Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine

[luckytxn 2,265]

Apparently she does. She definately never brings us any excitement.

[Peikko 1,575]

Apparently she does. She definately never brings us any excitement.

I don't look for my kicks on a message board.

I wasn't aware that I had a duty to perform, I'll have to check with Ewok that's what I signed up for...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Strange how they keep trying to bring in Liberal talk radio and they keep failing but the Neocons don't. So it is best to force radio stations to put on shows that are money losers. I imagine that the Neocons will subsidize the Liberal talk shows. Why legislate failure?

Its a generational technology thing. Conservatives are older and are more comfortable with radio. Liberals have more affinity to TV and the Internet.

TV is sooo 1950s

Yeah, which side's dominating the internet? That's where the action is at.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Apparently she does. She definately never brings us any excitement.

I don't look for my kicks on a message board.

I wasn't aware that I had a duty to perform, I'll have to check with Ewok that's what I signed up for...

maybe you should ask your husband instead.

[jundp 191]

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. One does wonder why 2 Republican presidents vetoed a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. One does wonder why 2 Republican presidents vetoed a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Yep. It's a completely misunderstood concept. And the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional...imagine that.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that is honest, equitable, and balanced.

• This is different from the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance and has no specific equal-time requirement. The Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. In American political discourse, these two policies are sometimes falsely conflated.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have generally not ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.^[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.^[2]

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

[jundp 191]

Most of my mass media students think it means that a station had to give equal time to both sides of a controversial issue. In fact, I think most people think that's the case. But the Equal Time rule was entirely different.

In the age of the internet, I don't suppose it really matters, but I do wonder why people are opposed to it. It does (in my very humble opinion) help to keep journalism fair and balanced.

[dalegg 143]

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. One does wonder why 2 Republican presidents vetoed a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

I would wonder why anyone that is an American would ever support the Fairness Doctine or how it ever made its way into our system in the first place!

I cannot imagine how this is not considered an intrusion of the first ammendment. People shouldn't be forced to put on an opposing viewpoint. But, as I read the vague description of airing an opposing viewpoint- which as you said is not "equal time", I would argue that taking on one caller during the course of the entire show that has an opposing viewpoint would satisfy the requirement and its something pretty much all right wing talk show hosts do anyway for the sake of entertainment.

I have a feeling though that a reinstated version would be asking for a few more specifics and I hope we never get to a point where a majority of people in this country support such an idea.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most of my mass media students think it means that a station had to give equal time to both sides of a controversial issue. In fact, I think most people think that's the case. But the Equal Time rule was entirely different.

In the age of the internet, I don't suppose it really matters, but I do wonder why people are opposed to it. It does (in my very humble opinion) help to keep journalism fair and balanced.

Yep. I agree that with the internet now, it's less of a concern, but still the airwaves belong to the public and those broadcasters who get a license have a responsibility to the public when it comes to dealing with serious issues that have political ramifications.

In the movie, Hotel Rwanda, it demonstrated how much propaganda on the radio affected people's behavior. Nazi Germany is another example.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[dalegg 143]

In the movie, Hotel Rwanda, it demonstrated how much propaganda on the radio affected people's behavior. Nazi Germany is another example.

Jesus Christ.

There goes the Nazi Germany analogy to right wing talk show hosts. How about the Nazi Germany analogy to telling people what they can and cannot say?

Does that also work?

[jundp 191]

I'm not sure the analogy is being made between right wing (or left wing) radio and Hitler or the Janjaweed in Sudan. I think the point is being made that without opposing viewpoints we no longer have journalism we have propaganda...whether that's right or left views being broadcast.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In the movie, Hotel Rwanda, it demonstrated how much propaganda on the radio affected people's behavior. Nazi Germany is another example.

Jesus Christ.

There goes the Nazi Germany analogy to right wing talk show hosts. How about the Nazi Germany analogy to telling people what they can and cannot say?

Does that also work?

That's not a direct comparison, Dale. I'm merely pointing out to historical times when propaganda broadcast did affect people's behavior. I suppose I can try and find actual psychological research on this, but propaganda geared at stirring up fear, anger or hatred, should be looked at with concern...and the best way I think is for a radio station to then broadcast dissenting viewpoints right afterwards.

[dalegg 143]

In the movie, Hotel Rwanda, it demonstrated how much propaganda on the radio affected people's behavior. Nazi Germany is another example.

Jesus Christ.

There goes the Nazi Germany analogy to right wing talk show hosts. How about the Nazi Germany analogy to telling people what they can and cannot say?

Does that also work?

That's not a direct comparison, Dale. I'm merely pointing out to historical times when propaganda broadcast did affect people's behavior. I suppose I can try and find actual psychological research on this, but propaganda geared at stirring up fear, anger or hatred, should be looked at with concern...and the best way I think is for a radio station to then broadcast dissenting viewpoints right afterwards.

There is a big, big difference between someone getting on the radio and telling people that neighbors who are a different race than them should be exterminated or that people need to gather up and overthrow their governments and someone stating that the Presidents Stimulus plan is junk and we shouldn't support it.

That is what is happening here. Some Democrats- and there is no way I can refer to them as liberal, because this sort of censorship is definitely NOT a liberal idea- want to dictate how political conversations in a free society should be held.

If these guys were actually spouting off dangerous rederic that actually intended to create real public chaos, then you would have a case. But that is not the intent. The intent is to try to regulate the expression of personal viewpoints, harmless opionions, and ideas. Nobody should be for this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is a big, big difference between someone getting on the radio and telling people that neighbors who are a different race than them should be exterminated or that people need to gather up and overthrow their governments and someone stating that the Presidents Stimulus plan is junk and we shouldn't support it.

That is what is happening here. Some Democrats- and there is no way I can refer to them as liberal, because this sort of censorship is definitely NOT a liberal idea- want to dictate how political conversations in a free society should be held.

If these guys were actually spouting off dangerous rederic that actually intended to create real public chaos, then you would have a case. But that is not the intent. The intent is to try to regulate the expression of personal viewpoints, harmless opionions, and ideas. Nobody should be for this.

I agree about the big difference, but if we are talking collectively about the airwaves, there has been some pretty outrageous, hate-filled speech spewed out to the masses. Nobody is suggesting silencing such rhetoric. What they are saying is that if the matter is about a serious topic with political ramifications, the radio station should present opposing viewpoints afterward. How is that censorship?

[Marzy 1]

I would want to listen with Liberals and Conservative debating on air. I'm excited. I listen to myself who is my best buddy ever.

Edited February 7, 2009 by S*J