which local stations/hosts are most at risk?if programs need local community/gv'mntapproval, who will be on the approval committee??what new/ revived formats will be done here??

If the Fairness Doctrine is revived it will probably be similar to the old one....stations can air whatever they want but you must make equal time for dissenting opinion if someone requests it. The station still will choose the programming, not the community or gvmt. The Fairness Doctrine is strictly a way for the left to keep programming they don't agree with off the air, or at least restrict it. The reason you hear very little liberal programming now is because....nobody listens. Liberal formats just don't get big numbers. It has always amused me that the liberals constantly tell us they lead the fight for free speech and the American way...until someone speaking freely says something they don't agree with.

It has always amused me that the liberals constantly tell us they lead the fight for free speech and the American way...until someone speaking freely says something they don't agree with.

Oh really, amused? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to free pass to spread hate, buster.

Anyway, if you're gonna take a swipe at liberals, it belongs on the other side, but me thinks you haven't the balls to go over there and defend your comments, hence your posting it here.

Calm down!

I was on the air while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. I thought Stan explained it pretty well, and provided a little commentary to go with it... (Don't we all do a bit of that here?) It still relates directly to radio broadcasting.

Now, let's continue to keep it civil...

OK, think of it as a rebuttal, something that would be possible under the Fairness Doctine, using tactics I picked up from right-winged talkradio entertainers. The golden EIB microphone is yours now.

The so called Fairness Doctrine would cause chaotic operations for most radio talk shows today and I predict that most hosts/producers/stations would not abide and let it be challenged straight to the supremes. It just does not add up with our first ammendment and would be impossible to regulate/police/enforce and would be laughable when tried.

Doesn't OPB do very well in the ratings? Doesn't everyone think they're liberal. Either OPB isn't liberal and has high numbers, or they're liberal and your theory is bunk.

chaotic

It worked before and it will work again. It'll make it difficult to BS. The only people it will be chaotic for will be the BSers.

This is what life will be like for Sean Hannity if the Fairness Doctrine is returned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c&feature=related

I don't think we need it.

Most traditional media I see has a corporate bias. That's due to lots of consolidation. From there it's corporate left, right and wierd! In the early 2000's, I felt the balance was not presenting enough progressive and liberal ideas.

Frankly, that's still true.

Internet media presents a nice check, in that we have a lot of passionate people publishing! Yes, the three 'P's! There is enough bandwidth now to share video and audio and that has brought us a lot of meta-media, in the form of informed commentary from all sides.

This is forcing traditional media to work a bit harder on clarity between fact and opinion.

Adding to that pressure is the steady growth of online savvy media consumers. Many of these don't own TV sets, or if they do, they use them at moderate levels, or for gaming and such.

Over the next 10 years, the question will simply be does traditional media want to be marginalized or not? If we see increased clarity in presentation of facts and opinion then traditional media will snag it's share of these people and maintain a high degree of credence and relevance.

If it doesn't, there now are plenty of options.

Perfectly American, if you ask me.

That is, so long as we maintain Net Neutrality, where we don't see discrimination between traditional (read big money) media and the three 'P's.

We had the fairness doctrine for pretty solid reasons. I'm not sure they all apply today.

Since there are more choices, and many new media forms are pull forms, instead of push, it's not all that easy to justify going down that path.

In the media landscape of today, bias is a given. Everybody has it. Everybody has always had it, but venue access was limited then where it's not now.

I say, bring on the bias! Flaunt it, but just be honest about it. Emphasize clarity and people will be just fine.

Talk radio wasn't particularly successful in most places until the Fairness Doctrine was lifted and the right wing was given free reign. Most stations didn't want to walk such a tightrope and stayed away from controversial topics. The result was primarily older demographics and if you reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, that's what you'll get again!

KSKD, I'm not saying we need 50-50 balance, but lets say 3 minutes after the end of any major talk programming is to be set aside for counterpoint IF anyone choses to submit one. No submissions, then no counterpoint need be run. (If there are LOTS of submissions, the station can have a lottery for the slots).

The idea is to keep Hannity and friends honest. The possibility of bullshit being debunked a few days later in their own timeslot may cut on the rhetoric otherwise they'll have to admit to being purely entertainers and sipulate to that at the beginning and ending of their shows.

But on the other hand, the Republicans managed to crack their own party without any help from the FCC so one can argue the Fairness Doctrine is not needed. But it took a generation for that to happen. I'm not sure the internet et al is where it can offset baised on radio just yet. But down the road, for sure.

I used to see it that way, but I only did so because the media options were limited.

Today that's not true. Given that, I think it's perfectly ok for media producers, be they bloggers, or corporate media empires, to demonstrate that bias.

As long as the people can interact with one another, like they do now, like we are here in this place at this time, excessive bias will come at a cost; namely, lack of credence.

There is no free lunch. If you want to be free of the bias claim and earn the entitlements that come with being "objective", well then it costs you excitement and entertainment.

On the other hand, if bias is ok, then it's a lot easier to entertain!

When I look at "The Daily Show", for example, and compare it to "The News Hour", I am gonna come out and just say it: "The News Hour" is a great program, but it's boring as hell! Can't do it.

If there is more entertainment, there are more people engaged with the facts and that's good, IMHO. I've been very well informed watching Stewart and I look forward to it too.

How to deal with Hannity?

Simple. Call media producers on failure to bring clarity! FOX brands itself as "fair and balanced". The reality is they are a GOP mouthpiece, most of the time.

Hannity, all of the time.

So then, I'm not worried about Hannity being a GOP mouthpiece. That's his deal. I do think if he's going to do that, then he can't also fall under the "fair and balanced" branding!

If we stiffen enforcement of that, or perhaps craft enforcement of that, if what we have isn't good enough, It's all gonna wash out in the end.

Edit: And maybe this is one of those let them compete kinds of things. FOX has taken one hell of a beating as of late. They've been called on clarity and it's starting to show.

Another thing:

Advocacy is good. I think engaging in advocacy, particularly that kind that is well supported in facts, is a great use of our media time. I want to know when things are outta control. I want to know who needs help and where the good stuff is happening.

Doing that requires some passion, if it's to be entertaining, and with that comes BIAS.

There is always BIAS, unless it's just terminally boring.

One kind of advocacy I don't like, and don't think is healthy, is the manupulative kind. This is what Hannity does! He hides behind "fair and balanced", even going as far as to have his own neutered "liberal" prop to give his stuff some credence.

To top it off, he's just not all that clear! When I watch his program, I often have to struggle to sort out just what is actually fact and what is opinion. This is hard enough that I think it's safe to just call the whole damn thing opinion!

What happens is that people get entertained, but not informed and they build passion for things they might not otherwise have passion for, because the clarity is so low.

Anyway, fix that, and I think we would see the need for "fairness" eliminated as the media + Internet will prove to be robust enough at checks and balances.

This is a far more American way to go. Doesn't matter who owns what, or what their bias is. FAIRNESS then becomes just being honest about said bias and clear about the line between fact and opinion.

From there, people will see a nut-bag as a nut-bag and it's a non-issue!

Semoochie, I agree.

And I like talk radio. I think there is a lot that we can still do with talk radio too.

If we are to discuss policy, it needs to be with an eye toward the public interest. (I know, it's all but dead)

Conservatives jumped on talk radio and really got it done! Kudos to them for being forward looking and for making the format viable.

Now others are catching up and it appears that liberal talk is viable, so it will eventually balance out well enough to not be a worry.

(I see growth overall, so that's viable and therefore, just a matter of work until saturation is reached. Same problem the conservatives had.)

Like it or not, an awful lot of the call for "fairness" is all about the large number of conservative talkers and their station counts.

To me, that's not a policy decision, given growth in other talk and the growth in relevance we are seeing with the Internet.

What do you all think the Net Neutrality battle is about? It's the conservatives aiming to reduce the liberal advantage on the Internet. Left leaning causes are killing huge on the Internet right now. They got the same jump the conservatives did on radio!

This is why I focus on the clarity bit. You can pick your ideology and your venue and you can be sure there is somebody working that scene, who is producing a low clarity program with questionable branding.

That crap has got to go, leaving programming that is clear enough for people to just see the bias and make informed decisions based on it.

The "fair" thing to do would then to be to consume several different biases to get at the facts and stimulate some thought. Will everybody do that?

Hell no they won't.

But, if more people do that than we see today, it's enough, until we see otherwise. In fact, I think the goal should be that we make damn sure it's completely possible for Joe Six Pack to do that, if he ever feels like doing that.

And we do it because it's fair.

And that's my conservative policy position for the day. I think passing legislation on what we think might happen, when there isn't a lot of support for it, is just a bad idea.

What usually happens in that case, is we the media consumers or users or publishers generally lose. I don't like losing. Nobody does, so let's don't go down this road.

One last thing Skep.

I want my liberal station to tell me liberal stuff, feature ads from liberal supporting businesses, and engage in liberal leaning advocacy. KPOJ (see? I typed it right people!) does this nicely, and it is good.

I'm quite sure my conservative friends enjoy their KXL doing exactly the same thing.

If we had these mandatory rebuttals everywhere, it would just absolutely suck. Stations would have to moderate them, produce them, deal with them and that costs money that does not add a lot of value.

With things as they are right now, It's also really easy to just tune in for the two major biases and check out the scene and move on from there.

Everybody needs their affirmation. I say give it to them, so long as it's very clear that's exactly what it is!

People need to know when they are being entertained as opposed to being given facts. The better we get at this, the better the media advocacy will be and the more informed and entertained we will be and that is fair.

Some of you guys need to brush up on the facts.

The Fairness Doctrine was not, as Stan_the_man wrote, "... strictly a way for the left to keep programming they don't agree with off the air, or at least restrict it." Clearly Stan may have been in broadcasting while this doctrine was in one of its many phases of enforcement, but so has anyone that worked in broadcasting between 1949 and 1989. Also clear is that Stan is holding back the rest of the story, or is unaware of it. Stan's post is tantamount to saying the spitball was strictly a way for left handed pitching to strike out batters, or at least stay ahead in the count. It's preposterous to look at the Fairness Doctrine so one sided.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[4]
Although similar laws had been called unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way due to the limited spectrum of the public airwaves. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[1]
The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.
However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, where there is no such technical limit on the number of possible newspapers.
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the Fairness Doctrine's limits unnecessary, "We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required." (footnote 11). After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the Fairness Doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be "chilling speech", the Court added
Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine "[has] the net effect or reducing rather than enhancing" speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. (footnote 12).[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

It ain't coming back. No way, no how.

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent libertarians and conservatives who view it as an attempt to regulate or mandate certain types of speech on the airwaves. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times have said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to and contempt for the successes of conservative talk radio.[16] [17]
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet.[18] It could also include "government dictating content policy".[19] The conservative Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine - media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest - are all myths.[20]
Media reform organizations such as Free Press feel that a return to the Doctrine is not as important as setting stronger station ownership caps and stronger "public interest" standards enforcement (with fines given to public broadcasting). [21]
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has expressed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine; an aide to Senator Obama described the debate surrounding it as "a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," and cited Obama's support for other proposals such as media-ownership caps and network neutrality. [22]

iF THEY TRY TO HUSH rUSH, WON'T HE quicklyRE-APPEARE ON NWTWORKT t.v.ORcablr tv EMAIL,NEWSPAPERS,MAGAZINES,CELLPHONEaudio or TEXT MESSges,direct mail snailmail?web pages?S?WHATEVER MEDIUM IS POPULAR AND HANDYinstead of AM radio?

Nobody is gonna hush Rush.

Relax 62

You've got no worries about getting your Rush fix, unless Rush has some of his own problems that prevent that.

Now if they FLUSH RUSH, you might want to consider a "special" internet connection :

http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html

Although this was published as an "April fool" article in 2007, apparently several cities and colleges have now installed fiber optic cables through their sewer systems.

The only thing Stan The Man got wrong is the place he chose to speak his mind.

Stan is one of the good guys in this business.

How so?

I thought his comment was just fine. The thread is not in bad shape right now either.

62kgw:
"If they try to hush Rush, won't he quickly reappear on network TV, cable TV, e-mail, newspapers...."

I think that you partially answered your own question there, insofar as the miniscule possibility of the fairness doctrine being reinstated is concerned. If Limbaugh and other successful political talk shows were taken off the air, satellite radio would snap most of them up, and their devoted fans would be all too happy to pay the subscription fees to keep listening. Or, they could end up on a variety of other non-radio media outlets, and fans would seek them out there.

Another thing to consider is that the Fairness Doctrine comes from a time before a single company could have four or five signals in a single market. In today's environment, group owners would very likely try to make the case that programming on one of their other signals provides balance. Maybe there could be an HD-2 stream that could be used as a "dumping ground" for the dissident views. Or, programs with dissenting views could be loaded into the automation to play at 3:00 AM.

I could see how the fairness doctrine would be GREAT!

Then we would have CONSERVATIVE DISSENT FORCED ON NPR STATIONS ALL THE TIME.

I like it!!!!

KSKD sez: cited Obama's support for other proposals such as media-ownership caps and network neutrality

I thought about this and the other things you discussed for a while and perhaps you're right. Maybe there are other ways to acomplish the same thing (sort of). It might take me a while to slide in that direction.

Ptaak sez: Then we would have CONSERVATIVE DISSENT FORCED ON NPR STATIONS ALL THE TIME.

I'd say go for it! I'd like to hear their side without it being shouted at me.

NT sez: Stan is one of the good guys in this business.

I don't think anyone is questioning if he's "the man!" But if one makes a political statement (here or there), they should expect a response to it.

Just thought of this point, not in favor of a new doctrine.

There is this bizzare idea that each story, issue, policy position has two sides to it. Really, that's not always the case! There might only be one, or more than one.

Anyway, the idea that there is always two sides has lead to us hearing about something fairly cut and dried, being turned into this spin session, in attempt to "represent" both sides.

Say we've got Joe the Politician, who broke the law. We have facts that demonstrate this and they are clear. Sometimes we've got court actions and stuff that follow that, making it more clear.

(and this is non-partisan, it's just a ready example)

So then, the two sides thing ends up being the one side, and say they are the guilty party, putting out a bunch of garbage that just denies or distorts the matter, and the other side being the reporting of the violation.

Now it's clear why we've got the guilty ones trying to re-frame everything. Nobody wants to actually admit being guilty, or if guilty, nobody wants to do the time. Easy enough.

That's not the issue.

The issue is we see it reported as if BOTH sides are just engaging in framing and that's just not all that cool as everything then appears arbitrary, when things are not always arbitrary.

In fact, we often get just the framing! This boils down to what both sides feel about it, without actually just reporting that a violation has occurred, or that gets lost in the mass of opinion, surrounding that. (lack of clarity)

Declaring that we need to present multiple sides to the story ALWAYS would just reinforce this kind of crap, and I don't think that does us any real good.

Then there is the case where there are more than two sides. And that's, frankly, a whole lot of cases! So what do we do then? Allow all of them fair time?

That's nuts!

The reality would be that all but the major parties, liberal and conservative, would be marginalized and I don't think that does us any real good either.

At a minimum the political spectrum is NOT a line, but a plane. That's two axis, not two directions on a line. There is the social axis, and the fiscal / policy axis. Both can be seen as conservative or liberal.

The "two sides" crap hobbles the discussion, framing everything as linear where it's planar, in terms of the diversity possible.

And again, planar is minimum. There are more axis, but to get there, we have to get past the simple linear model we use almost everywhere.

(I hate that, having discovered it. Now I'm often as annoyed at the linear framing as I am lack of clarity)

If we think about liberitarians, greens, constitutionalists, and others, the idea of a fairness doctrine, in the mold of the older one just does not make any sense at all.

That's why I like the clarity bit, where the entertainment in the form of commentary is clearly differentiated from the recognized facts that are used to support it.

How well this is done then builds credence!

Bias is simply a matter of where the advocacy is aimed, and from what perspective. Greens are gonna have their advocacy, liberals a super-set of that, with some exclusive bits common to each, for example.

The same could be said for conservatives and constitutionalists.

I think reaching the point where we can even consider these kinds of discussions in the traditional media forms (TV, Radio, Paper) would be huge progress. Progress that's not gonna happen with this simple two sided framing that dominates everything, everywhere and nearly everybody.

IMHO, that's not fair to a whole lot of people, who are clearly more complex than that, but have no venue.

I also think this is a big part of why we don't have much in the way of International news presented here. Some of that is our own nationalism. That's a given. But, it's hard to deny that we are dumbed down as a nation, and we are dumbed down by this framing as much as we are from being focused on our own selves as a nation.

I can't help but wonder if that doesn't give us more grief than we would otherwise have, and there isn't a way to find out, unless we raise the bar some.

>>it would just absolutely suck. Stations would have to moderate them, produce them, deal with them and that costs money that does not add a lot of value.

spot on M-KSKD...

> There is this bizzare idea that each story, issue, policy position has two sides to it. Really,
> that's not always the case!

A few weeks ago, I went to a talk given by Lawrence Krauss on the subject of scientific literacy and science with regards to policy issues. He stated at one point that journalists are taught that "there are two sides to every story." He said that this outlook makes it difficult for journalists to cover science stories because in the process of trying to find an opposing view, they often bring in people with views that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I can appreciate the spirit of the "two sides" paradigm: a journalist is not supposed to get suckered into writing propaganda pieces for people who might have an agenda or an ax to grind. A journalist does not just hand over the mic--a la Art Bell--to someone who might be interesting to listen to and say, "Here. Tell your story." The journalist's job is to filter through the biases of the people (s)he interviews to get down to the truth. One could see the journalist as a type of moderator if the story were about some kind of a conflict between two or several parties.

If there are any journalists who read this board, is it really true that journalists are taught that "there are two sides to every story?" How do you, as a journalist, determine who is worthy of providing input to a story?

Obviously, determining what's "liberal" and "conservative" is very subjective....but, as a regular listener, I really don't hear what's "liberal" about NPR. (Air America or Nova M, of course, but NPR?) Since some people who post here are so strongly convinced of NPR's leftward tilt, can you give me an example or two of why you feel that way? Thanks....

I really agree with this Brade. I would add that NPR seems to lean socially liberal, but on matters of policy and economics, appears to lean right, or moderate at best.

Alfredo, DAMN good question! Count me among those looking for some answers to this.

IMHO, the core of being a journalist is to uncover the facts and report those, and also put them into the context of a story that makes some kind of sense out of them.

Seems to me then, the "two sides to every story" bit is all about plausible deniability where bias is concerned. If we force these people to come up with opposing views all of the time, they then can easily claim to "just be the messenger".

Ok, fine.

However, we have many protections for journalists that hold up in court regularly. There have been a few abuses of this by the current administration, but in terms of case law, that's more than a nasty blip than some big sea change.

Given these protections, why then can't we allow people to tell stories? If there are enough of them, the opposing view would come out in the various stories published, not from one journalist, or a team of such, working to actually produce said stories.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

and

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

both these links are indicative of the greater problem in the mass media these days.

note that talk radio is NOT the problem

Stan is correct... any attempt to stifel an opposing view is un American plain and simple... Sour grapes vindictiveness is what it is.

We should go this way, you lie your off the air. Hannity, Larson and Rush do it all the time. The radio management says they are just entertainment, just as WWE outcomes are not fixed.

The 3 mentioned are not entertaining, as to many of their listeners believe every word they say when more than 50% is crap. Clean up the crap and they can stay on the air.

People call that boring talk radio, I really don't care they have been the downfall of the country for more than 20 years, it's time to put them back in the bottle.

People call that opinion and it is protected speech. Sorry to have to inject that inconvenient reality.

If the radio waves weren't publicly owned, then you may have a point.

While I don't believe we need a fairness doctrine, I do believe steps need to be taken to make sure the publicly owned airwaves don't become a monopoly for any single point of view.

Some roll back of the media consolidation would likely address that.

Saveitnow, there are an awful lot of things where there is enough subjectivity that actually calling somebody on a lie ends up being difficult.

Also, what would happen with a stiff, "No lie" doctrine (and are all these things doctrines?), is that we then would just see a lot of omissions.

IMHO, there is no ready, quick fix just pass it and be done with it law solution. As I've posted before, regulating behavior is done via law, money, social norms and physics.

Getting the media to perform better, involves more than law! Money is a clear problem on a lot of fronts. Law might not need to be touched at all.

That leaves social norms and physics. I don't think physics has much to do with things, and social norms are difficult to change. Probably more so as the media can really do some damage framing them!

Internet helps here as social norms, in the form of expectations, are being set apart from traditional media and that opens the door for more robust competition.

Also IMHO, structuring things so that more competition happens will do more good than harm in these things. In the end, I think this is the most powerful of our options. Internet media has a very high degree of clarity (well the potential for clarity) and is serving nicely to contrast the rather muddy media options we have.

Entertainment based shows, that also do a good job with the facts are proving to be successful as well.

All of that works under competition, and what I see working is working well, so maybe just making really sure we do have legit competition is the best overall path right now.

>>it's time to put them back in the bottle.

those are very scary words to say next to the first ammendment.

>>Clean up the crap and they can stay on the air.

who would say "your now clean to produce your show"...a new mega monitering branch of government/FCC...yah...that'll work.

Agreed. Would much rather just see robust competition than a serious infringement on speech.

Speech is the First Amendment for a reason. Without it being very un-regulated, we cannot be free to be who we are and speak our minds. Without that, however ugly it may be to endure, we cannot grow as a society.

And it seems as though we don't grow, but we do. Just look back at our history and listen to who we were, or read who we were.

No worries on that stuff anyway. Nobody is gonna seriously entertain that. So we get the profanity, along with the smut, morons, bigots, asses, and every other facet of humanity!

Celebrate it! It's who we are!

Sorry Notalent, but it is the "People's Airwaves" He can have all the free speech he wants on the top of Mount Hood, not the "people's airwaves", otherwise I should also be given a talk show like everybody in the US.

But since the FCC limits the number of stations restraints were in place up until the 80's.

We must return to what it was before the 80's which would mean the three listed go bye bye or stop lying.

>>I should also be given a talk show like everybody in the US.

boy...now another "right" invented being an American...whats next? You always have the opportunity to be a webcaster...no FCC regs there. Some pretty crazy thoughts going on here...and it'll be a whole lot worse if Obamanation signs this into law...

it'll be a whole lot worse if Obamanation signs this into law...

And what happens if McSame gets a hold of it? Will he DUHbya it?

And there is no way Obama is going to sign this crap into law. He knows where the legal boundaries and precedent lie. He's a legal scholar and educator in the field of Constitutional Law. Obama knows better, and I wish our current administration did.

So that's just scare tactics.

Saveitnow, returning to pre-80's regulation makes no sense today. Back then, traditional media was the only option for all but a very small fraction of people.

That's not true today, and you can have your own talkshow!

http://www.talkshoe.com

I've done some shows on this as a guest host. I highly recommend the experience! It's a total kick, and you can get decent sized audiences, have live chat, host moderation capabilities to facilitate structured discussion, works with Skype, and is just fun as all get out.

(I did peak oil, personal sustainability and self-reliance tips and discussion, and Internet Parenting shows. Both had awesome callers and discussion during and after the show.)

I'm highlighting that because traditional media has significant competition today and it's growing more viable and potent every week.

Today the truth is, if you don't think traditional media is fair, you have both the right and the power to call them on it. Bloggers, acting as journalists have prevailed in the courts repeatedly, meaning the act of journalism comes with the protection!

A single blogger, making their case public, can have a very significant impact on garbage traditional media.

Just ask the talkers on KSFO, who had to air an apology show, after their hate radio audio was sent to their major advertizers, published on the internet, and discussed openly among ordinary people.

Passionate People Publishing is a good thing.

Rather than bitch about the state of the media today, be the media! All very American, IMHO.

be the media!

Why would I want to be RIGHT WING???

Lars and Company can say anything on the internet, just the same as the 100,000 plus bloggers which was demonstrated very well two weeks ago in Doonesbury.

But if you want to stay on the FCC airwaves there must be rules, and Lars and Company don't want rules as they enjoy being Fascists.

There use to be rules in the past, and many of you are saying the rules will put stations out of business, really?

Gee a change in rules will put a company out of business? Give me a break, look at AM Northwest, it really is just a one hour informercial. Most of the guests pushing a product have to pay to be on the air.

The reality you could adjust your programming on the radio to be 100% informercials like KXL already does from 2:00 am to 5 am, or just stop their hate radio, it is a choice.

Adapt or perish, just like the downsizing that all of you have experienced in the communication industry.

It's just that talk radio has become so vile over the last twenty years, and now it's time to stop.

>>The reality you could adjust your programming
>>Adapt or perish...now it's time to stop.

what part of the first ammendment don't you understand?

What part of FCC do you not understand. The Commisssion makes rules like the Seven Words you can't say over the radio waves amoung others.

You "Righties" always bring out the First Amendment when you don't get things your way.

Like others have said on this post you can say anything you want on a blog, on a piece of paper, etc. But anything that is trnasmitted in the "commons" there are rules.

Such as a Speed Limit, stealing, etc. Such is the same with FCC controlled airwaves, yet Cable radio and Cable Television are exempt since cable systems do not have to carry the program if they find the content to objectional.

Therefore Right Wing Hate Radio has gone beyond the limits that are acceptable to the public. The backlash started in 2005 and the backlash will continue into the next decade to eliminate FCC controlled airwaves "hate radio".

So stop the "what part of the first amendment don't you understand?" Other than you don't know how to spell.

>>Right Wing Hate Radio has gone beyond the limits that are acceptable to the public

most of America would differ with that statement. The FCC has rarely got into regulation of programming other than obscenities.
If they do...we'll be a pretty sorry country. A whole new branch of the FCC would need to be created to moniter radio alone with "branches" to daily listen to talk radio in cities all over American with stop watch's running...chaos.

Hey Broadway-Heard of Podcasts?

Cut out all of the advertising an hour program is less than 40 minutes.

You and the righties must be getting ready for your favorite holiday since all you believe in is fear.

Also what is your definition of "Most of America"? Less than 20% listen to Talk Radio, so that doesn't appear to be "Most"

Just make up your "facts", just like your buddies.

> It's just that talk radio has become so vile over the last twenty years, and now it's time to stop.

Would you hold non-"right wing" commentators to the same standard? For example, would Tom Leykis have to knock it off with the parts of his schtick that some consider chauvinistic? Would Phil Hendrie not be allowed to run some of his satire bits that, if taken literally, can come across as stabs at minorities? I cite both of these examples because Canada's CRTC has restrictions on the broadcast of "hate speech," and stations over there have gotten into trouble for carrying those shows. The central question is, how can a legal definition of "hate speech" be written that doesn't have unintended consequences, such as censoring things that were obviously intended to be satire (i.e. Phil Hendrie). I think that the answer is not that simple.

I feel you have it correct the Health Insurance North of the US is better than what the majority of people have in the US, so let's also copy what they let go over the airwaves.

And since they already fine stations in Canada for Hate Speech the US doesn't need any enforcement department all they need to do is add a 50% surcharge to the fines that Canada levies.

You totally glossed over my question. I am deeply shocked and offended.

Frankly what is considered "unattended" consequences, is still "hate speech".

As one quote goes "Injustice to One Person is an Injustice to All."

Followed by "If you can't say anything nice, then say nothing at all."

I like the part of Mark and Brian when they interview people, that is how "talk radio" was, even with Bill Gallahger back in the 1990's.

Station Managers say that kind of "Talk Radio" doesn't work.

Of course they say that since many "Talk Radio" stations carry National Syndicated Talk Shows, so they can put the blame of the "Hate" on the syndicated Talker, not their station.

As most of you must agree many Program Directors are lazier than government workers where they lay off employees when they make mistakes they reduce revenue, and Station Managers who don't get rid of these Program Directors because they don't want to take the time to search for a new Program Director.

That's why we can't run government like many businesses, like Lehman Brothers and Bears Stern.

I just thought that people on the left were to be the more tolerant of opposing views and be open to different opinions/experessions.
Who keeps saying that all the time on their side?

thanks for the comedy Broadway!!

NOBODY likes it when bigotry, racism and theocracy hit the airwaves.

Not a whole lot of that coming from the left, at the moment. That leaves...

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Before you answer, or think you know what my answer left unsaid is, consider the growing schizm we are seeing in the right. There is a case for some really bad apples out of control, more than there is a case for blame on left / right, in general.

I personally favor more colorful expression being permitted more of the time. I don't care if it's all totally clean. I only want it clear and defensible. And yes, I could care less about fleeting profanity in fact, if the profanity is in good form, as in it actually adds value to the expression that would not otherwise be there, I'm totally ok with it being permitted.

If both of those core things are present, (clarity and defensibility) anyone offended can deal. Yep, that makes me a lefty where speech is concerned. The reality is that kind of thing, within the bounds I just described, is as offensive as you think it is! Which is why I believe people can deal. The harm is subjective, not material.

Bigotry, racism, theocracy, etc... are not defensible, if maybe clear. (usually not) IMHO, these are the kinds of things most often referred to as hate speech. There are others too. I just posted those up to clarify this post.

Unlike the dirty word here and there, these things are more than words. They are ideas and they are linked to harm. Not linked directly, but it's generally accepted that permitting these things to be a part of the accepted discourse lends support to those that practice them, and that's the harm.

eg: if we let people be ok with being bigots, we end up living with bigots, and some of us will be the target of the bigotry

Still, putting it on the air happens. I think it will always happen as any law worded with enough teeth to actually chill these kinds of ideas in a significant way would also chill a lot of valid, if uncouth at times, speech. Probably won't make it past SCOTUS.

And maybe I've got a libertarian streak in me too, because I would much prefer people step up and take these clowns that say that stuff to the woodshed, instead of leaving that to the government.

Again, that's what happened with KSFO. I'm sure broadcasters are not all that happy with an event like that, but as an ordinary person, looking at this issue, I see it as just a valid check and balance.

Walk the line some, push it, if you must, but push too hard, or fall off, and it's gonna likely hurt! I can't see the harm in that dynamic, so long as it takes some effort to pull off. Without that, pot shots are too easy, and that's a travesty of the thing where we get no interesting speech at all!

My point being, as citizens, we have means and methods ready to address these kinds of things and perhaps we just need to use them more, instead of trying to be lazy, write a law, do lunch and think everything will be ok then.

I think what you are saying, and this ties back to the original topic, is that we really don't need the "gubernment" to be the lord master of political speech.

we as informed citizens, regardless of our POV, can determine for ourselves who deserves to be taken to the woodshed for taking the hyperbole beyond the level of skillful oration.

Reinstating the "fairness' doctrine is politics pure and simple.

No government has any business filtering content. The concept is rife for politically motivated actions, which is why someone once had the bright idea of a free press.

there was no clause in freedom of the press that said "unless the press is owned by the gubernment"

Absolutely that's what I'm saying.

Traditionally, we've only regulated speech that's linked pretty directly to a known material harm.

Being offended isn't a material harm! (it is what you think it is)

The classic, "FIRE!" in the crowded theatre is highly likely to cause a material harm; namely, somebody getting stomped! So, we regulate that. I think that's a very clear standard.

IMHO, the big problem with regulating both "indecent" and "hate" speech lies in the fact that both are not linked as directly to a material harm.

Indecent is really bad because the standard is all over the place. Really this gets back to it's as offensive as any of us thinks it is, and we range all over the map, making this difficult. Very tough to put a legal definition down that does not also chill valid speech.

Always the question goes back to that. The first amendment being first, means it's very important.

Currently, we kind of default to very clean speech and it's fair. Annoying at times, but fair.

Hate speech, in my view, is more closely linked to a material harm, but still not the kind of link "FIRE!" in the theatre is.

And that's where I think we, the people, need to step up and push back on these things. I don't think the link is close enough to make law practical.

And since we have law, money, physics and norms to regulate with, costing those people money is a pretty damn effective alternative.

The debate should focus on whether publicly owned airwaves should be dominated by only one point of view. Should it?

No. Next.

CNN's reporting isn't either fair or accurate so should CNN be censored. A minimum censorship is needed but the fairness doctrine isn't good for anyone.

Back in college, a fellow radio-head friend and I were musing, what if there were a "politically correct" radio station that went out of its way to ensure absolute fairness in every possible way. Such a place would end up having some very strict and somewhat esoteric rules and quotas. I think some of the ideas that we came up with were:

* The musical playlist would have to be a 50/50 mix of male and female artists
* There would be racial quotas on the artists that received airplay
* There would be geographic quotas on the artists that received airplay
* News programs would have quotas on the number of stories reported on specific subjects that, in the opinion of station management are not given adequate coverage in the mainstream press
* Care would be taken to always use contemporary, non-offensive terminology, especially when referring to groups of people

There were probably other things that I have long since forgotten. The point was that despite the good intentions, such a place would end up strangling itself with elaborate rules that are difficult to follow consistently and that sometimes even contradict one another.

Kevin_s : I only want it to be clear. If it's clear they are not fair, fine! They are just not fair. They give up credence then.

If they are not accurate, also need clarity between fact and opinion. If they blur these, then it's very highly likely they are not accurate and they lose credence then also.

On the matter of "minimum censorship", I think that's kind of a poor way to put it. Really, it's regulation of harmful speech, and that harmful is a material harm, not some is what you think it is offensive kind of harm.

Most people, who talk about censorship, think in terms of speech being "bad" or "not approved", or some other Orwellian thing.

Better to avoid those value judgments and connect the idea to something fairly well defined, and that's the harmful speech and the cases we have established over time.

Just my .02

CNN is not broadcast on a publicly owned airwave, it's on cable TV. So, CNN does not apply to this debate.

but it's (CNN)almostalways used as a reasonto justify talk radio's necessicity as an alternativto the media!!!ifCNN was more fair and Balanced, talk radio might downslide??

Remember the ultimate corporate mission statement here: "All babies must eat." The talk radio people are doing talk radio because they can get listeners and make money with that format. If it weren't for CNN, they would say that network TV news is biased, and that is why talk radio is needed.

From a legal standpoint, what the talk show hosts say is completely irrelevant. Although the FCC does have jurisdiction over satellite uplinks, they chose not to impose the same content rules and restrictions on them as what was in place for terrestrial broadcasters. That is what it boils down to: the FCC gets to make the rules and that's how they made them.

"If it weren't for CNN, they would say that network TV news is biased"

So you are saying that NBC (& MSNBC), ABC, and CBS are not biased???

> So you are saying that NBC (& MSNBC), ABC, and CBS are not biased???

No, I'm not meaning to imply that at all. I'm just saying that talk radio is about money; it's not a philanthropic pursuit to make up for the biases of other media outlets.

So are you saying that network news is a philanthropic pursuit not at all interested in money?

If your going to censor talk radio why not cnn. CNN's viewership is as biased left-wing as talk radio is to right-wing. There's a lot on CNN many would consider hateful and wrong. I personally don't like censorship because it protects idiots and stiffles creativity, ideas and censorship is unamerican but for those that want to censor the right-wing you also have to censor what right-wingers find offensive.

There are a LIMITED amount of radio frequencies available, while cable is UNLIMITED. The gov't is supposed to ensure that all people are served by these limited frequencies. Anybody can set up a cable station/network, thus oppression is difficult on cable.

CNN's viewership is as biased left-wing as talk radio is to right-wing.,

Perhaps so, but we're discussing content. The FCC doesn't or shouldn't care who is actually listening on the public airways, they should only be concerned about is if the public is served fairly. So, are they?

If radio and over the air TV were the only media available... there were no cable channels, no newspapers, no internet.. then you might have a point.

since nobody gets 100% of their news and information from radio alone you don't have to worry that someone might hear an idea you dont agree with and not have any chance at all to hear what you think they should.

The fairness doctrine is no longer relevant in todays mass media marketplace.

It is a clearly nothing more than a transparent attempt to micromanage out of existence an opinion which those in power happen to disagree with...

So tell me again what part of free speech does the political party in power get to decide is appropriate?

do we really want to go down that road? Allowing politicians to decide what we can and can not hear?

I guess if you are a socialist/progressive you probably dont have a problem with it.

CNN is left wing?

Not since they hired Glen Beck and Nancy Grace, is somebody on this post in the way back machine?

Well, let's just factor out the socialist part and leave it for the other side.

This is one area where progressives are not doing themselves any favors. It's a safe bet the fairness talk is aimed right square at talk radio. No question, and I think it's stupid.

Lots of progressives don't like the large, (what 6-8 to 1?) advantage conservative talkers have.

Then they overlook what they did on the Internet, and are mad as hell at conservatives wanting to break net neutrality. Of course, conservative interests are looking to do the same thing to the net; namely level the playing field.

If those came to pass, we would end up with bland, corporate crap to consume and would all lose.

There is a fairly large split among progressives on this. Lots of us understand the dynamic and have no interest in seeing a new fairness doctrine.

...lots of us don't.

Hey Notalent, you hammer on your non-neutral conservative friends, and I'll hammer on the "fairness" proggys I know, and maybe we can avoid the swap that's brewing where we end up with BOTH!

> So are you saying that network news is a philanthropic pursuit not at all interested in
> money?

Come on, man! Network news is a job, too. It is about money, just like your job, my job, and the jobs of most of the people reading this.

I can do something directly regarding channels like CNN, though... I can cancel my cable/satellite subscription. Which I did in 2002.
The issue with over the air broadcasting is the scarcity of spectrum and the concern of opinions backed by big money are the only ones heard on them.

But those can be addressed too.

It's not all that tough these days to snag some audio, mix it with commentary that frames the problem, then send it out to interested parties.

Those can be advertisers, other citizens who may be inclined to provide some feedback.

If there is content you do support, doing the same for them can be a great positive message too. Doesn't have to be all about eliminating "bad" content.

In fact, it's probably better to emphasize good content, in the hopes it will compete better with "bad" content. And that is with good and bad being in the ear / eye of the citizen consuming the media.

One afternoon spent on this activity, ONCE a YEAR, would make a significant impact. I think the response rates on ads are in the single digits, percentage wise.

Somebody closer to the scene can clear that up, if I'm way off.

That means anybody interested in some advocacy has the potential for actually making a difference, with not all that much effort. BTW: Writing / meeting / calling congress critters works the same way. I've done that, and it's worth doing.

Alfredo has it right too. Lots of people produce what they produce because it is a job that pays the bills. Without greater support for them, when they do good things, we won't see many good things.

Most of the discussion is negative. What happens then is the best we see is moderate, not really great. Why? Because going negative only highlights the risk in content creation, not the rewards.

IMHO, much better to support good stuff, than fight bad stuff.

I really think that lies and mistruths should not be allowed. There has been much of this in the Political race that is going on right now. It is also bad that stations are today owned by corporations and can buy radio and Tv Stations to spew their Hate or messages. Strange how much evening news is sponsored by large Oil Companies!

Dimmitt, how's it going? I use to get a real kick out of you on the radio.

I have to say I agree with what you say in terms of how much the big corporations control our media. That's why the term "liberal media" slays me so much. How exactly can most of our media be liberal when large corporations control so much of it? I never heard of a liberal CEO unless you're talking about Ben and Jerry maybe.

Unfortunately, you can't do much about the lies, it's part of living in a free society. It gives people the right to lie and slander others and that just leaves everyone cynical, including me.

Like I said on the other side, there is liberal, conservative and the MBA.

The media, for the most part, is simply corporate in it's bias.

I like to read the new media bloggers because of this. They are all over the map and that brings stores and perspective we just don't get anywhere else. Gotta fact check them though. That's the downside to getting that perspective.

CNN is left wing?

Not since they hired Glen Beck and Nancy Grace, is somebody on this post in the way back machine?


Those are the FAUXNews watchers....

There is not a liberal media or a conservative media. There is not a white media or a black media or a latino media, there is not a straight media or a gay media, there is only

a non-informative, non-entertaining, disappointing, morally and socially bereft media.

The media was born with great promise and unlimited potential.
Ronald Reagan killed all that.

The Fairness Doctrine was only a small potato in the larger smorgasbord of misapplied regulation that is often blamed on so many other shortcomings and failures brought to us by Ronnie and his successors.

Think about it.

There are more channels for progressive news and talk than a market to support them. I rather have the market place decide the content of the channels than politicians and beurocrats that can't even manage their personal lives.

I don't think that's all that true, given how the current election is going.

If the potential audience for progressive / liberal talk were, in fact, saturated, I think those people would have a significantly more grim election to look at.

At the very least, one could say the nation is divided into thirds. Hard lefties, righties and independent voters. The current 6-8 to one advantage held by conservatives does not reflect that.

I do think the expectation is largely set for AM radio to be a conservative medium. That has impacted how other talk has been able to grow in the market place.

Give it some time and I think the growth over time will more closely reflect the potential pool of listeners.

Aside from that, I completely agree! We don't need anybody deciding what gets aired, beyond some breaking up of very large media ownership. I don't think that one does anybody, but big business, corporate types any longer term good.

We may also find you are more right than I'm admitting right now too. Progressives and liberals, in general, consume a broader base of media and are less party message driven than conservatives are. Perhaps we just won't need all that much progressive talk, given it's on the Internet huge, and the party / ideological dynamics.

So far, I've seen growth over time. It's not all that fast, but it is happening. IMHO, that's existing market expectations, combined with too much media consolidation in play. (though CC appears to set the example that large scale ownership isn't the problem)

It will be interesting to watch this dynamic over the next coupla election cycles, no matter how it goes.

"CNN is left wing?

Not since they hired Glen Beck and Nancy Grace, is somebody on this post in the way back machine?


Those are the FAUXNews watchers...."


Talk about not being up to date, Beck is now with Fox.
Look you can blast fox all you want, I dont really care but money talks and bs walks.
CNN is a sinking ship and the smart ones are jumping off.
Fox is making money and getting the ratings.
Same with talk radio. "Fairness"? Waste of time. Stupid. Boring.
Let the market decide, oh wait, the messiah will save us from the evils of capitalism anyway so I will just wait and let him deal with all of it.
Ahh, I am so excited to know All my worries and cares will be fixed in 90 days or so!

>>I am so excited to know All my worries and cares will be fixed in 90 days

a rare life statement Dodger! Let us know of any paticulars when appropriate...ok...on topic...Fox is very progressive and would be affected greatly by the so called fairness doctrine and I think would take major action against such law if enacted.

FOX is progressive?

If you mean, making rapid progress helping seriously repressed people feel better about that, then sure! I'll go with that. And there will be no fairness doctrine legislated. You will see me, along with a lot of other progressive minded people, pushing hard for that NOT to happen.

Fox makes the money because it is very well produced. Didn't they win a number of awards for their solid presentation?

Give them credit for that. Nice, tight broadcast. Well done. I think they are very progressive in that regard.

And I don't care if they are fair. Nobody needs to fix that. There are a percentage of us that need to hear that garbage, and that makes money. Fair enough for this guy.

My ONLY beef with Fox, is their claim to be "fair and balanced." They are not fair at all. That's ok, mind you, but it's absolutely not fair and balanced, unless you think that what they are doing is only fair, and that it brings balance.

Those are two very different things, and the network hides behind the former implication of the branding, and is not honest about the latter.

And that does their viewers a disservice. FOX viewers are more likely to be misinformed about the facts than any other network. This is because they are not all that clear about differentiating fact from opinion.

They do this because the facts do not support the majority of the opinion they air, a very large fraction of the time.

Hiding behind the branding is the only reason they get away with that crap, which is exactly why that issue is my only beef with FOX.

Ever notice how liberal / progressive talk / news / entertainment programs are not shy about their bias? They rarely hide behind some ambiguous branding. They also exhibit a lot more clarity where differentiating fact and opinion are concerned too.

The reason is simple: The facts DO support their opinion a large percentage of the time, and those opinions resonate with a majority of Americans a large percentage of the time.

Is that fair, or balanced? Hell no it isn't.

It's just clear, and stands on it's own merits.

FOX, and many others emulating their blurry formula, can't say the same things.

This difference will play out over time. To a degree it already has. FOX got snubbed big during this election season. Why? Because nobody, who matters, debates with liars.

Over this next cycle or two, FOX will see pressure to either be more clear and decide to just commit to that smaller, but very loyal niche that favors their preferred view on things, or suffer losing market share to those who are clear.

I for one, am perfectly comfortable letting that all play out as it should. You know, free speech and all of that. In this nation, you have the right to look like an ass. You just don't have the right to feel good about it.

Fox makes it's money helping asses feel better about it, and that's a shrinking niche programming audience these days.

Fox is making money and getting the ratings.
Same with talk radio.

And with Obama in office this will increase. Maybe some of those RIGHT media outlets will introduce even more extreme right talk shows... Obama gives them fuel. LimBLAH took off when Slick Willy was in office... Maybe there will be 7,000 hrs a week of extreme right talk instead of 3,000? Extreme right talk is everywhere..... Tomorrow will show that America isn't listening! If FAUXNews is sooooo popular then why couldn't they help McSame win?
KEX.... KXL.... KPAM... KTRO.... and still Oregon goes to Obama??? All those stations VS KPOJ???

Funny how that works huh?

Actually Fox news claims that their NEWS is fair and balanced.

They don't make that claim about the talk shows. The talk shows clearly state their bias.

Last time I checked the New York Times still claims to be unbiased.

And their NEWS is not fair and balanced, and it's mixed with talking programs to a degree where your average viewer will have trouble differentiating news from commentary.

(and that's the core trouble)

If this were not the case, then FOX would not have the most poorly informed viewers of any NEWS network.

And I'm gonna stop right there. Want to discuss FOX? (and I totally hope you do) Let's take it to the other side and have at it.

Really, this is a fairness doctrine thread, and on that matter, I still think we don't need a doctrine. There have been some good points made on this thread and they support NO doctrine overall.

Missing, I'm with you. We don't need no stinkin doctrine!

Let the listeners decide if the program is worth listening to.

If enough people listen, then the advertisers will buy time, if not then the program goes away.

Doesn't matter. Left wing, right wing or middle of the road. Let the listeners decide.

I don't think anyone sees a need for an outdated FCC policy, but there is part of this story that remains undiscussed, that of telecommunications law. They aren't the same thing.

The Fairness Doctrine was written in a different media landscape.The purpose it served changed with the deregulation of ownership and the explosion of cable television. Some of the Doctrine's intents were no longer relevant and quite frankly, unenforceable.
We don't need it now because the law in which it is based, Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1937, and it's mothership predecessor the Federal Communications Act of 1934 have been replaced with the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. Remember that the Doctrine was simply FCC policy whereas section 315 was law. Section 315 was primarily concerned with the requirement of stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. So it was FCC policy extending beyond the law's intent that created a policy brouhaha each time the party in power changed.

Unfortunately, the thread is focused on the Doctrine as applied by changing administrations. The root of the Doctrine, that is equal time for candidates as per 315, is still relevant and useful.
I think the majority of people in the industry do not understand the difference between FCC policy and telecommunications law.

Here's an excellent rehash:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

The fairness doctrine would not even apply to Fox, so it's not even worth having the discussion! Fox is broadcast over cable TV, not over the PUBLIC AIRWAVES like AM radio or broadcast TV.

And speaking of Fox, their viewers are misinformed for two reasons, one, they slant their talk shows AND news, and two, it's the audience they attract. Undereducated people prefer to be told what to believe rather than figuring it out using various sources and a little bit of brain power. Rather than claiming to be "fair and balanced" Fox should just come out and say they are the "number one conservative news network that conservatives trust".

And let's give CNN credit for being way more balanced than either Fox or MSNBC. They are! I've found myself watching more CNN recently due to their HD feed and there's no question they are aiming for the middle of the road viewer since MSNBC has the left locked up and Fox has the right locked up.

Now, I've got no problem with letting the listeners decide what makes it and what doesn't, but I do think that when it comes to the finite airwaves owned by the public that no one view should dominate to the point where the AM band is nothing but conservative talkers pushing their agenda using a public resource. That's why we have satellite radio, podcasts, etc.

"The fairness doctrine would not even apply to Fox, so it's not even worth having the discussion! Fox is broadcast over cable TV, not over the PUBLIC AIRWAVES like AM radio or broadcast TV.

That is not necessarily the truth.

"FCC rules generally do not govern the selection of programming that is broadcast. The main exceptions are: restrictions on indecent programming, limits on the number of commercials aired during children's programming, and rules involving candidates for public office.

The Commission enforces regulations that were designed to ensure competition among cable companies, satellite companies and other entities that offer video programming services to the general public. This includes issues such as, mandatory carriage of television broadcast signals, commercial leased access, program access, over-the-air reception devices, open video systems, commercial availability of set-top boxes and the accessibility of closed captioning and video description on television programming."

From " FCC > CGB > For Consumers > Television and Cable"
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadcast.html

Also see:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html

Glenn Beck was rightly removed as he was to far to the right. CNN sees Obama winning and had to get rid of at least one Albatross so on 10/20/08 they got rid of Beck.

And if you read Jim Jubak the Recession started in December, 2007 when the liquidity issues for business had already surfaced.

Yet all of the GOP from Bush on down were all echoing until September, 2008 that the economy was just fine (including Glenn Beck and John McSame).

So all that is left is FOX News and the hardcore right wingers like Newt Ginrich and Company still believing the Economy is fine.

Maybe this election will leave them out in the cold and the rebuilding of the World they destroyed can begin.

Actually Fox news claims that their NEWS is fair and balanced.

We report...
You COMPLY!

Fox news is so bad that I rather listen to 95.5 the game and 95.5 the game is the worse radio I've ever heard. But the problem I have with the polling is if Obama's so popular shouldn't CNN ratings be higher. Fox news is beating them more than two-to-one.

Fox news is so bad that I rather listen to 95.5 the game and 95.5 the game is the worse radio I've ever heard.

Come on... The Fan is worse... You can say it Suke... You can! Say it! You and Isuck have to admit it... Be man.. Oh that's right! Your not...
That's why CIP stole your girl....

IMHO, CNN kind of sucks.

It is difficult to compete with more biased and entertaining programming. A lot of people I know just don't watch much CNN.

Local newscasts are well produced, and I've an HD set now, and they look really good! Terminally boring though. Can't really do it, unless there is something local going on that's worth dealing.

Since we can get quick info from the Internet, I actually think commentary on TV is more valuable. I'll watch that for an hour, because I like to hear stories about what the facts might mean.

The MSNBC commentary leans left for sure, but it's fairly clear, and I like that. I can watch, consider the opinion, weigh the facts and end up with some interesting thoughts.

More of that would be good, IMHO. CNN is playing the "pure and unbiased" news source, and I don't think they are doing all that good of a job of it, and in doing so, get boring. Double whammy against them, for me at least.

I'll take O'Reilly, over CNN, and I think he's a complete nut-bag. But he does make good TV!

Maybe it's better to just put it this way: People like drama. It's classic entertainment. We know what makes drama, how to present it, why it appeals, etc...

Facts are just the material for drama, so why even bother trying to just put forth facts only, or not be biased? That, in and of itself creates a kind of bizzare meta-drama, and it's not all that exciting.

That's CNN.

IMHO, CNN kind of sucks.

It is difficult to compete with more biased and entertaining programming. A lot of people I know just don't watch much CNN.

Local newscasts are well produced, and I've an HD set now, and they look really good! Terminally boring though. Can't really do it, unless there is something local going on that's worth dealing.

Since we can get quick info from the Internet, I actually think commentary on TV is more valuable. I'll watch that for an hour, because I like to hear stories about what the facts might mean.

The MSNBC commentary leans left for sure, but it's fairly clear, and I like that. I can watch, consider the opinion, weigh the facts and end up with some interesting thoughts.

More of that would be good, IMHO. CNN is playing the "pure and unbiased" news source, and I don't think they are doing all that good of a job of it, and in doing so, get boring. Double whammy against them, for me at least.

I'll take O'Reilly, over CNN, and I think he's a complete nut-bag. But he does make good TV!

Maybe it's better to just put it this way: People like drama. It's classic entertainment. We know what makes drama, how to present it, why it appeals, etc...

Facts are just the material for drama, so why even bother trying to just put forth facts only, or not be biased? That, in and of itself creates a kind of bizzare meta-drama, and it's not all that exciting.

That's CNN.

The only good thing about 95.5 the game is management is stealing from Paul Allen and not the public

Thanks BIGpuke....

Hey Trixter, since the blazers are trailblazing towards mediocrity when is management going to blow the team up and who are are they going to give up on first, Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge or Greg Oden

Geez Kevin, how many games has it been now? Me thinks you're strung out a bit. Perhaps you ought to follow a different sport. Like golf.

And now back to our topic.

WOW!
Kevin's ignorance is incredible... How about we see what going on when the all-star game gets here.
Time to increase your Prozac and get in the GAME.

Sorry for the big double post.

Talk Radio is fair without Democrat rules.

I don't think so, but I also don't think it takes fairness doctrine type law, or rules (thanks Andy, for the informative links) to fix it.

Some work on media ownership will address most of the complaints people have.

No you fool trixter prozac is required just to listen to the game. That station is so bad it's depressing

And DUHFan isn't... Come on Suke!

The results are in and let's hope Right Wing Radio will now leave.

No you fool trixter prozac is required just to listen to the game.

The last book didn't show that....

The game is the lowest rated station on commercial fm is that a success. Stop saying things just to be argumentative.

Kevin...
That's for starting an argument! It's TALK RADIO ON THE FM DIAL! It still kicked The Fans butt!

Yeah but Jamming 95.5 was kicking the fan's butt even more

Remember this, when Clinton won his first term Limbaugh started with "DAY ONE, AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE". though already established, he used that self appointed guardian of consevativism to cement himself as the voice of reason. It allowed for his personal blowhard commentary on the dems ruining the world, and allowed him to build on a career that earned him a ridiculous overblown income much at the expense of LOCAL news talk hosts. The success of EL Rushblow led to a succession of second tier copycats each with their own "act". each one, replacing multiples at the LOCAL level.

The best thing that could have happened for right wing entertaintalk radio was an OBAMA win, and with the dems holding ALL the cards even the slightest mis-step on their part will just fuel the conservatalk hosts and validate their own wallets. There is not so much need for a "Fairness Doctrine" as there is a need for the breakup of too few companies holding too many broadcast outlets. When it costs a station NOTHING to carry the PREMIERE TALK STABLE and a generic national format then you won't have many LOCAL HOSTS taking LOCAL callers talking about LOCAL topics. Local air talents require income taken from the local cluster pie. Is their room for this? Sure, but as I scan the dial one would be fine. Five or six spots tied up with el Rush or his Rush-alikes, too much!

Hearing Savage/Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck et al: spew forth about the National Socialists Gang of Four doesn't affect me as much as when my own Mayor McCheese wants to raise sewer rates, local sales taxes or has some other grand scheme to get into my pocket. It's of much more concern to me when our own economy sucks and the locals continue to return the same buffoons to office within our own region. When Councilman Marroon is more concerned about passing dog crap ordinances than generating ideas that bring new business to town, that affect ME and I want to hear others talk about it on the LOCAL FRICKIN STATION! LOCAL TALK has much more impact.

Savage and Rush are good for a few laughs, and occasionally make a good point, but their views don't shape me, affect me, or make me want to call in and discuss anything they might talk about. Nor do they welcome DISCUSSION, They sandwich a few caller comments around their topic du jour. Take an occasional negative call to get "fired up" but mostly build the base with agreeable callers.
Take it for what it is, a basic, simple, generic format that exists on a national level for the sole purpose of controlling station expenses at the local level. In these segments I hear lots of BUY GOLD, try Viaprin, get a sleep country bed, and other NATIONAL SPOTS, but not much local advertising.

Maybe try programming to LOCAL INTEREST and having the sales staff sell the time to LOCAL businesses. CONSERVATALKINFOTAINMENT will only go away when they have no outlet. The current state of the industry only promotes the use of this slop. Kinda like buying the Stouffers Mac and Cheese rather than making your own.

The national talkers and for that matter the Lia/Tesh/Delilah types are quick and easy heat and eats, inferior quality but no effort at the station level. Personally, eating out on occasion is fine, but I want home cookin!
Mom can cook but chooses not to!

> The game is the lowest rated station on commercial fm is that a success.

Not quite: KPDQ-FM is licensed as a commercial station, and it has about half as many listeners as "The Game." See the "Portland Ratings" thread.

I once heard Rush explain his approach to his show:

Since he was a Top 40 jock he programs his show like a Top 40 station would have done in 60's 70's...

he has every element formatted and considers his callers to be the "records" which he says explains his thorough call screening process so he can then play each caller in an order much like following the format wheel with the hits.

From a radio perspective I thought that was pretty interesting.

Rush also is famous for saying "I AM THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!"

Whether you agree or disagree he seems to have successfully executed his format.

By the way Roger, although I agree with you 99%, station DO PAY for Premiere hosts.
Quite a pretty penny as well as the lost inventory in AM DRIVE!
So, if that is the case, it must work or they wouldn't pay for it.
I both love and hate El Rushbo. He restored AM Radio, and cost me and you jobs.
Now I am relegated to "breaking local news" during his and other National Talk Shows.
At least it's a gig.

Yeah but Jamming 95.5 was kicking the fan's butt even more.

That was a MUSIC station. DUHFan is talk as is The GAME! 2 different beasts.

So it's good to lose money by changing to a less profitable format

It was the "Doh!" heard round the market, perhaps the "Doh!" of 2008

He has a home for his Blazers and his Seachickens. He's the BILLIONAIRE... How about you? They've had ONE book! ONE BOOK! Are you a fortune teller? Do YOU know what's going to happen with The GAME? PA is the one who pulled the plug on Jammin' so he is the ONLY one that will pull the plug on The GAME. Not some CBS or CC types... With that being said... He has a home for HIS teams at 100,000 watts.

From what I understood, the idea was to have about the same ratings as before but to be able to sell in combination with KXL. Since Rose City owns no other stations in Portland, this strikes me as a sound business decision. These ratings aren't going to fall into any kind of pattern for at least a year and they're just now getting into play by play coverage. Let's give them some time.

Some time ago, Tdanner was talking about the "power ratios" for different radio formats. The idea behind this is that for a given Arbitron rating, some radio stations can get away with charging higher ad rates because the audience that said station reaches is more desirable to advertisers. Sports talk has a high power ratio because many of its listeners are 25-54 year old men with disposable income. Rose City is partly betting that even though the ratings for The Game might never be as high as those of Jammin' 95.5, they will be able to charge higher rates because they are now reaching a "better" audience.

In other news Rush Limbaugh has already declared the Obama administration a failure

The thing that's great about Rush is his unpredictability! The man surprises day in, day out!!

Rush Limbaugh has already declared the Obama administration a failure

Damn, and we had such high hopes!

when will "Hush Rush" doctrine take effect????
Oldies back on 620??SSuper62??KBOOto pass??

If the fairness doctrine were to come back, its effects on stations like KBOO would certainly be interesting and somewhat comical to observe. However, it is unlikely, for the reasons discussed, that the doctrine will return.

A possible strategy for the Dems to enforce would be to have the burden/pressure on the station license holders to "prove" fairness rather than individual hosts/shows/programs all governed by a new wing of the FCC thus the squeeze of license renewals?

if a station looses lincense or isthreatened with that due to programming content, that might get overturned by a federal court as a violation of first amendment!!(freedom of speech!!??

It's probably not my place to say, but...if it does go through, then you can kiss the rest of the 1st Amendment goodbye shortly afterwards.

Radio is dying, and a new fairness doctrine will officially put the stake through it's heart.

Not my problem. I'm already on the next generation of technology: Multi-national broadband.

You can kiss the rest of the 1st Amendment goodbye.

DUHbya and Co. have been working on that for the last 7 years.....

It's been worked on ever since Senator Johnson in 1954, Trixter.

This will just be a stake in the heart, in regards to radio.

And you, boy, will only have yourself to blame when you say something contrary and get thrown into an oven.

> if a station looses lincense or isthreatened with that due to programming content, that might get
> overturned by a federal court as a violation of first amendment!!(freedom of speech!!??

That was tried when the doctrine was still in effect (see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. vs. FCC), but it did not work. The FCC prevailed by making the argument that since broadcast stations are a limited resource that reach large amounts of people, it is appropriate for slightly different rules to apply to them, in the name of the public good.

Having said all that, the chances of the Fairness Doctrine coming back are so small that this is not worth worrying about. To put it a different way, this is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

None.

ah...but the question should be how many Democrats can dance there...we'll see the serious entertainment of the subject in congress in 09.

I'm a bit mystified by the Fairness Doctrine debate. I am not in favor of a return of the Doctrine (I think the media have changed far too much for that) but, having hosted talk shows when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, I worked with many conservative hosts who seemed quite unmuzzled on the air. (Mark Lee, anybody?) Radio was filled with all sorts of opinions, so what's the threat now, exactly?

Would you people stop saying this is a first amendment issue, because it is not. Each Radio station is given a "monopoly" to broadcast on a spefic frequency.

That was the basis of the "Fairness Doctrine" for the monopolies. Since there is no monopoly on broadband all of the talk shows can head over their where the audience will driven down to a few hundred, lower wages, fewer advertising dollars or accept the rules in order to continue to broadcast on FCC Frequencies.

It's that simple, so Rush would go from making $16 million a year to less than a Million. If it were me put on the muzzle and take the $16 million for one more year, at which time Clear Channel would buy out his contract as his ratings would be cut in half and the advertising dollars would make his show unaffordable when he has to be fair and accurate on the air.

But it appears we have the same idiots signing these large contract with "Talent" where the growth in revenue and listenership was believed to be boundless, however just like the financial sector we have found out both increased listenership and advertising revenue is no longer occurring.

From this station owners are asking the government not to bring back the fairness doctrine or they will go out of business, which is the equivalent to a wife beater telling his wife that she has to keep up with the beating or he will kick her out of the house (does the name Christie Brinkley and others come to mind.).

So the government as the beaten wife needs to say no, and the wife beater(Radio Monopolies) need to come clean and accept their punishment.

Except for a radio frequency is no longer a monopoly to distribute information. That ended with the advent of TV, Cable, Satellite, internet, etc.

ah...but the question should be how many Democrats can dance there...we'll see the serious entertainment of the subject in congress in 09.

I guess it wasn't very many Republicans cause they all fell off. Well.... A whole bunch did...

"I won't dance; don't ask me!"

Notalent: TV is the same as radio with their FCC monopoly. In the etc, you could list Sirus and XM which are basically insolvent because without the FCC and the pay to be listened to media, you fail as the Media Corporations run themselves worse than the government.

So that saying run the government like a "business" is part of Bush's problem.

So if the right wingers don't like the fairness doctrine they can go to unregulated pay per listen media, and they will find out that nobody is interested and they will go bankrupt and they will go away.

Boy that sounds so good.

Than what happens with the fairness doctrine after the progressives fail and they will fail. Fundamentalist call pbs and network news hate speech and put them off the air. This country needs free speech to survive.

Free Speech yes, Hate Speech No. And most of what is being called free speech is really hate speech.

That's silly, I don't like the CSI franchise so I'll call CSI hate speech and demand CSI be banned. Granted I think half the stuff Lars Larson or Michael Savage says is idiotic as well as most of Rush Limbaugh's rants but they have a right to have an audience. Somethings need to be said like Les Moonves is an idiot and I don't want my entertainment being filter by activists.

LOL!!

Saveitnow, and that appears to be a fitting user name BTW, I think you have it backwards, or just messed up. All of what we are hearing is FREE speech. Some of this FREE speech, MIGHT be characterized as hate speech.

It's the MIGHT that is the problem, and Kevin_s point.

Seriously, what if somebody just says, I HATE HATERS! What then buddy? That's clearly free speech. It's clearly HATE speech too. Gonna ban it? Ban it for what?

There is also confusing hate with extreme disregard, loathing, not worthy of respect and a whole bunch of other low, angry, and ugly speech. That too, often gets characterized as hate speech, when it's really just free speech.

IMHO, you probably are prone to call ugly speech, hate speech. That mischaracterization then, if actually enforced, would lower us all to Disney for ages 6 and under speech and nobody needs that.

Like I posted up thread, we have tools to respond to very poor speech, hate speech and other kinds of ugly speech. Use those and see if others see it your way, and that applies pressure, which limits the speech. Or, reward what you see as good speech, and put pressure the other way.

Just calling for the law, right out of the gate, labels you as some over sensitive, extreme person and that marginalizes any influence you may have. Not productive man.

The bar for actually penalizing speech is very high. We have it there, so that people can express their ideas, no matter how ugly others take them, in the hopes that robust expression leads to solid discourse and that checks our law so that we are free to be who we are to the maximum extent practical.

Missing...on target...just hope the Obama congress does not want to change "our law so that we are free to be who we are to the maximum extent practical".
The methadologies/proposed law/new (so called) fairness doctrine will be the big debate here on 2009.

IMHO, that's a confusion too.

I seriously doubt there will be too much serious discussion of a new doctrine. Andy nailed it solid there. The only ones I hear talking about this are those looking for some compensation for gains had on one side or the other. Lefties favor a doctrine, and righties favor a non-neutral net.

Both of which are targeting some advantage, and that can be addressed by competing better, not writing laws.

And to those wanting to curb what they see as hate speech, I think a fairness doctrine type of move would only make sure hate speech is positioned with whatever manages to be anti-hate speech and the thought of that gives me a headache!

Isn't gonna happen.

In fact, I see myself and many others saying "no" to this crap. See it on both major sides too.

I doubt there will be significant discussion beyond this wistful kind of discussion we are having here.

After seeing what I saw with Obama and money and organizing, media matters can be fixed that way easily enough. Would much rather see that as robust competition than some goofy law that will just end up hobbling us in the end.

We've what looks to be a generational change in major politics going on. That's going to be followed by media too. No reason to legislate until we see that run it's course. New media forms will put increasing pressure on the traditional ones to be more robust and relevant.

I think that's going to work more than nicely enough going forward. In fact, I think we need it to work, more than we need to legislate on this matter. We are gonna need the ideas that come from that.

Why not wait until the guy takes office and see how he leads before trying to frame the blame, huh?

If it goes poorly, you will have more than adequate time then.

An important issue that has been alluded to, but probably hasn't been stated explicitly enough is: where is the line between so-called "hate speech" and criticism? If you only allow people to say "nice things," as Mom, Dad, and our teachers told us, the hate speech problem is solved, but the ability to criticize things, policies, and people who maybe should rightfully be criticized is also lost.

If I were an elected official, I would push for a holistic approach to the Fairness Doctrine that extends it to cable TV, satellite TV and radio, print media, and Internet sites. Of course, my pushing for such an extension to the concept of the fairness doctrine would be completely tongue-in-cheek, and my reason for doing so would be to make a point.

It's great that you are part of a segment in society that doesn't like Savage or Larson but a lot leaders that put food on their employees table so those employees pay taxes that finance government jobs are fans of Michael Savage and Lars Larson. I don't agree with half the stuff Lars Larson or Michael Savage say but if you ban that personality you're giving a signal for people this state needs and can't replace to leave. This states economy is already a disaster do we need it to be worse.

I have not a "rebuttal" but a question: How have Lars Larson and KXL's management threatened you, either in their dealings with you or with comments said on the air? To put it differently, are you motivated purely by ideological reasons, or does some element of KXL's programming present a real threat to you?

So Kevin_s you support advertisers that practice bigotry?

It's amazing you must also believe in slavery, get over yourself, this state does not need these type of employers.

This state needs all the employeers we can get and most of them are vulgar and combative. By the way the biggest proponents of today's slave labor conditions in third world factories are on the political left.

Boy that last post was a double Oxymoron. The protestors then of the working conditions in China and Pakistan are from the political right?

We do need a fairness doctrine if you really believe this.

The fairness doctrine is sounding more and more for banning the small media for big media outlets with corporate interests.

to Kevin_s:

What?

So, you are saying you know the solution, but don't support it.

A lot of what I am hearing, reading and watching is a whisper campaign saying, it's ok to be a bigot, it's ok to hate others, it's ok to discriminate, feed your greed, support theocrats and any number of other harmful things.

IMO, if someone doesn't like the programming on a radio station, they shouldn't have to listen to it.

If they're at a place of business and are subjected to a radio that's tuned to a show they don't like, then they should speak to the manager and explain that they will no longer patronize that business if they're subjected to hearing the station while they're there.

If they're subjected to the station while they're at work, then go through whatever channels are available there (or file a hostile work environment lawsuit or whatever).

If they're trying to hear a traffic report and this is the only station in the area with traffic reports, then they should realize they're not going to get one without the other and decide what's more important, not listening to what they find objectionable, or hearing that traffic report.

the problem will be when the newsmedia and government leaders are allies,then negative stuff about government officials will not be reported at all or will be ignored or downplayed!!as we recently saw somewhat in the Obama campaign!!!(and vice-versa:i.e.Positive stuff about the officials/governments the neews media people don't like willbe buried somehow by the interpretation(s) of the "fairness rules"!!!!!!!

The progressives have the presidency, congress, the courts and talk radio is only a little guy medium. If the Progressives focus on the "fairness" doctrine rather than real problems like border security, crime, education, inflation and the economy than progressives don't belong in power.

> Maybe hate speech isn't a value at Kroger's HQ in Cinncinnati.

I would expect that it isn't. I am just a bit skeptical (pardon the pun), that complaints from just one person had that kind of an impact. Now if 10 or 20 letters or about that many phone calls were received at Kroger's headquarters regarding the Fred Meyer advertisements on one specific show or radio station, then I could see that they might reconsider advertising there. One person is just too easy to write off as somebody that has an ax to grind with the radio station for other reasons.

It's not 1950 anymore. Major markets have dozens of radio signals, and cable TV, the internet, and wireless TV/text information would obviously not be impacted by a fairness doctrine. There are too many sources for information to justify holding broadcast radio and broadcast TV to a different standard of "fairness". No one is unable to seek information from "the other side" these days.

money is the present fairness doctrin!!??you got Money, Lobbiests, then you get fairness!!!

This is the "golden rule" at work: He who has the Gold makes the Rules.

Given the fact that the left has won the white house, the congress, and the senate... as well as most of the mainstream media, why the hell do they not think they have won and thus negated the influence of right wing talk radio.

At this point why regulate it? It obviously has not caused them to lose one tiny bit of power.

It could only be politics of hate.

Yes.

Where is the tolerance of diverse opinion and culture that the left so famously embraces?

Could it be that they only embrace diversity as long as it agrees with their world view?

Hmm

Could it be that they are only tolerant if it is something they agree with?

hmm

Can they not see that this fairness doctrine thing makes them look just as silly as the right wing censorship nuts look?

hmm

Yes, most lefties do.

BTW: Hate speech is unacceptable and should be pushed back against period. This is a non-partisan thing --err, should be non-partisan.

That's really my only beef. They can go ahead with the rest of it. Just reinforces what happens when too many people vote Republican ;)

>>Hate speech is unacceptable

Did you know that in Canada saying on the radio/TV that homosexuality is wrong is considered "hate" speech.

Coming up with a working, legally definable definition of "hate speech" is the problem. If anything negative said against any identifiable group of people is considered "hate speech," then the ability to criticize is lost.

Did you know that in Canada saying on the radio/TV that homosexuality is wrong is considered "hate" speech.

So saying Christianity is wrong is what? Hate speech as well?

Not with me...just an unwise choice with eternal unpleasant consequences.

> So saying Christianity is wrong is what? Hate speech as well?

By the Canadian definition, that very likely would be hate speech. By the way, did you know that in Canada, the hate speech prohibitions even apply to cable TV? Go to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Co mmission#Controversial_decisions and read the "Al Jazeera" section.

Does Canada have any version of a free speech 1st Amendment?

Canadians ban books. Lots of them. They hush up political reporters quite a bit too. Bush and Nixon would love it up there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada

Fairness Doctrine should also apply to Bumper Stickers!!!? todayu I saw what must have been a Loony Left Person's car!! Someone who hates their country President etc.!!!