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

[Magic Man]

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?

First, characterizing it as snitching is a pretty pathetic thing. Second, I like how you assume that's the route I'd take. Third, you're still not a liberal. Just because you share certain views with liberals doesn't make you one. I'm not a Christian, even though I like the idea of treating my neighbor as I'd like to be treated.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're wrong.
You can whine til yer blue in the face.....er...whatever color pouting Smurphs turn....I still consider myself a liberal.
If the guy who started this thread wishes me to stop, then I'll leave & sin no more.
Otherwise, you oughta stop hijacking the thread for your petty squabble.

 

[Perversity]

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.

I agree with the concerns of government control and your opinion of accountability in unbiased reporting, which is what I am essentially striving for. Although, I go even further with shortening commercials to two minutes and two seconds while raising the soundbite from eight seconds to 45 seconds, bring back equal time for all candidates running for public office, and dedicate time to independent media and their concerns.

The fairness doctrine, along side the Communications Act of 1937, which I purposed within the petition, actually aims to end or limit government, corporate, and broadcaster control with an emphasis on a "voice from the people". Nothing will create a utopian society, but I am sincerely convinced that the fairness doctrine (communications act of 1937) is better than what we have now.

People wiser and smarter than myself have differing opinions on this issue. So I'm still listening.

And thank you, Revolting. Glad to be here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder if I could get a gubmint job deciding what's fair & balanced?

 

[Magic Man]

You're wrong.
You can whine til yer blue in the face.....er...whatever color pouting Smurphs turn....I still consider myself a liberal.

Sorry, but this just doesn't work on people with a brain. You're not a liberal. That's all there is to it. You're a libertarian conservative. You can consider yourself anything you want. As I said, I could consider myself a Christian because I adhere to "Love thy neighbor as yourself", but that doesn't qualify me as one as far as participating in the Christian DIR.

If the guy who started this thread wishes me to stop, then I'll leave & sin no more.

As I said, it's his decision on his thread. If he doesn't mind, that's fine. But as a general rule, you shouldn't be posting in here as if you were a liberal.

Otherwise, you oughta stop hijacking the thread for your petty squabble.

Or you could stop it by just not posting in here, as you should. I think the OPer should at least know that you're not a liberal, even if he wants you to keep posting, but then this would be better in another forum rather than the Liberaly-Only DIR.

 

[Perversity]

The reason I didn't even question his liberal/conservative beliefs is because I didn't want to distract or stray from my original intent (the fairness doctrine).

And if not the fairness doctrine; give me some ideas on what we could actually get behind and would broaden national discourse because the information we get from radio and television is so incredibly dumbed down now that I don't even consider it 'news'. So if I could get some ideas maybe I (or somebody) will make another petition and I could close my fairness doctrine petition, which has only 2 signatures, by the way. Something needs to drastically change.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree with the concerns of government control and your opinion of accountability in unbiased reporting, which is what I am essentially striving for. Although, I go even further with shortening commercials to two minutes and two seconds while raising the soundbite from eight seconds to 45 seconds, bring back equal time for all candidates running for public office, and dedicate time to independent media and their concerns.

The fairness doctrine, along side the Communications Act of 1937, which I purposed within the petition, actually aims to end or limit government, corporate, and broadcaster control with an emphasis on a "voice from the people". Nothing will create a utopian society, but I am sincerely convinced that the fairness doctrine (communications act of 1937) is better than what we have now.

People wiser and smarter than myself have differing opinions on this issue. So I'm still listening.

And thank you, Revolting. Glad to be here.

I'm not exactly sure how the Fairness Doctrine actually produces these benefits. From the link you provided, it stated that "The fairness doctrine would bring back serious discourse, lengthier soundbites and deeper debates."

How? You can have equal time for two opposing viewpoints, but still have a shallow, dishonest debate. There's nothing that says how much time should be given to issues; if you give both sides 1 minute, you'd be following the letter of the law.

And furthermore, some viewpoints just shouldn't have equal time, making it appear as if it is just as legitimate a position to hold, as some other position (For example, the Birther position-- it simply has no evidence to support it, but by giving so much media attention to it, you make it seem like there is something there when there isn't.)

As for legitimate presidential candidates, what's to stop one party from just flooding the arena with candidates? You could have 20 democrats, and 5 Repubs, and every candidate gets equal time, the news would be heavily biased in favor of the Dems. And so each party would keep upping the ante until the whole thing becomes even more unwieldy than it is.

My biggest beef is that there really doesn't seem to be anything in there about holding news organizations accountable for dishonest and misleading material (or is there and I didn't see it?) and I find that much more important than arbitrarily mandating equal time.

 

[Perversity]

I'm not exactly sure how the Fairness Doctrine actually produces these benefits. From the link you provided, it stated that "The fairness doctrine would bring back serious discourse, lengthier soundbites and deeper debates."

How? You can have equal time for two opposing viewpoints, but still have a shallow, dishonest debate. There's nothing that says how much time should be given to issues; if you give both sides 1 minute, you'd be following the letter of the law.

And furthermore, some viewpoints just shouldn't have equal time, making it appear as if it is just as legitimate a position to hold, as some other position (For example, the Birther position-- it simply has no evidence to support it, but by giving so much media attention to it, you make it seem like there is something there when there isn't.)

As for legitimate presidential candidates, what's to stop one party from just flooding the arena with candidates? You could have 20 democrats, and 5 Repubs, and every candidate gets equal time, the news would be heavily biased in favor of the Dems. And so each party would keep upping the ante until the whole thing becomes even more unwieldy than it is.

My biggest beef is that there really doesn't seem to be anything in there about holding news organizations accountable for dishonest and misleading material (or is there and I didn't see it?) and I find that much more important than arbitrarily mandating equal time.

Here is the basic idea and academic understanding.


From 1949 until 1987 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), required holders of broadcast licenses to cover issues of public importance.
Fair and adequate coverage, also to include opposing views. Sounds fair.
The idea behind this was, the people owned the airwaves. A limited number of broadcast licensees were issued for use of them. In exchange for the use of the “Public airwaves”. The holder of the license had a responsibility to set aside some time for public service information. Broadcast companies fulfilled this obligation by reporting news that would inform the general public.
Before 1987 news departments for the most part were separate from the entertainment and advertising departments. They were in competition with other news outlets for the best reporting and most trusted source for information. Not profits. Information had to be fact based and not to include opinions. Opinions had to be presented as opinions and editorials. (Op-Ed)

Read more: The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back



I don't think we should limit information because it's too much to handle.

 

[Perversity]

What I've noticed in commercial news is the 'right' fabricating stories and/or blatantly lying while the 'left' is constantly defending itself. Furthermore, they both go on these "swiftboat" campaigns, where all they do is attack politicians. That isn't news, it's high school. I've heard better debates on PBS and NPR (public broadcasting, by the way) and I don't fully trust them, either. But at least they're less juvenile.

(edit)

 

[Revoltingest]

What I've noticed in commercial news is the 'right' fabricating stories and/or blatantly lying while the 'left' is constantly defending itself. Furthermore, they both go on these "swiftboat" campaigns, where all they do is attack politicians. That isn't news, it's high school. I've heard better debates on PBS and NPR (public broadcasting, by the way) and I don't fully trust them, either. But at least they're less juvenile.

Meh....they both do it to each other. But if meddle they must, perhaps instead of a "fairness" doctrine, the government oughta
be thinking of a "civility", "rationality" & "gossip-free" doctrine. Btw, have you ever heard NPR's Intelligence Squared debates?
Some are pretty good.