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

[dalegg 143]

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?

Let me give you an example.

Madonna and Green Day tour the world. They have their audience at the palm of their hands. They have them in an athsmosphere of high addrenulum and motivation, would you not agree?

Inevitably, with both of these groups comes the political break in the concert where they use unrestricted language and vulgarity to describe the (previous) administration and the members of the political party they oppose.

This is a frenzied crowd. They are totally in their control and not only do they not want to listen to someone else's viewpoint, but they cannot.

This is political speak, is it not? Do you think the concert should be stopped and some country and western singer should be allowed to get up on stage and state his opposing viewpoint to what was just said? Of course not.

What if down the road the government wanted to use this legislation and apply it to this type of situation though? What if they had just the right supreme court justices who agreed with them? Suddenly "fairness" gets applied in situations you never expected and the government has more control over the expression of your ideas than you ever dreampt. Now Madonna are Green Day are forced with an option. Either stop their concerts and allow for an opposing viewpoint or keep their mouths shut so they don't get fined. That is the slippery slope you start to slide down when you invite the government to interfere in more and more of your personal life, and that is censorship.

Edited February 7, 2009 by dalegg

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not very likely. You're talking about constraints on the speech of individuals unaffiliated with any big media outlet, save perhaps for the record companies - but they won't take an official position on the political views of a recording artist.

Imo the biggest problem with the fairness doctrine is that it seems so vague to be of little practical value, and compliance can only be dissected afterwards.

What's wrong with the media regulating itself?

[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?

Let me give you an example.

Madonna and Green Day tour the world. They have their audience at the palm of their hands. They have them in an athsmosphere of high addrenulum and motivation, would you not agree?

Inevitably, with both of these groups comes the political break in the concert where they use unrestricted language and vulgarity to describe the (previous) administration and the members of the political party they oppose.

This is a frenzied crowd. They are totally in their control and not only do they not want to listen to someone else's viewpoint, but they cannot.

This is political speak, is it not? Do you think the concert should be stopped and some country and western singer should be allowed to get up on stage and state his opposing viewpoint to what was just said? Of course not.

What if down the road the government wanted to use this legislation and apply it to this type of situation though? What if they had just the right supreme court justices who agreed with them? Suddenly "fairness" gets applied in situations you never expected and the government has more control over the expression of your ideas than you ever dreampt. Now Madonna are Green Day are forced with an option. Either stop their concerts and allow for an opposing viewpoint or keep their mouths shut so they don't get fined. That is the slippery slope you start to slide down when you invite the government to interfere in more and more of your personal life, and that is censorship.

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here. If some guy wants to stand on a street corner and call for the downfall of President Obama, let him scream it all out to his heart's content. If he gets on the radio and is given air time to say the same thing, then I'd say, the radio station has a responsibility to those who own the airwaves (the public), an opposing viewpoint to be aired afterward. The radio station can even make the disclaimer that they are required to air this opposing viewpoint and are not in any way endorsing it. The perception is that radio stations are endorsing the viewpoints of the those they give air time to which is why I see the Fairness Doctrine as sound on principal alone. With the internet though, I would agree that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer needed. However, I think it's important to speak out against this revisionist history of what it was and what it meant. It was not an infringement on free speech as some of the Right Wingers protray it to be.

[dalegg 143]

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?

Let me give you an example.

Madonna and Green Day tour the world. They have their audience at the palm of their hands. They have them in an athsmosphere of high addrenulum and motivation, would you not agree?

Inevitably, with both of these groups comes the political break in the concert where they use unrestricted language and vulgarity to describe the (previous) administration and the members of the political party they oppose.

This is a frenzied crowd. They are totally in their control and not only do they not want to listen to someone else's viewpoint, but they cannot.

This is political speak, is it not? Do you think the concert should be stopped and some country and western singer should be allowed to get up on stage and state his opposing viewpoint to what was just said? Of course not.

What if down the road the government wanted to use this legislation and apply it to this type of situation though? What if they had just the right supreme court justices who agreed with them? Suddenly "fairness" gets applied in situations you never expected and the government has more control over the expression of your ideas than you ever dreampt. Now Madonna are Green Day are forced with an option. Either stop their concerts and allow for an opposing viewpoint or keep their mouths shut so they don't get fined. That is the slippery slope you start to slide down when you invite the government to interfere in more and more of your personal life, and that is censorship.

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here. If some guy wants to stand on a street corner and call for the downfall of President Obama, let him scream it all out to his heart's content. If he gets on the radio and is given air time to say the same thing, then I'd say, the radio station has a responsibility to those who own the airwaves (the public), an opposing viewpoint to be aired afterward. The radio station can even make the disclaimer that they are required to air this opposing viewpoint and are not in any way endorsing it. The perception is that radio stations are endorsing the viewpoints of the those they give air time to which is why I see the Fairness Doctrine as sound on principal alone. With the internet though, I would agree that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer needed. However, I think it's important to speak out against this revisionist history of what it was and what it meant. It was not an infringement on free speech as some of the Right Wingers protray it to be.

Is the street corner not public domain also? I totally disagree with you. It is an infringement on free speech. Whether you tell someone what they cannot say or what they have to say- its censorship, and hiding behind the "FCC controls the airwaves" arguement underminds the principles of the 1st ammendment. That is what bothers me. Modern socialists are trying their hardest to come up with loopholes and technicalities to come up with reasons why principles of the constitution do not apply to specific circumstances so that they can get around the intent of our founding fathers. Just look at what the intent of the Bill of Rights was and don't use twisted government rules to change the foundation of this country.

[Danno 1,228]

Why is there an assumption that there are only "two sides" to every issue?

Isn't that what the "opposing opinion" rule suggests?

It also gives a unfair voice to a very minority opinion.

No matter what the general consensus is there is always some remote minority that disagrees.

These far-out views not only get a platform but equal time.

Why should someone who believes the public parks are obligated to welcome Public Master-baitors, be give 50% of the air time when discussing park regulations?

This is why talk radio was only a fraction of what it is today... back when the fairness doctrine was around, it was too much of a hassle (and boring).

I don't see why TV is not under the same burden? Perhaps it's time to crack open that liberal nutshell.

How about National newpapers (whats left of them) they are grossly lilted left, especially the OP-ED page.

If they are going to distribute their papers from Public property locations (sidewalks, bus stops, govt buildings) they are going to have to start giving a 50% balanced view. If not, they loose the advantage of using Public areas to distribute.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is there an assumption that there are only "two sides" to every issue?

Isn't that what the "opposing opinion" rule suggests?

It also gives a unfair voice to a very minority opinion.

No matter what the general consensus is there is always some remote minority that disagrees.

These far-out views not only get a platform but equal time.

Why should someone who believes the public parks are obligated to welcome Public Master-baitors, be give 50% of the air time when discussing park regulations?

This is why talk radio was only a fraction of what it is today... back when the fairness doctrine was around, it was too much of a hassle (and boring).

I don't see why TV is not under the same burden? Perhaps it's time to crack open that liberal nutshell.

How about National newpapers (whats left of them) they are grossly lilted left, especially the OP-ED page.

If they are going to distribute their papers from Public property locations (sidewalks, bus stops, govt buildings) they are going to have to start giving a 50% balanced view. If not, they loose the advantage of using Public areas to distribute.

It would seem to yes - and that's kind of the problem we have now.

[lostinblue 1,989]

If this comes about then can I listen to rush on PBS. PBS is certainly slanted to the left.

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

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here. If some guy wants to stand on a street corner and call for the downfall of President Obama, let him scream it all out to his heart's content. If he gets on the radio and is given air time to say the same thing, then I'd say, the radio station has a responsibility to those who own the airwaves (the public), an opposing viewpoint to be aired afterward. The radio station can even make the disclaimer that they are required to air this opposing viewpoint and are not in any way endorsing it. The perception is that radio stations are endorsing the viewpoints of the those they give air time to which is why I see the Fairness Doctrine as sound on principal alone. With the internet though, I would agree that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer needed. However, I think it's important to speak out against this revisionist history of what it was and what it meant. It was not an infringement on free speech as some of the Right Wingers protray it to be.

Is the street corner not public domain also? I totally disagree with you. It is an infringement on free speech. Whether you tell someone what they cannot say or what they have to say- its censorship, and hiding behind the "FCC controls the airwaves" arguement underminds the principles of the 1st ammendment. That is what bothers me. Modern socialists are trying their hardest to come up with loopholes and technicalities to come up with reasons why principles of the constitution do not apply to specific circumstances so that they can get around the intent of our founding fathers. Just look at what the intent of the Bill of Rights was and don't use twisted government rules to change the foundation of this country.

Yes, a street corner is public property but the difference here is that if a guy decides he wants to yell on the street corner calling for the destruction of the White House, you or I could also go to that street corner and start yelling our views because it is open to the public - he couldn't tell us to get lost or find our own street corner. Do you see the difference? A more comparable example would be City Hall. Let's say, for example, the KKK goes to City Hall and gets permission to hold a rally calling for the impeachment of Pres. Obama, the City Hall would then also have to be open to giving permission for other groups with different viewpoints to use City Hall in the same manner. However, if the Mayer happened to be a member of the KKK and wasn't allowing any other group but the KKK speak at City Hall, that would be an infringement of Free Speech. That's essentially what happens with a radio station who has a license to broadcast on a particular frequency of the airwaves. That license does NOT give them exclusive rights to use that frequency because it is public domain. I'm not a lawyer, but I really believe that is why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Fairness Doctrine when it still existed.

[Pooky 3,929]

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here.

I would disagree on that point. If, as in the UK with the BBC, the radio station was funded from public money, then I would describe it as public domain. However, radio here in the US is funded through advertising, i.e. private money. Therefore, although radio is publicly available, it is private enterprise.

For any entity to make available a balancing opinion, I would suggest they pay for the airtime to make that opinion heard. The original content has to find the money to pay its way in the first place, why should a balancing opinion get a free ride?

I also disagree with labelling content resulting from any "Fairness Doctrine" as censorship. The original viewpoint is not altered in any way. The "balancing" viewpoint is merely in addition to the original.

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

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here.

I would disagree on that point. If, as in the UK with the BBC, the radio station was funded from public money, then I would describe it as public domain. However, radio here in the US is funded through advertising, i.e. private money. Therefore, although radio is publicly available, it is private enterprise.

It's fact - the airwaves are public domain. A broadcaster must obtain a license with the FCC to legally broadcast. I imagine that national security issues come into play over any idea of actually privatizing the airwaves.

[Pooky 3,929]

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here.

I would disagree on that point. If, as in the UK with the BBC, the radio station was funded from public money, then I would describe it as public domain. However, radio here in the US is funded through advertising, i.e. private money. Therefore, although radio is publicly available, it is private enterprise.

It's fact - the airwaves are public domain. A broadcaster must obtain a license with the FCC to legally broadcast. I imagine that national security issues come into play over any idea of actually privatizing the airwaves.

The FCC determines whether wavelengths are available and that content is appropriate for standards of decency. It is apolitical and should stay that way. The funding for a radio station is private and enables a station to broadcast the content it chooses, so long as the advertising revenue keeps coming. Surely, then, a viewpoint which the station does not hold should not be funded by that station and should pay its own way?

[Peikko 1,575]

The airwaves are public domain and I see that as the big difference here.

I would disagree on that point. If, as in the UK with the BBC, the radio station was funded from public money, then I would describe it as public domain. However, radio here in the US is funded through advertising, i.e. private money. Therefore, although radio is publicly available, it is private enterprise.

It's fact - the airwaves are public domain. A broadcaster must obtain a license with the FCC to legally broadcast. I imagine that national security issues come into play over any idea of actually privatizing the airwaves.

The FCC determines whether wavelengths are available and that content is appropriate for standards of decency. It is apolitical and should stay that way. The funding for a radio station is private and enables a station to broadcast the content it chooses, so long as the advertising revenue keeps coming. Surely, then, a viewpoint which the station does not hold should not be funded by that station and should pay its own way?

I agree.

I can't understand why anyone would get all bent out of shape over political ranting if it emanates from the private sector and does not deliberately incite people to violent acts. It has no effect on me, I don't listen to it, and I don't want an equal and opposite rant to be rammed at me either. What a lot of fuss about nothing.