General Discussion

Octafish

(55,745 posts)

87. President Obama sided with GOP to reject reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine

Reply to RecoveringJournalist (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 07:12 AM

Sep 2015

Obama FCC Kills 'Fairness Doctrine' Dead, As Requested by Congressional Republicans

By BRAD FRIEDMAN on 8/22/2011, 3:35pm PT

In apparent response to GOP leaders of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee who requested in June that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Julius Genachowski "strike the Fairness Doctrine from the agency's rulebook," the former corporate media executive has announced exactly that today, striking the rule, and 82 others, from the official FCC rulebook...

SNIP...

Ending enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, which had served the nation well since the early days of radio in 1949, paved the way for Rush Limbaugh and other hard right commentators to use the public airwaves as little more than a one-sided propaganda tool. The situation was exacerbated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as signed by President Bill Clinton, under the pretense that it would allow for greater competition in the broadcast media market. The act allowed for virtually unrestricted corporate ownership of local radio and television stations and ultimately gave a handful of corporate outlets unfettered control of almost all of the nation's limited broadcast bandwidth.

CONTINUED...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8689

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

127 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fairness Doctrine [View all] RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 OP

Counter-argument el_bryanto Sep 2015 #1

Ok RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #3

^^EXACTLY^^ eom R. P. McMurphy Sep 2015 #8

Who has access to Fox and not MSNBC? WillowTree Sep 2015 #26

Back in the 20s there were maybe a hundred local newspapers in NYC... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #32

^^^^^^^^^^ RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #43

Those that listen to Faux, Breitbart, etc. GGJohn Sep 2015 #63

And this... RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #71

You're not making any sense. GGJohn Sep 2015 #77

You can Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #84

You would weigh a podcast.... daleanime Sep 2015 #4

I partially agree, wide viewpoints are available if you want them tech3149 Sep 2015 #12

Lacking cable, the televised access to both points of view is non-existent. LanternWaste Sep 2015 #24

internet eom melm00se Sep 2015 #31

IF you have the net Omaha Steve Sep 2015 #46

internet users in the USA melm00se Sep 2015 #52

Cord-Cutting Gets Ugly: U.S. Pay-TV Sector Drops 566,000 Customers in Q2 Omaha Steve Sep 2015 #53

Addressing all points of view is pointless and unrealistic... TipTok Sep 2015 #50

and who decides that? NT 1939 Sep 2015 #66

Sorry, my point was setting aside the obvious bit... TipTok Sep 2015 #73

Just for the sake of discussion... LWolf Sep 2015 #90

I don't know how you do this but I would love more accurate fact checking el_bryanto Sep 2015 #101

I think the answer to this particular counter argument is that PatrickforO Sep 2015 #108

The Fairness Doctrine would not apply to cable GGJohn Sep 2015 #109

It made some sense back when there were only 3 TV networks, but... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #2

Yeahup, it would be hard.... daleanime Sep 2015 #5

"Why do hard, pointless things" would be a more applicable question here (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #7

Honest dialog, pointless.... daleanime Sep 2015 #10

No doubt, fairness is indeed, pointless to the myopic and dogmatic. LanternWaste Sep 2015 #25

Should DU be required to allow a Republican "right of reply"? Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #34

So, DU, Huffpo, should be forced to allow RW views? GGJohn Sep 2015 #64

More to the point is that it only applied to TV stations... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #14

There by equaling..... daleanime Sep 2015 #16

You are mistaken. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #19

That's true, but it never did affect local stations, or radio, all that much... TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #27

You are mistaken once again. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #59

^^^^^^^^ RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #69

No, it doesn't, GGJohn Sep 2015 #70

The genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #72

The Fairness Doctrine melm00se Sep 2015 #23

But was rarely, if ever, enforced against radio. TreasonousBastard Sep 2015 #30

back when I worked in radio (1980's) melm00se Sep 2015 #35

What I find interesting is that there radio stations that still broadcast Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #80

I am not sure if the PICON requirement melm00se Sep 2015 #88

Should it apply only to over-the-air broadcasts? Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #6

Seems like applying it to DU is what gives us Discussionist. Dr. Strange Sep 2015 #51

I think broadcasting Rush... madinmaryland Sep 2015 #61

Under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine, the following alternate viewpoint has been provided: Dr. Strange Sep 2015 #62

What would be the point? brooklynite Sep 2015 #9

There's perjury for lying in court. moondust Sep 2015 #11

Who decides what a "lie" is? Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #37

One example: moondust Sep 2015 #42

And even Fox News acknowledges that: Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #45

Chris Wallace is only one broadcaster. moondust Sep 2015 #49

Perhaps the solution is as follows.. Volaris Sep 2015 #44

Dunno. moondust Sep 2015 #55

You would see the end of all news Travis_0004 Sep 2015 #82

I agree with you 100% deathrind Sep 2015 #13

+1 daleanime Sep 2015 #17

I don't see this as a workable idea considering all the different ways media is consumed these days. Throd Sep 2015 #15

Neither are speed limits RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #18

Excessive speed is an immediate and identifiable hazard. Throd Sep 2015 #36

"A large group of people only exposed to a single set of ideas are also dangerous". Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #38

Nope, it's only the morons who disagree with me that need to hear the truth. Throd Sep 2015 #39

Seriously? RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #41

DU RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #40

And of course RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #74

I don't think the fairness is the problem. I think the real jwirr Sep 2015 #20

I agree. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #22

the question that I have melm00se Sep 2015 #28

I just looked it up. Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #60

Many do riding home from work or other places. jwirr Sep 2015 #75

NBC had always been corporately owned. 1939 Sep 2015 #68

In addition to el_bryanto's comments melm00se Sep 2015 #21

With only 6 corporations controling 90% of the media. Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #29

There is too much concentration in segments of the media industry, but the six control 90 percent onenote Sep 2015 #47

I'd love to see it reinstated for the major commercial networks LanternWaste Sep 2015 #33

In a few years all broadcasting will be over the Internet Sam_Fields Sep 2015 #48

No it won't brooklynite Sep 2015 #57

They'd just put on a whiny-sounding moron to speak for the liberal side. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #54

The fairness doctrine is outdated and unnecessary. frankieallen Sep 2015 #56

That is kind of my view bluestateguy Sep 2015 #58

Not when most Amerkuns get their news from tee vee. Octafish Sep 2015 #67

Agreed RecoveringJournalist Sep 2015 #76

Correct, GGJohn Sep 2015 #81

ABCNNBCBSFIXEDNOISENUTWORKS put on cable what they air. Octafish Sep 2015 #86

No it wouldn't. GGJohn Sep 2015 #91

You must misunderstand. Networks on cable run what they air. Octafish Sep 2015 #93

They would just change Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #95

If that's so, the FD should apply to cable. Octafish Sep 2015 #99

Sorry, but Ichigo Kurosaki Sep 2015 #111

My point has to do with news broadcasting. Octafish Sep 2015 #118

So basically melm00se Sep 2015 #112

No, the broadcasters on cable. Octafish Sep 2015 #117

Why not just mandate Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #114

Nice stretch. Octafish Sep 2015 #120

No, the point is you want people to be forced to watch what you agree with. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #122

You should make that an OP. Octafish Sep 2015 #124

The point is that all sides are presented, GGJohn Sep 2015 #127

No, with any new "FD" the cable channels would become completely distinct. Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #92

Then FD should extend to cable. Octafish Sep 2015 #94

No it shouldn't. GGJohn Sep 2015 #97

You must not mind, but I don't like Scalia and Cheney. Octafish Sep 2015 #102

I don't like either of them either, so I don't listen to them, GGJohn Sep 2015 #103

Not a matter of 'viewer' being lazy... Octafish Sep 2015 #105

The truth according to who? GGJohn Sep 2015 #107

The Ministry of Truth. It's right there in the name! Throd Sep 2015 #121

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't affect cable at all, GGJohn Sep 2015 #65

Agreed and any radio broadcasters affected would go to satellite. nt stevenleser Sep 2015 #78

Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that, GGJohn Sep 2015 #79

Donald Trump 2016!!!!! Travis_0004 Sep 2015 #83

And some would like the FCC to come knocking on Skinner's door if he hides your post (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #116

Nostalgia is a comforting blanket for some folks' memory. X_Digger Sep 2015 #85

Nostalgic for Democracy. Octafish Sep 2015 #96

The internet was full of bloggers lamenting the stolen election. GGJohn Sep 2015 #100

Great. Ask people away from DU what they know about it. Octafish Sep 2015 #104

Then that's on them for being to fucking lazy to learn about the stolen election. GGJohn Sep 2015 #106

President Obama sided with GOP to reject reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine Octafish Sep 2015 #87

Yes. LWolf Sep 2015 #89

We need less opinion, more fact-oriented, evidence-based journalists and anchors. OneGrassRoot Sep 2015 #98

I just want to know how to STOP sorefeet Sep 2015 #110

Propaganda, like beauty, melm00se Sep 2015 #113

You think Jesse Ventura should be given equal time during televised 9/11 retrospectives? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #115

Yeah, don't expect a coherent answer to that one. X_Digger Sep 2015 #125

The solution is simple. ZX86 Sep 2015 #119

We need to return to it or don't complain mmonk Sep 2015 #123

the more relevant approach would be net neutrality AND reddread Sep 2015 #126