Coming Soon đ At the beginning of April, youâll be
introduced to a brand-new GoComics! See more information here. Subscribers, check your
email for more details.
carmen: ...and i think...
winslow: time!
carmen: what?!?
winslow: your time's up. it's my turn to talk.
carmen: but i wasn't done!
dog: yes you were, carmen.
carmen: the fairness doctrin?!?!?
winslow: shhhhhhhhhhhh
The Fairness Doctrine simply meant that individual broadcast stations (which use the public airways)had to present various points of view on their stations. Individual programs could be as conservative or liberal as they wanted to be.
Lordy! Who woulda thunk Iâd ever agree with WWH! Or at least share his/her hope.
Tracht47 slips in the notion of public ownership of the airways, which is the basis of the âFairnessâ Doctrine. Ayn Rand refuted that concept back in the â60s in an article âThe Property Status of Airwavesâ in the book âCapitalism: The Unknown Idealâ. In it she argued for the treatment of the airwaves as private property and not as a nationalized natural resource.
Once one accepts the premise that the airwaves are public property used by permission, it is an easy step to force content on broadcasters, then to close down recalcitrant station owners.
It has happened. One of the earliest religious-right radio stations was WXUR in Media, PA, in 1973 the first station
ever closed down for refusing to offer programming contrary to their beliefs. Admittedly, the Rev. Carl McIntyre was a rightist crank, but even nut-jobs have rights.
Of course, once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, the result was an explosion of right-oriented radioâand the nearly total failure of radio on the Left, which is why the issue is looming its ugly head again.
âthe nearly total failure of radio on the Left, which is why the issue is looming its ugly head again.â
âŠI guess you guys define âtotal failureâ as ânumber one in many marketsâ and âdoing better than many right wing stationsâ.
Oh, and by the way, the Fairness Doctrine doesnât tell how long someone may talk. It just says that, if someone talks a certain amount of time, someone else gets that amount of time, too. Carmen gets all the time she wants. Winslow just gets that amount of time, too.
I donât think these right-wingers know what theyâre talking about.
And, no, I donât see it coming back. This is just another boogeyman that, like socialism, doesnât actually exist except in extremely delusional minds.
The argument is moot, because no one in the majority is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine, but regarding talk radio ratings - if Rush is on 20 times as many stations as Ed Schultz, and has 5 times as many listeners, who is doing better?
Ian Valenzuela says: no one in the majority is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine
Obama thought he could achieve the same thing just by taking on Ruch Limbaugh rhetorically. Now that that hasnât worked out the way he hoped, who knows?
How can you be sure your point of view is accurate if your are not exposed to other opinions? Broadcasters have a responsibility to try to present as many points of view as possible. And the air waves are public despite what Ayn Rand might have said. Ayn Rand promoted a philosophy of selfishness. She had disdain for the common good.
Wanna bet that the fairness doctrine supporters will try to re-instate it? What would be interesting is if there were âexecptionsâ for N.P.R. or P.B.S.
Wait a minute. Commercial broadcasting is just that. Commercial. Listenership ought to dictate what is heard. That is what pays the bills for commercial broadcasters (I know, that is a pretty foreign concept these days). Now, if taxpayers are picking up a substantial part of a financially insolvent broadcasterâs budget, then that broadcaster should adhere to some sort of fairness doctrine. Like thatâll ever happen
LordDogmore almost 16 years ago
Yep, that âbout somes up the âFairness Doctrineâ quite nicely. Oh and Pelosi isnât partisan at all!!! (wink wink, nudge nudge, choke puke)
wndrwrthg almost 16 years ago
The fairness doctrine will never be revived.
tracht47 almost 16 years ago
The Fairness Doctrine simply meant that individual broadcast stations (which use the public airways)had to present various points of view on their stations. Individual programs could be as conservative or liberal as they wanted to be.
pschearer Premium Member almost 16 years ago
Lordy! Who woulda thunk Iâd ever agree with WWH! Or at least share his/her hope.
Tracht47 slips in the notion of public ownership of the airways, which is the basis of the âFairnessâ Doctrine. Ayn Rand refuted that concept back in the â60s in an article âThe Property Status of Airwavesâ in the book âCapitalism: The Unknown Idealâ. In it she argued for the treatment of the airwaves as private property and not as a nationalized natural resource.
Once one accepts the premise that the airwaves are public property used by permission, it is an easy step to force content on broadcasters, then to close down recalcitrant station owners.
It has happened. One of the earliest religious-right radio stations was WXUR in Media, PA, in 1973 the first station ever closed down for refusing to offer programming contrary to their beliefs. Admittedly, the Rev. Carl McIntyre was a rightist crank, but even nut-jobs have rights.
Of course, once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, the result was an explosion of right-oriented radioâand the nearly total failure of radio on the Left, which is why the issue is looming its ugly head again.
danielsangeo almost 16 years ago
âthe nearly total failure of radio on the Left, which is why the issue is looming its ugly head again.â
âŠI guess you guys define âtotal failureâ as ânumber one in many marketsâ and âdoing better than many right wing stationsâ.
Oh, and by the way, the Fairness Doctrine doesnât tell how long someone may talk. It just says that, if someone talks a certain amount of time, someone else gets that amount of time, too. Carmen gets all the time she wants. Winslow just gets that amount of time, too.
I donât think these right-wingers know what theyâre talking about.
And, no, I donât see it coming back. This is just another boogeyman that, like socialism, doesnât actually exist except in extremely delusional minds.
ianrey almost 16 years ago
The argument is moot, because no one in the majority is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine, but regarding talk radio ratings - if Rush is on 20 times as many stations as Ed Schultz, and has 5 times as many listeners, who is doing better?
YoullNeverHearFromMeAgain almost 16 years ago
âif Rush is on 20 times as many stations as Ed Schultz, and has 5 times as many listeners, who is doing better?â
UmmâŠ.Rush?
McGehee almost 16 years ago
Ian Valenzuela says: no one in the majority is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine
Obama thought he could achieve the same thing just by taking on Ruch Limbaugh rhetorically. Now that that hasnât worked out the way he hoped, who knows?
tracht47 almost 16 years ago
How can you be sure your point of view is accurate if your are not exposed to other opinions? Broadcasters have a responsibility to try to present as many points of view as possible. And the air waves are public despite what Ayn Rand might have said. Ayn Rand promoted a philosophy of selfishness. She had disdain for the common good.
danielsangeo almost 16 years ago
âObama thought he could achieve the same thing just by taking on Ruch Limbaugh rhetoricallyâ
Um. When did that happen?
jmworacle almost 16 years ago
Wanna bet that the fairness doctrine supporters will try to re-instate it? What would be interesting is if there were âexecptionsâ for N.P.R. or P.B.S.
danielsangeo almost 16 years ago
âWanna bet that the fairness doctrine supporters will try to re-instate it?â
And who are these people? Got any quotes? And any names to go with those quotes?
Or is this merely a hypothetical?
Radical-Knight almost 16 years ago
Fairness?
Freezing almost 16 years ago
Wait a minute. Commercial broadcasting is just that. Commercial. Listenership ought to dictate what is heard. That is what pays the bills for commercial broadcasters (I know, that is a pretty foreign concept these days). Now, if taxpayers are picking up a substantial part of a financially insolvent broadcasterâs budget, then that broadcaster should adhere to some sort of fairness doctrine. Like thatâll ever happen