General Discussion

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)

79. You are wrong on all fronts.

Thu Mar 7, 2019, 05:05 PM

Mar 2019

The fairness doctrine affected only government owned airwaves and was only allowed because there were so few choices. Basically 3. By the 80s that was changing with the advent of cable whoses content the government had absolutely no power to regulate due to our First Amendment. A much more liberal court than now really started constraining it.

And the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with news. And it required no content inclusion. But political opinions by broadcasters over public airwaves. If they gave an hour for one side they had to give the other point of view. Which effectively meant they gave no political points of view.

The government has no place in regulating speech.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What would it take to restore the Fairness Doctrine? [View all] Grasswire2 Mar 2019 OP

Dems should support it. elleng Mar 2019 #1

Hey gateley Mar 2019 #5

HEY, gate! elleng Mar 2019 #6

In my town, that meant that at the end of the day someone came on for 5 minutes SharonAnn Mar 2019 #82

How could that be applied in today's world? gateley Mar 2019 #2

This is what I'd like to know as well. jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #9

Begin with a definition of news and standards it must adhere to, Hortensis Mar 2019 #16

That would be unconstitutional except on the public owned airwaves GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #24

Right, news isn't just broadcast over 3 networks. BUT, Hortensis Mar 2019 #15

So some kind of government agency reviewing all media GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #25

Well, thanks for seemingly reading my stream of consciousness. Hortensis Mar 2019 #78

You are wrong on all fronts. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #79

Okay, thanks for wading through stream withdrawn. Hortensis Mar 2019 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author Cetacea Mar 2019 #75

It isn't going to happen, that door has unfortunately cllosed. Paddy Chayefsky fortold this still_one Mar 2019 #3

And news divisions no longer can be loss leaders. calimary Mar 2019 #7

Completely redoing our communications... TreasonousBastard Mar 2019 #4

Fox News is cable. The Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable television. Brother Buzz Mar 2019 #8

The Dems could run on this issue if it was framed as getting rid of "fake news" and requiring allgood33 Mar 2019 #10

You want democrats to run under a censorship banner. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #26

Thank you. Codeine Mar 2019 #28

I support censoring state sponsered TV stations Cetacea Mar 2019 #29

State sponsored TV stations? Like PBS? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #30

Has PBS stated that they are an arm of the Democratic Party? Cetacea Mar 2019 #33

So you only want to censor people who disagree with us? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #35

I suppport real journalism. Fox is legally an entertainment channel. Cetacea Mar 2019 #37

As do we all. But who gets to decide the definition of 'real'? GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #40

And I'm sure my neighbors would support a bill Codeine Mar 2019 #45

Good idea. Both an extension of Fox. All three combine opinion shows with news. Cetacea Mar 2019 #46

Still a clear-cut and obvious violation Codeine Mar 2019 #67

I "imagine". Was Obama"imagining"? Cetacea Mar 2019 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author Cetacea Mar 2019 #77

You can yell fire in a theater all you want. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #81

Be my guest. But video or it didn't happen Cetacea Mar 2019 #86

Newspapers do that voluntarily, Codeine Mar 2019 #84

Feel free to write the Times and tell them it's nonsense Cetacea Mar 2019 #87

It would take a literal return to the 1950s/60s/70s jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #11

It would have to be written in a way that murielm99 Mar 2019 #13

That brings up huge First Amendment issues. Codeine Mar 2019 #18

This jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #19

That is what I was thinking. murielm99 Mar 2019 #88

Stiffer laws regarding labeling/disclaimers could be passed. Fox entertainment, for example. eom Cetacea Mar 2019 #31

I actually like that suggestion. jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #39

Hmmm Cetacea Mar 2019 #43

Again, you're butting up against the Constitution. Codeine Mar 2019 #44

Yet governments restrict war journailsm Cetacea Mar 2019 #47

State secrets would be one of the few Codeine Mar 2019 #64

Bush 1, fearing another Viet-Nam type backlash, restricted war journalists Cetacea Mar 2019 #69

Like DU for example ? MichMan Mar 2019 #83

Those poor Russian trolls would be exhausted. nt Codeine Mar 2019 #85

Reagan began ignoring the FD in 1987. According to experts, appalachiablue Mar 2019 #12

Coughlin was a scary lunatic. jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #20

Impossible to legislate or implement in the modern media environment... Baconator Mar 2019 #14

Very little media is "broadcast" anymore. Codeine Mar 2019 #17

Either a time machine or a Constitutional amendment onenote Mar 2019 #21

Or Democrats can attach it as a rider to must-pass legislation meow2u3 Mar 2019 #22

That won't prevent it from being struck down as unconstitutional onenote Mar 2019 #23

It was in force for decades with no challeng to its constitutionality DBoon Mar 2019 #32

Because media no longer utilizes publicly owned Codeine Mar 2019 #41

Because the "scarcity" of media that existed in the 1940s-1980s onenote Mar 2019 #42

The entire premise of the doctrine was based on allocation of scarce broadcasting resources jberryhill Mar 2019 #56

How does that overcome the fact that Codeine Mar 2019 #27

There you go.......Clouding the issue with facts again. WillowTree Mar 2019 #36

I'll just reiterate what others have said. It would be useless today The Genealogist Mar 2019 #34

People pushing government censorship to 'save our country' have lost their ability to detect Irony GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #38

It would take the destruction of the internet and the return of only 3 networks scheming daemons Mar 2019 #48

+1 grantcart Mar 2019 #49

I'm personally against Turin_C3PO Mar 2019 #50

for Congress to have a spine and a sense of decency gopiscrap Mar 2019 #51

The Fairness Doctrine was based on federal licensing power over broadcasters. A failure to empedocles Mar 2019 #52

The Red Lion case did not result in the forfeiture of a license. onenote Mar 2019 #53

A federal shutdown of the internet and cable tv? theboss Mar 2019 #54

What would it take? rsdsharp Mar 2019 #55

I have the answer. Got the idea from Trump's reaction to FoxNews being blocked Baitball Blogger Mar 2019 #57

no kidding. good idea. nt Grasswire2 Mar 2019 #58

I see that Daily Kos is mounting an activist fight against FOX Grasswire2 Mar 2019 #59

If the Fairness Doctrine wont work, what will? Brawndo Mar 2019 #60

Imo, the fairness doctrine as a concept is nonsensical at best, and Oneironaut Mar 2019 #61

+1000 Power 2 the People Mar 2019 #62

How many people do you think watch Fox News every night? onenote Mar 2019 #63

This! Codeine Mar 2019 #65

2 to 3 million. But the propaganda spreads like a virus. Power 2 the People Mar 2019 #66

We really need to outlaw FNC since it is just hate speech... Joe941 Mar 2019 #68

"Hate speech is not free speech." FiveGoodMen Mar 2019 #71

Stop. Codeine Mar 2019 #73

A nation that believed in fairness FiveGoodMen Mar 2019 #70

Nothing will. Soon all broadcasting will be online KWR65 Mar 2019 #74

I can see it now... Act_of_Reparation Mar 2019 #76

Something should definitely get on the platform. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2019 #89

Regulation of political speech. Codeine Mar 2019 #90

Regulation like the fairness doctrine. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2019 #91

The fairness doctrine died with the Codeine Mar 2019 #92

Then count me in for countervailing speech. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2019 #93

Whatever you did... jmowreader Mar 2019 #94