I'm against the FCC Fairness doctrine. For one thing, it would wipe out talk radio as we know it. I listen to a hardcore right wing radio station. They'd sooner go out of business than air the liberal viewpoint. Besides, it seems like liberals, on the whole, aren't interested in talk radio. Look at how badly that liberal talk radio network is failing, and it was backed by big names.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
The fairness doctrine is just an attempt to force the radio stations to carry a message that not only they may not agree with but one that may actually cost them money. The libs think if they can force radio stations to carry an hour of their vitriol for every hour of the conservative viewpoint. Basically they don't feel it is fair that their message and messengers aren't profitable enough for a radio station to want to carry them. Air America went bankrupt even with millions poored into it from the likes of George Soros and his ilk. They had big name commentators with real name recognition such as Jenine Garafalo and the like. But still, not enough people listened to make them any money. Radio is pretty simple. Radio makes money from advertisements. Companies spend their advertising dollars based on where they can get the greatest number of people to listen in to their message which translates into whichever shows have the best ratings. Those with lower ratings can still get advertising dollars but usually at a lower rate. As a business, the radio station chooses the programing that can bring in the maximum dollars. If the show is not getting the ratings to draw in the revenue, it gets cancelled. Just like on television.
Fairness doctrine means someone from the government making a decision about how many minutes of another viewpoint you have to put on the air even if that will actually cause you to lose money. With so many different viewpoints today, how could a radio station even make this happen. The result would be (and probably the whole intention of the drive behind the fairness doctrine) would be to take talk radio off and replace it with music like radio land used to be. Then only the big T.V. networks, newspapers, etc would be providing the news and commentary.
Fairness doctrine is anti free market and is the complete opposite of what this nation was founded on. The free exchange of ideas cannot be forced by some FCC monitorer.
I think the fairness doctrine is a great idea were it applied evenly to all forms of media. As it is, the Dems are the only ones talking about it, in the hopes they can keep Air America solvent.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Make me the judge of placing conservative content on the Clinton News Network and I'd consider it.
the "Fairness doctrine" wouldn't be fair at all.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
Since the airwaves belong to the people (in theory, anyway) I think the FCC interferes too much already. More government intervention to force "fairness" can only be a bad thing.
On a related note: I'm pretty ticked off that the FCC gets to decide how to slice up the usable frequency spectrum and sell off portions (or "license") our community property to commercial interests. And every year, the frequency bands available for citizens to use for communication shrink.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
I thought that is what NPR and PBS and stuff like that was set up for... to provide balance to the for-profit broadcasting networks... but, if you think about it, even they have failed in this.
I'll change my vote to... er, wait, my choice is not up there... and it would be "Abolish all news reporting until journalism can be taught and performed in an entirely objective manner and all the "investigative," sensationalist, tabloid style, ratings grabbing crappola that is out there becomes a forgotten pariah of the past..."
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Roper wrote: Since the airwaves belong to the people (in theory, anyway) I think the FCC interferes too much already. More government intervention to force "fairness" can only be a bad thing.
On a related note: I'm pretty ticked off that the FCC gets to decide how to slice up the usable frequency spectrum and sell off portions (or "license") our community property to commercial interests. And every year, the frequency bands available for citizens to use for communication shrink.
Of course U.S. citizens are using those same bands less and less. I'm licensed in Ham Radio and I can tell you the silence in deafening on the frequencies. Rarely do I hear a conversation and I have yet to ever get anyone to answer me. Because of this I'm not surprised to see them sell off different bands. Of course those frequencies existed since the days of Adam so the Federal Government is being little presumptuous in taking so much control. But there has to be some order to the system.
