Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
May 2013
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette




The "Fairness" Doctrine

by: Ken Pittman

Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 13:53:26 PM EST


While liberals seem to thrive in the print press and telvision studios, conservatives counter with domination of the live talk radio airwaves.
Knowing what we know of the liberal media bias thanks to a poll taken by journalists for journalists(85% vote for Democrats more often than for Republicans), it is safe to assume the hiring practices are due to ideology. Since the demographic makeup of America shows that 40% regard themselves as moderate, 35% conservative and 25% liberal, the numbers in journalism do not reflect the body of Americans. More condemning evidence against ideological neutrality in hiring of journalists is found when looking at college graduates and their ideological makeup. Less than 55% claim to be liberal. OK so while I have not proven anything, I am making the case for at least suspicious political bigotry in media hiring.
Ken Pittman :: The "Fairness" Doctrine
The reasons liberals can be successful in print press is easy to figure out. A writer can write what he or she wants and if the editor OKs it, it is printed without the ability of the reader to stop the writer mid-sentence and correct this or that. It, like a sanitized TV studio setting, is safe from the arena of debate.

Talk radio however, is far removed from the havens of after thought. We who host have no idea if the next caller will debate or agree, if he or she is a scientist or pizza deliveryman. What we say can be confronted and the audience holds a very high standard, not just for our positions but for the defense of them when assaulted. The people like a champion. Liberals, despite unprecedented, fantastic free advertising for Air America have failed on talk radio. Al Franken and his ilk have been defeated. First he stopped taking live calls when defeated consecutive conversations on a daily basis but then his positions sealed his own fate. Low ratings. This one unfettered bastion of conservative media is now under attack by Democrats and other liberals who have no plans to find FAIRNESS in the freedom of speech. Here in Massachusetts we are surrounded like Custer at Little Bighorn but our message  cuts through the masses of liberals like the gattling gun Col. George Armstrong Custer should have brought with him. Unless the advocates for implementing the Fairness Doctrine have plans to intervene with ideological balance in the television studios at PBS, ABC, CBS and NBC, they are clearly and simply wiping out a market conservatives own for no small reason.

Poll
Is the Fairness Doctrine good for America?
No. It attacks conservativism.
Yes. It forces balance on the radio.
Yes but only if it moderates television too

Results

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Surprised this subject doesnt get more airing out ... (0.00 / 0)
I admit I dont realy understand the specifics on this but I am aware that misinformation is quite common and since it is THE SAME misinformation that is being widely held by the public it has be coming from someplace ... Tv, radio, print ... I dont know but we have to get people better informed with REAL information if we hope to see positive change anytime soon ...
Which brings us to the FAIRNESS doctrine ... Hmm .. fair sounds good, what the hell is this doctrine thingee though ... I dont know :)

Fairness Doctrine history (0.00 / 0)
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation;

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.
Tested in Court
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.

As an independent regulatory agency, the FCC has the power to reimpose the doctrine without congressional or executive action. So far, the Commission has taken no position on the Hollings-Hefner legislation or expressed an interest in reregulating on its own. Current FCC Chairman James Quello, though, has stated that, "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech." (Doug Halonen, "Twelve to Watch in 1993,"


95.7% of all Massachusetts Democrats give the other 4.3% a bad name.


So what is the proposal? (0.00 / 0)
This is a kind of a sticky area, isnt it?
On one hand the audience should have the ultimate right to decide what they feel like listening to/watching, but on the other hand the concentration of media seems to have set up a situation where the audience might think they are choosing freely between different things while all along are being fed the same diet.
What is the proposal?
I have read someplace that they are looking to reverse some of the rollbacks on media ownership concentration that have been done in the past few decades ... go back to the days when there were more than 5 or 6 newspapers in the country and a few less 50000 station radio empires ...

[ Parent ]
when looked at closely though.. (0.00 / 0)
In the end, the programming is the same as any other. Sink or swim. Conservative talk radio programs occasionally fail and are replaced. The difference here is this; Don't like conservative talk radio? Change the station. Don't like liberal talk radio? Turn the station but you still have to fund it with your tax dollars (NPR).

Conservatives have known for decades that television news programming is slanted to the left but never once complained and asked for government intervention.

ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS are all provably favorable for liberals and Democrats while chronically critical of conservatives and Republicans. Harvard just did the study:

The study examined 1,742 campaign stories appearing between January and May 2007 in 48 news outlets, including print, online, network television, cable television and radio. Consider a few of the revealing statistics from this report, a joint survey of the project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Pubic Policy: * The morning news shows produced twice as many stories on Democrats as Republicans (51 percent to 27 percent). * Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) front page coverage was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative. Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. In contrast, for Republicans the tone was positive in only about 25 percent of stories and was negative in 40 percent of stories. * PBS, another bastion of biased journalism, produced no stories of a positive nature on Republicans. * CNN programming cast a negative light on Republican candidates by a margin of three-to-one. CNN's coverage of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was 63 percent negative while Mr. Obama's was only 8 percent negative. * Liberal talk radio's stories on Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y.), Mr. McCain and Mitt Romney (R- Mass.) were 100 percent negative, while those on Sen. Obama and John Edwards (D-N.C.) were 100 percent positive.

95.7% of all Massachusetts Democrats give the other 4.3% a bad name.


[ Parent ]
Beware Open Source Govt, Net Neutrality & Fairness Doctrine - Winslow update (0.00 / 0)
Mass GOP Candidate Dan Winslow for Open source Government #NetNeutrality w Dems http://httpmyblogblogspotcom-n...

Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.








Local Feeds 

Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox