The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
So, What's So Wrong About The Fairness Doctrine?
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I wonder why so many people here seem to have a problem with the Fairness Doctrine. Even more startling to me is when people complain about how the public has basically leaped on all sorts of stupid rumors, but when the Fairness Doctrine is brought up as a solution, it is decried as being a restriction on speech. A large part of this is that many people don't understand what the Fairness Doctrine is in the first place. All the Fairness Doctrine says is that on transmission mediums where access is controlled by the government (i.e. radio and TV), licensees are required to present controversial matters of import in a fair manner. In most cases, this is done by allowing for a counterpoint.
The most common arument presented in opposition is "It's a restriction on speech!" However, there's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that prohibits what a speaker can say. All it states is that if the speaker is speaking on a controversy, that a counterpoint be provided for. Some famous examples of this are McCarthy's appearance on See It Now and ABC allowing the US military to rebut the movie The Day After on the episode of Nightline following the airing. Of course, some critics argue that the mere requirement of a counterpoint is a restriction on speech - but if we were to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it would establish that the government would have no right to restrict what a licensee could do with the broadcast spectrum allocated to them.
When one looks at opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, it quickly becomes clear that it's a product of the right for the most part (leftward criticisms tend to focus more on it being a distraction from other flaws in the broadcast structure in the US.) The rationale for this becomes clear when one looks at the "echo chamber" model that conservative media has been using for the past two decades - their system relies on being able to drown out other views by deluging the waves with their viewpoint alone. If they were forced to allow for a counterpoint, it would severely damage this model.
The most common arument presented in opposition is "It's a restriction on speech!" However, there's nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that prohibits what a speaker can say. All it states is that if the speaker is speaking on a controversy, that a counterpoint be provided for. Some famous examples of this are McCarthy's appearance on See It Now and ABC allowing the US military to rebut the movie The Day After on the episode of Nightline following the airing. Of course, some critics argue that the mere requirement of a counterpoint is a restriction on speech - but if we were to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it would establish that the government would have no right to restrict what a licensee could do with the broadcast spectrum allocated to them.
When one looks at opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, it quickly becomes clear that it's a product of the right for the most part (leftward criticisms tend to focus more on it being a distraction from other flaws in the broadcast structure in the US.) The rationale for this becomes clear when one looks at the "echo chamber" model that conservative media has been using for the past two decades - their system relies on being able to drown out other views by deluging the waves with their viewpoint alone. If they were forced to allow for a counterpoint, it would severely damage this model.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
but they're listening to every word I say
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Can I use Sam Harris for one side of a debate and Nicole Ritchie for the other?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The government doesn't have a natural right to restrict what licensee's are allowed to do with their broadcast spectrum. Why the fuck should the government block obscene/profane/indecent materials? It makes no sense.
So yeah, anything we can do to remove barriers to free speech or prevent further barriers being put up is a good thing.
The reason Thanatos opposes it as well is because the FCC itself said that it had a chilling effect on the news, as well as many other people besides Ronald Reagan. The news stations just didn't report controversial issues unless they absolutely had to, because why would they want to risk having their license revoked?
Also, a government organization watching everything you say and being able to silence you if it is displeased is foolproof.
No, it's not equal time, just that time for a counterpoint is provided. This focus on "equal" is one of the stumbling points that I see some leftward criticisms make - that somehow both sides have to be treated equally in all ways for the debate to be "fair".
The end result of such presentations is a chilling effect, even if it isn't overt.
And any legislative chilling effect on speech is censorship, as far as I'm concerned.
edit: And I typed this without even reading Ghandi's post.
I mean, what simpler way to have both sides represented then to have them both sitting at a table frothing at the mouth and turning red?
but they're listening to every word I say
Especially when it comes to Carlin specials. May he rest in peace.
All we really need, in my opinion, is enough control to ensure that there isn't any disputes over who owns what frequency where and such. Also, any station that buys out an existing frequency needs to say that before I have to wake up to some stupid fucking morning show rather than classic rock.
Who is it that has the sig about the dom & sub stylings of HANNITY! and (colmes)?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm sure there is fanfic of this.
Anyway, I see no way to enforce this without going through the Ridiculous Gate into the Stupid Dimension. Basically everything can be considered controversial by someone. Sometimes a controversial (or not) issue has several sides, some of them logical and well-reasoned and the other based on frothing idiocy. If the news reports on the anniversary of the moon landing, do they have to present the "It was totally faked!" viewpoint as well? How about Holocaust deniers? Evolution is a good one, too. If a report about the Westboro Baptist Church picketing a soldier's funeral, do you need someone on the air to talk about how God hates fags and the dead soldier is going to hell for supporting the New Sodom? Nuh-uh.
Being too biased is already bad for a news source if they actually value being known for journalistic integrity. Who besides wingnuts thinks Fox News is "fair" or "balanced"? Fox's strategy is working for them right now because the US is full of wingnuts who enjoy having a persecution complex, but their journalistic stock is extraordinarily low. If the wingnut percentage goes down, they'll lose viewership and either have to work on changing their image or lose tons of money.
Hey, now, the FCC has plenty of important purposes. They're the reason why radio stations can exist without some of them deliberately interfering with others to cut out competition. It's once they started regulating content when things went wrong.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The effectiveness of this regulatory framework is evinced by the trust the public has in television news, as opposed to the newspapers - it's around 70% trust in television, 6% trust in newspapers.
And I do think it is a bit of an attack on free speech. I absolutely detest the mainstream media, bad journalism and media bias - but I don't think it is up the government to tell the media how to report on news. I hate Fox News, but I don't think forcing them to report differently solves the problem that there are a lot of crazy people out there who want to distort the news. It just dresses them up in costumes to run some sort of media theatre.
tldr - what Than said about Hannity & Colmes.
That means that every story on biology would not need a counterpoint by the religious right. It would mean that a story directly attacking the religious right - or the Democrats - would require some time for the religious right to say their piece.
The Republicans worked hard to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, claiming it was a violation of the First Amendment. Then they turned around and created right wing talk radio. In an industry with the Fairness Doctrine, every episode of Rush Limbaugh would have to have a few minutes of uncensored rebuttal from whoever Rush attacked that day.
Outside of talk radio, is there some arena where both sides aren't being adequately represented? Because generally, I'd say we have more problem with the news media manufacturing two sides to a story where there's only one in the name of "balance". I really don't want to encourage that bullshit - we have enough news coverage of Creationism/UFOs/global-warming-is-a-hoax/Bigfoot/etc.
Again, see Hannity & Colmes.
Other way around. Removing the Fairness Doctrine allowed said rightwing radio to come into existance.
No, what you'd have is a list of 'magic words' that you shouldn't say on air, and thus we're back where we started only with the crap and distortions being slightly more abstract.