Would the fairness doctrine accomplish what the left wants?

Question

Help me understand... everybody who doesn't currently buy in the socialist philosophy is dumb, stupid, doesn't read, is a redneck, etc... So the thought is that by forcing leftist radio down their throats after they have rejected it in the marketplace of ideas those same morons will suddenly say "Viola!! Where has this programming been all of my life!!"

So government mandates will suddenly make stupid people smart? Doesn't make sense to me, how about you?

nostradumbus, take pictures of those black helicopters circling your crib.

I see the leftist spin is in full crisis mode, the fairness doctrine trial balloon failed so now it's about evil "monopolies". Desperation does strange things to a person's mind.

Answer 1

Because mainstream America does not but into the socialist ways of the liberal, they feel they must legislate their agenda into reality. However, Even being given equal airtime, They have still failed to attain a listening audience, or see any substantial advertising dollars. The fact is, The liberal has been rejected by mainstream America.

Answer 2

You are confused. No one on the 'left' wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. That's right reinstate since it was abolished in 1987. There is no current legislation nor any pending that would bring it back. So your scare tactic of talking about the Fairness Doctrine is a mute point and intended only to raise a concern that doesn't exist.

The real point that many progressive talk show hosts are making is this: Since the signing of the Telecom Reform Act in 1993, which removed past regulations and allowed companies to own multiple radio and/or TV stations in the same geological area, a monopoly situation has arisen.

Several right wing conservative companies, like Cumulus as a prime example, own all or the majority of radio stations within an area. They are excluding any progressive talk shows from airing in these areas since they control the content.

The point the progressive talk show hosts are making is that the license to broadcast is free and publically owned and given with the assumption that the station will broadcast what is in the publics best interest. They maintain that broadcasting only right wing conservative radio is not considering the publics best interest.

Personally I think these conservative radio stations are missing out on the big picture. The last 2 presidential elections were close to being a 50-50 split. So that 50% that voted Democratic do not listen to radios? They do not spend ad dollars? They do not buying products? Of course they do. These stations by limiting their content are really missing out on selling to almost 50% of the population. It seems a station that offered a well rounded mix of conservative and progressive programming would be smart, financially sound move to me.

Answer 3

no, no, no..i don't think too many people understand the fairness doctrine..in it's original intent, it seems to be what you are saying, that both sides will be heard whether we like it or not, and that's the way it's presented, but that isn't what happens when the fairness doctrine is law. once this is law, say you're sean hannity or rush limbaugh, your local radio station will have to do one of two things, have a opposing view on with the same amount of time, or, if nobody comes forward to rebut it, viola! no rush, no sean, nobody talks politics, and THAT is what the fairness doctrine CURRENT intent is.

Answer 4

ah yes, the repetition of the lie that left wing radio has failed in the marketplace.

stephanie miller pointed out recently, after ratings books came out, that her show is beating competing conservative shows rather handily in many markets across the nation.

it was only after liberal talk radio was credited with helping in elections in ohio, that every left leaning program was removed from the air for 'business' reasons. the fact that the replacing formats have not done as well isn't mentioned.

the same thing goes in the boston area - the left leaning radio station was taken off the air in favor of a rumba format, which has yet to even make the ratings books.

the bottom line is this - the airwaves belong to the people, not conservative corporations like the owners of the rumba station in boston - who don't appear to care if they ever get ratings - but only 'hold' their position as a sort of defensive move designed to keep any diversity off the air.

the conservatives don't even want to allow left leaning radio to get into 10% of the markets.

there is a word for this - monopoly - and here in america it's illegal.

Answer 5

The left want the "fairness doctrine" for one reason to rain in conservative talk radio. Liberal talk radio failed miserably but conservative talk radio is thriving & that irratates liberals.
They basicaly rule the main stream media & news print but they can't get a foot hold in talk radio so this is there back handed way of doing it. Liberals do not want healthy 2 way debate they want total & unchalanged media control.

Answer 6

One of the elements of a socialist effort is to eliminate dissension and free speech as well as the free market. Those that want this abomination on our Constitution are simply socialists. You can tell by their actions.

Answer 7

Trent Lott was the one who got the ball rolling on this, sport...and wouldn't it really help the right combat the evil "liberal press" ?...just more BS for the pols to push our buttons with

Answer 8

makes a lot of sense to me, why do you think they call me the village idiot,