As we're all cynical I still have a petition for the fairness doctrine..

[Perversity]

I've been sending this out to mainly progressive/liberal talkshow personalities, news sites and friends all morning and decided to post it here, as well. I know this is probably a pincushion shot across the bow, but its worth a shot, right? The reason I am not contacting conservatives is because for some crazy reason they are against the fairness doctrine, which irritates me because they have as much to gain from it as anyone else. But I digress ..

On with the letter:

I've grown increasingly annoyed by corporate media, commercialism and deregulation (specifically the media's constant focus on the Tea Party and Sarah Palin and its tweetingly shrinking soundbite) and I've wanted to do something about the lies and nonsense for years. Upon researching ideas on how to seriously go about some kind of real change I've decided to start a petition to bring back the fairness doctrine since our fearless elected representatives repeatable fail at this process. People such as yourselves, Thom Hartman, Democracy Now! and the rest shouldn't have to struggle to squeeze a voice into our national debate because corporate radio is dominated by the right, who is not only WRONG but is constantly caught lying and slandering what is decent about America, which includes left-leaning politics.

Anyway, I don't have to tell you. You know more than I do, of course. I am simply trying to sell this petition and hopefully get you to mention it to your audience: Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine Petition

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Tony, (location)

 

[Revoltingest]

We classical liberals prefer that the government no exercise control over content in the news.
You imagine that change will be in a direction you like, but the direction of change would vary
with the party in charge. The potential for mischief is great.

 

[Perversity]

The idea is for it to be regulated by all voices and opinions instead of the advertisers and FCC gerrymandering. If what you are saying was true to begin with we wouldn't have had all those dead bodies showing up on the evening news during the Vietnam war.

(edit)

 

[Perversity]

The Fairness Doctrine along with section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 mandates that all voices are heard, by the way. It is through federal law by the government that the government, FCC or advertisers don't have full control over the airwaves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever value the fairness doctrine had would be reduced today by the plethora of sources we have, eg, the internet, cable TV, satellite radio.
A government mandate that all voices be heard, embodies a requirement that some sources subsidize voices which don't pay for air time. This
would have the effect of these sources limiting what their air so as to avoid the liability it imposes. This reduces free speech.

 

[Perversity]

It would as it has always been: the internet would be treated as news papers and editorials were back when it was still law.

 

[Revoltingest]

The idea is for it to be regulated by all voices and opinions instead of the advertisers and FCC gerrymandering. If what you are saying was true to begin with we wouldn't have had all those dead bodies showing up on the evening news during the Vietnam war.

I don't understand you.
The fairness doctrine was in place during the VN war, yet the war thrived for a long time.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Perversity]

Well, yeah. But protests persisted and the public was a lot more educated than they are now. Evening newscasters could even voice their opinions on the senselessness of the Vietnam war since it was in-your-face news coverage. It first came out that America was fighting communism but as the tragedies mounted so did civil unrest back home.

 

[Perversity]

People who ran for public office had equal time to voice their platforms and concerns under section 315 of the Communication Act of 1937, which I purposed in my petition.

 

[Perversity]

And yeah, the Fairness Doctrine and the laws are not perfect, creating a utopian society - nothing will do that. But I sincerely believe it is better than what we have now on commercial radio and television.

 

[Perversity]

And back to the Vietnam war; protests and all public opinion about that war was heard from both sides on radio and television.

 

[Perversity]

As I mentioned in my first post; we, the American public, get an unending diet of Tea Party, Michelle Bauchman and Sarah Palin. I think there are issues and protests just as provocative, dissenting, and larger in numbers, but they are not being heard on our commercial airwaves.

 

[Magic Man]

You should probably stop posting in here, Revolting - well, unless you're here to ask a respectful question. This is for liberals only.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tis a matter of personal preference.
I like the chaos of a free market of ideas.

 

[Perversity]

Well, Revolting did challenge my stance. And this is exactly the point. I do appreciate that.

And thank you, mball.

 

[Revoltingest]

You should probably stop posting in here, Revolting - well, unless you're here to ask a respectful question. This is for liberals only.

I am a classical liberal, & this issue speaks to liberals of all stripes.
Perhaps you have something more relevant to the OP than personal drama?

 

[Revoltingest]

And back to the Vietnam war; protests and all public opinion about that war was heard from both sides on radio and television.

As I recall, the fairness doctrine didn't come into play as public sentiment turned against the war.
But could it the doctrine have been used to counter coverage of protests & negative aspects of the war?

I doubt that your complaints would be addressed by the fairness doctrine though. The omnipresence of
Sara & Tea Partiers is mostly gossip & carping. The gossipy stuff would seem immune to government
mandated fairness. The carping might even increase coverage as balance is imposed.

Btw, welcome aboard!

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not a real fan of the Fairness Doctrine, mostly because it seems impossible to fairly regulate, and as Revoltingest pointed out, it gives power to the government to determine what gets on the air and what doesn't, which might bite you in the behind at some pont.

I am, however, in support of some sort of regulation on the accuracy and unbiasness of reporting. Fines, and possible de-accreditation for repeat offenders, should be in place for news agencies that present something as fact that they reasonably could have known to be untrue or misleading.

There is a place for opinion/partisan based entertainment, but it should not be mixed in with programming that is presented as real news.

 

[Magic Man]

I am a classical liberal, & this issue speaks to liberals of all stripes.
Perhaps you have something more relevant to the OP than personal drama?

You're not a liberal. I could just as easily post in the Conservative Only forum because I agree with them on one particular thing or because I consider myself a "classical conservative". It's dishonest to participate here under the guise of being a "classical liberal". If Perversity doesn't mind you on his thread, more power to him, but normally this is for liberals only, which excludes you.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're not a liberal. I could just as easily post in the Conservative Only forum because I agree with them on one particular thing or because I consider myself a "classical conservative". It's dishonest to participate here under the guise of being a "classical liberal". If Perversity doesn't mind you on his thread, more power to him, but normally this is for liberals only, which excludes you.

I'll make it simple for you. A classical liberal (eg, me) shares free speech values with modern liberals, hence my being here.
Were this thread about economics, then classical liberal values would differ from modern liberals'. I'd avoid such a thread
cuz "Liberal Only" appears to refer to modern liberals only. Thus, I honor the intent behind the forums. But if you must,
go ahead & snitch....see if you can get me ejected. Perhaps you might even address the OP?