http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi-support-return-of-fairness-doctrine/
Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasting stations to give all different opinions equal amounts of air time, no matter what the station is. From what I've read and learned from my teacher (who is an ex-cop and ex-army, one of my favorite teachers), this could be done in a number of ways: one side can be presented by itself for whatever period of time, and then opposing sides must solely be presented for the same amount of time. Or, the station can air one program for a time before handing off the station to a completely different producer. Finally, from what I understand, stations can remain purely one-sided as long as there is another oppositely-sided station for each and every one.
I find this very interesting since “91 percent of the political talk radio programming on the stations owned by the top five commercial station owners is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive” , and it is only the radio that would be affected by this bill. Note that I am not for this passing in any way, shape, or form, but would be a lot less offended by it if it "made fair" television as well, where I'd say at least 90% of the channels are operated by "progressives". But then I guess that wouldn't be "fair" then, huh =\.
First off, who would decide what is fair? Liberals already decide what is conservative and what is not, because if you're not pushing for new things (I'm not saying that conservatives don't push new statutes, but that's how it's portrayed by the media and liberals do tend to try to push the newer, unprecedented stuff), then you're automatically a conservative. This basically places the left in a position to decide what as fair, because if you don't agree with them you are then conservative, and must grant them more time.
This also bothers me because it's a limitation on the free market of radio broadcasting. For some reason, 91% of the talkshows in the airwaves consist of conservative material, and only 9% consist of liberal material. The few liberal shows there are don't make even a small portion as those of the conservative party do, and forcing the conservative parties to play material that already doesn't make money would lose them listeners, and in effect, profit. This makes me think of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, in which the socialized government forces one of the main characters to only produce as much as his competitors do (and his competitors are all incompetent, unintelligent, and all not surprisingly for this law of "equality").
Meh, my hands are freezing from typing in the cold. Let loose ;)
Talk radio’s suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating “yes,” reports Gizzi.
Ever since I've started taking gov ap this year in high school, I've become very much more involved in politics and current events (or at least learning about them). This came up recently in class, and I thought it was interesting how something like this could even come to be considered by our congress.Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.
Conservative critics have been very concerned that Congress had supported a one-year moratorium on the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but has not supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA), which would permanently prevent these regulations from returning.
Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 200 Members have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are needed.
“And so far, not one single House Democrat has signed our petition for an up-or-down vote on broadcast freedom...and now we know why,” announced Pence in response to Pelosi’s comments. “I say to Speaker Pelosi with respect: Defending freedom is the paramount interest of every Member of the American Congress.”
In his Human Events article, Gizzi recounted his conversation with Pelosi:
“‘So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,’ Pelosi said.
‘Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?,’ I asked.
‘Yes,’ the speaker replied, without hesitation.”
The Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time for opposing points of view—essentially giving the government the ability to regulate media content.
Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasting stations to give all different opinions equal amounts of air time, no matter what the station is. From what I've read and learned from my teacher (who is an ex-cop and ex-army, one of my favorite teachers), this could be done in a number of ways: one side can be presented by itself for whatever period of time, and then opposing sides must solely be presented for the same amount of time. Or, the station can air one program for a time before handing off the station to a completely different producer. Finally, from what I understand, stations can remain purely one-sided as long as there is another oppositely-sided station for each and every one.
I find this very interesting since “91 percent of the political talk radio programming on the stations owned by the top five commercial station owners is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive” , and it is only the radio that would be affected by this bill. Note that I am not for this passing in any way, shape, or form, but would be a lot less offended by it if it "made fair" television as well, where I'd say at least 90% of the channels are operated by "progressives". But then I guess that wouldn't be "fair" then, huh =\.
First off, who would decide what is fair? Liberals already decide what is conservative and what is not, because if you're not pushing for new things (I'm not saying that conservatives don't push new statutes, but that's how it's portrayed by the media and liberals do tend to try to push the newer, unprecedented stuff), then you're automatically a conservative. This basically places the left in a position to decide what as fair, because if you don't agree with them you are then conservative, and must grant them more time.
This also bothers me because it's a limitation on the free market of radio broadcasting. For some reason, 91% of the talkshows in the airwaves consist of conservative material, and only 9% consist of liberal material. The few liberal shows there are don't make even a small portion as those of the conservative party do, and forcing the conservative parties to play material that already doesn't make money would lose them listeners, and in effect, profit. This makes me think of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, in which the socialized government forces one of the main characters to only produce as much as his competitors do (and his competitors are all incompetent, unintelligent, and all not surprisingly for this law of "equality").
Meh, my hands are freezing from typing in the cold. Let loose ;)