News You think the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benzoate
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The Fairness Doctrine, established in 1949 and repealed in 1987, aimed to ensure diverse viewpoints on broadcast media by requiring stations to present contrasting views on controversial issues. Proponents argue it was essential for public interest due to the limited number of broadcast licenses, while critics claim it violates First Amendment rights by restricting content choices. The discussion highlights a significant case, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, which upheld the doctrine's constitutionality based on the scarcity of frequencies. However, many believe that the current media landscape, with the rise of the internet and cable, diminishes the necessity of such regulations. The debate continues over whether government oversight of broadcasting is justified or an infringement on free speech.
  • #31
OrbitalPower said:
...a lot of these technologies were sold off to state supported corporations, at the "barrel of a gun."
Huh? Could you explain that, please? What technolgies, what corporations, when?
I think in a democracy it is essential to hear all sides of an opinion, otherwise you'll have enormous disinformation, such as the media's failure to accurately report the history of the nation of Iraq, of past attempts by the West to "colonize it," of the efforts (and, as we now know, success) to destroy the WMDs in the 90s (which is not "ancient history" anyway), and so on.

Media should act as a fourth branch of government to keep the others in check and you can't have that when the only place you're allowed to discuss facts at length is dominated by propagandists.

That said, I'm wondering what would happen to PBS. PBS has gotten worse over the years, but they still provide an essential news service that is better than the mainstream media in many ways (people who listened to PBS were not as ill-informed about Iraq and have paid attention to the excellent journalism of Bill Moyers before he was retired, although these people might have been educated anyway).

What if Conservatives call for PBS to focus less on news, nature, and science, and more on financial markets, propaganda, and religion?

I would hate to see PBS go and am not sure the gains made in "balancing" talk radio would be worth it.
That's all so wrong, it is tough to know were to begin.

-It would be unAmerican to have the government run the media.
-PBS isn't run by the gov't, so conservatives can't change the programming.
-Democracy isn't about forcing equality, it is about allowing equality. Forcing opinions on people or forcing people to change the content on the government's order is unconstitutional - it's censorship.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Nothing in my post is innacurate or wrong. point by point

Technologies:

The Communications Act of 1934 gave corporations the right to "license" and own the public air waves for free. The FCC still gives away the licenses that authorize radio and television broadcasters to use public airwaves. In other words, the public technically owns and pays for what the private corporations profiteer off of.

This is well known to a student of history; there was a debate about it in the 30s and as a result of owning public airwaves corporations and their subsideraries and child companies were required by law to report news. They got around it by doing a poor job on the news and continually lobbying congress to weaken said laws.

One perfect example of this is the in 1996 when Congress handed over to broadcasters the right to broadcast digital television on the public airwaves, which was estimated to be worth 40-70 billion dollars, for nothing. Even Bob Dole expressed outrage at this act and made it a campaign issue. There was not even an auction for distribution of licenses as there has been for cell phone usage and so on.

Conservatives and PBS:

Conservatives have already called on NPR to provide more "conservative programs," even in congress. I have seen on C-SPAN conservatives asking NPR to balance their programs.

Since both PBS and NPR receive money from the government they would obviously be targets to attempt to "balance" these programs more to the right as conservatives like Bill O'Reilly compare NPR as being to the left of "North Korean state media."

As for Democracy, this is about the public reclaiming tax payer assets and regulating corporations who old monopolies on information. This is more about regulating corporate monopolies than it is about "free-speech," the goal is more free-speech.

They do this in Britain and Canada to some degree where the public has more control over their air waves and all candidates are required to have at least some amount of time on the networks, which I believe are directly paid for by taxes, such as the BBC.

This isn't anti-American as Thomas Jefferson said that Americans ought to be able to hear all sides of an issue, and then make a properly informed decision regarding issue. He would have no problem with regulating corporations.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson even wrote repeatedly that corporations and banks should be abolished.

Thomas Jefferson is as American as apple pie.

I'm not sure how I feel about the fairness doctrine because conservatives would try and dismantle NPR and PBS (Bush has already cut funding for PBS and NPR has steadily been declining in quality, neither are really "leftist outlets" as bill o'reilly claims), but I disagree as well with the claim that regulating corporations is equatable to anti-free speech, even though the corporations have benefitted from tax payer assets.

I support what is called an "audience network"

During its time slot, the Audience Network would air a variety of cultural, political, entertainment, scien*tific or other programs that it produced or obtained. It would periodically inform the public about the organization's activities and discuss media reform is*sues. With its financial resources, and its access to airtime, Audience Network, at both local and national levels, could also provide central production facilities and act as a time broker for other non-profit groups that wished to professionally produce and air programs.

The structure of the Audience Network organiza*tion would be similar to that of the successful Citizen's Utility Boards (CUBs), which represent the interests of utility consumers at the state level. Audience Network would represent the interests of its members before the FCC, the courts, and Congress itself — wherever broad*casting policy is being made. Any citizen over the age of 16 could become a member of Audience Network by contributing a modest amount, say $10 annually, to the organization. Members' contributions would consti*tute Audience Network's basic source of funding; the group would require no expenditure of tax dollars.

The Audience Network would be governed demo*cratically. Members would elect delegates who would in turn elect a board of directors to decide what projects and programming the group would pursue. A power to recall delegates would further ensure accountability. Because the public must take the affirmative step of joining and thereby funding Audience Network, the organization is assured active participants and would rightly fold if adequate membership was not forthcom*ing. Based on the CUB experience, that seems unlikely. Other mechanisms, whereby directors and delegates can serve only limited terms and are required to survey the interests of their members, will also assure that Audience Network will not become a lazy or wasteful bureaucracy, but instead an organization that is re*sponsive to the needs of those it represents.


The Audience Network, in short, could serve as a self-funded, independent ongoing communications link among viewers and listeners. According to a sur*vey conducted by the Annenburg School of Communications, the public demands no less. Three-quarters of those polled felt that "broadcast time should be set aside for ordinary people to show their programs and views." “It would appear," the study concluded, "that were the opportunity available, a sizeable portion of the population would try their hand at television communication.” Congress should reflect the will of the people and give the public that community opportunity. A modest portion of the public’s airwaves should be returned to that public in a systematic, yet flexible manner of uses. Let the audience give itself what it wants and needs.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1315-The-Audience-Network.html


Basically, the audience network would give access to Americans the airwaves they already should own. It would ge given an hour of prime-time television and one hour of drive time radio every day, and its programming would be driven democratically by membership open to all for a small public fee.



http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1315-The-Audience-Network.html
 
  • #33
OrbitalPower said:
In fact, Thomas Jefferson even wrote repeatedly that corporations and banks should be abolished.

Thomas Jefferson is as American as apple pie.

There were two schools of thought on this, the two biggest proponents being Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man, but he was stuck living in a fantasyland. He wanted us to remain a simple agrarian-based society, with no banks or corporations and so forth as you have pointed out. He HATED paper money.

Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both also hated the idea of a central bank. It was Alexander Hamilton who recognized that the U.S. needed to industrialize, had to be in the business of controlling its monetary policy, etc...

It has been said that Americans Admire the World of Thomas Jefferson, and Live in the World of Alexander Hamilton. It has also been said, "There is a reason there is no memorial to Alexander Hamilton- Modern day America IS his Memorial."

I support what is called an "audience network"

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1315-The-Audience-Network.html

Basically, the audience network would give access to Americans the airwaves they already should own. It would ge given an hour of prime-time television and one hour of drive time radio every day, and its programming would be driven democratically by membership open to all for a small public fee.

But programming is driven democratically. The market is the ultimate democracy. People vote with their dials in talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, for example, don't have the biggest audiences because people just tune into them regardless. People tune into them because they like listening to them.

So the people "vote" through the market.

If the people decide they want to hear mostly liberal talk radio, then you will see liberal talk radio start surging in listenership, and conservative radio shows decline. Advertisers would start moving to the liberal talk radio.

If you go the supermarket and buy grapes, you are "voting" with your dollars for the agriculture industry to produce more grapes, for example.
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
I understand that that's your opinion, but do you have a logical basis for it? Something from the Constitution that would imply it?

The 1st Amendment. Although the supreme court seems to think that the first amendment does not apply to the regulation and licensing argument I would humbly disagree. The government needs to protect and ensure free speech. If there is a limited public theatre for dispersal of information and ideas it becomes the responsability of the government to regulate the stage (with in reason) so that a variety of demographics get their opportunity on it.

I already stated though that in modern times radio doesn't have the importance as an information source that it once did and so doesn't seem to need such regulation any more. So I agree with my argument but I believe it is outmoded.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
... I guess it's probably Fox's fault - as long as liberals dominated tv, it was ok that Rush Limbaugh dominated radio. Now that Fox has provided some balance to TV, conservatives have an overall advantage (balanced tv, unabalanced radio)...
I agree with where you are going but not your premise. Fox is still mainly just cable. Even today most viewers are still over the air and the traditional lefty networks still dominate their.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K