever try to bring it back.  If tried today, it would simply push more people who do political shows to media outlets like the Internet and XM-Sirius (where the FCC has no say in the matter). 

I find it interesting that people who claim they want "Free Speech" are most often the first to scream for the censorship of people they do not like.

In addition to ridding us of the "Fairness Doctrine", might I also suggest that the "McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform" be completely rescinded and replaced with my simple alternative.  Here goes.

1.  You can spend as much as you want supporting a given candidate (or ballot proposition)

2.  But only if you yourself are eligible to vote in that election.

3.  Companies, Unions, Non profits all prohibited from contributing funds to elections/ballot props.  (since a company and a union cannot vote in an election, this is really a extension of rule 2).  They also cannot contribute funds to PACs who contribte to campaigns either.

4.  Politicals ads run in any given state must be funded by money raised in that state.

So... in other words... big money from out of state cannot be raised to promote or oppose the canddate for US Senator in my state.

On the other hand if I want to sell everything I have, in order to elect Rick Santorum as the next dog catcher in my town, that's fine.  I just can't contribute to his campaign if he is running for dog catcher in the next county.

But would this be the case if nobody wanted to listen to the shows?  Not hardly.  The shows are on the air because people listen to them.  If nobody listened to Rush, it would not be the most popular syndicated talk show on radio.  And no matter how many radio station owners wanted it on the air, it would not be on.  And if these conglomerates all wanted Rush so badly, why was his TV show consistantly regulated to midnight-1am time slots when it was on?  Why do we not see more like him on TV, instead of the Bill Maher's that dominate TV Political Pundit shows?

To me, the "Fairness Doctrine" was a fossil and needed to die.  In reality, it is nothing more then curbing people's 1st ammendment rights.

And in reality, it is way to late to ever try to bring it back.  If tried today, it would simply push more people who do political shows to media outlets like the Internet and XM-Sirius (where the FCC has no say in the matter). 

I find it interesting that people who claim they want "Free Speech" are most often the first to scream for the censorship of people they do not like.

a. The fairness doctrine did not curb anybody's First Amendment rights.
b. Censorship is a red herring.

It is naive to suggest the "free market" determines Rush Limbaugh's popularity. 
There is the "free market," but equally as strong is this modern media phenomenon Noam Chomsky calls "manufactured consent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

In state-directed dictatorships it is the government alone that manufactures consent.  In the U.S. the corporations own the government and have used the government to set the tone for corporatocracy. 

I first heard of Rush Limbaugh in 1989.  The first thing the media told me about Rush is that the majority of the American public agrees with his points of view, and that's why he will become the most powerful talk radio host ever.  The media did not say, "Here is Rush Limbaugh.  Here are his beliefs.  Do you agree?"  No, they told me I either agreed with Rush or I was out of step with the American people.  Unfortunately, I had already developed a set of political principles.  This made me less vulnerable to manufactured consent, but not completely immune.

Since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine public discourse in the media and among the populus has grown ever more uncivil, rancorous, and anti-intellectual.  I watched it happen, and it is no coincidence.

It has gotten to the point where even well-informed and intelligent people are hardwired to believe Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are popular solely because of the free market.

Sad, sad, sad.
:(

  But I thought this was just "liberals" making all the fuss about talk radio...

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA-A-A!, and so on.  Fairness...?

  There is truth.  There are Non-Truths...

  Why would a documented fact be opposed..?

  Welcome to the 21st Century, welcome to the internet age.  Welcome to truth being told as it happens and not edited or passed through NBC, ABC or CBS but pure clean news...

   But I thought this was just "liberals" making all the fuss about talk radio...

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHA-A-A!, and so on.  Fairness...?

   There is truth.  There are Non-Truths...

   Why would a documented fact be opposed..?

   Welcome to the 21st Century, welcome to the internet age.  Welcome to truth being told as it happens and not edited or passed through NBC, ABC or CBS but pure clean news...



There are truths and there are non-truths, but there also non-truths passed off as truths.  They're called "lies."  When one point of view gets to dominate an entire medium (eg. fascists on talk radio) it's much easier to lie to the population for there is no rebut the lies. 

The free market of ideas does not determine the agenda of talk radio.  The dictatorial power structure of corporations does.  Unfortunately, one of two entities is going to control it---big business or big government.  Every person is born with and equal share in the latter.  You have to buy your way into the former, and the more money you have, the more say you can have in the agenda.  Now, what has accelerated since Reagan took office 26 years ago is corporate power over the people's government.  That is what we need to roll back.