Time for a 21st Century Fairness Doctrine

[ZX86]

Since the Fairness Doctrine was shit canned our national media has literally been dominated by right wing racists, drug addicts, and degenerate sex perverts. It's long since time the public take back control of the public airwaves for the benefit of the public who owns them. Not the corporate interests who enable racists, drug addicts, and sex perverts as long as they garner ratings and serve their interests exclusively.

The solution is surprisingly simple. Just treat the news media like churches. Completely tax free with one provision. To qualify for tax exempt status you must devote 15% of your airtime/page space to opposing views from responsible parties.

This would be completely voluntary. Responsible news organizations not afraid of peer and public review would flourish. Irresponsible news organizations would either not participate and suffer financially or participate and have their coverage and opinions criticized in their own medium.

It's a win win for everybody. Encourages quality journalism. Encourages business and job creation. Covers both print and broadcast journalism. Addresses both public airways, cable, and internet mediums. Completely voluntary so no Constitutional issues. Any news media currently operating can operate as they always have. If you like your corporate dominated news media, you can keep your corporate dominated news media. For the rest of us there will be will be a public option.

[think]

1. Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing. Something needs to be done. Infotainment is now

the norm rather than news.

And the national discussion suffers greatly do to this...

[ZX86]

2. Y'know I'm not even against infotainment.

What I'm against is lying. People like Micheal Moore, Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Samantha Bee, etc. are unquestionably infotainers. They are great at their jobs mixing humor with news in an entertaining fashion. What's bad is Fox News mixing softcore porn with racist and right wing propaganda.

[think]

3. I'm kind of warped. I consider The Daily Show news and Fox News, MSNBC, & CNN infotaiment.

I guess I should have made that clear.

[ZX86]

4. Not warped. Just a part of the reality based community.

Cable news is a three ring circus. Flashy graphics. Hyperbolic opinion analysis. On air "talent" culled from central casting or somebody's kid. Call it what you want but it certainly isn't journalism.

[Jim Beard]

41. In fairness to MSNBC

It is in the second tier of cable choices. Its in the 2nd tier where 5,000 choices are available on Dish and cost extra where as CNN and FOX are on the first package. Simply, MSNBC does not have access to as many viewers.

[Old Union Guy]

5. No. "Fairness" is not the job of the government.

And no tax breaks to billionaire corporations with the right political connections, please.

[ZX86]

7. Fairness is not the job of the government?

Seriously? How about the 64' Civil Rights Act? Is that okay?

What part of tax exempt status like churches don't you understand?

[Rex]

14. Getting some strange replies.

I like your idea.

[Old Union Guy]

17. Um. The first amendment.

The civil rights act was about enforcing rights, not controlling the media.

Or giving tax breaks to billionaires as proposed in the OP.

[Rex]

20. What does the 1st amendment have to do with this?

Nothing, the FCC will regulate it just like they do everything else.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. Your foundation falls through. The FCC does NOT regulate everything else.

The FCC does NOT regulate everything to do with media. To do so would indisputably be a violation of the First Amendment on the face of it.

Read the history of the Fairness Doctrine and do not confuse it with the Equal Time rule as the OP does.

Then you will see that the Supreme Court rulings were very narrowly defined and the conditions they depend on do not apply in the modern media landscape.

[Rex]

61. Wrong, this would be up to the FCC to regulate. Has nothing to do with SCOTUS.

You can keep bringing up that canard all day long, unless you really don't know what the FCC does.

AND OF COURSE we are talking about something new and updated, it is cute how some of yall are pretending it would be the FD of the 1980s. Cute, but irrelevant.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Hahaha as if SCOTUS has never ruled on FCC cases! Hahaha

Way to debate, failing to address any of my points!

Carry on. You aren't listening and you are ignorant of Antonin Scalia's role in the history.

[Rex]

66. So the governing body would be the SCOTUS and not the FCC?

Keep playing with that canard, never said the SCOTUS could not rule on the FCC decisions. You obviously have no idea how do debate a subject.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. I'm not playing that canard. Setting up straw men & demolishing them is not respectable debating.

Nor is it respectful to pretend I said something not even close to what I actually wrote. People who read clearly will have no problem seeing where you went off the rails miscomprehending what I wrote.

And since you still haven't addressed my points ... goodbye.

[Rex]

68. Narrating your on fiction after being told some reality is your problem.

You never had a valid point, you just keep pretending the FCC doesn't exist to rule over the airwaves. So clearly you have to run away now. I understand, point taken.

[ZX86]

35. Does tax exempt status equal controlling the churches?

That comment doesn't even make sense.

Where in the OP does it say billionaires would be given tax breaks? I rather doubt billionaires would open themselves up to Joe Public calling them out on their own media outlet.

[Rex]

69. They are flailing around hoping for a hail mary.

You make a good point in the OP, they have no way to counter it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

89. "Where in the OP?" Right here in the OP you give a tax break to billionaires:

Just treat the news media like churches. Completely tax free with one provision.

1) News media are owned by billionaires. Not all of them but a number of them.

2) "Tax free" is a tax break. If you don't recognize that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

3) Therefore you advocate giving tax breaks to billionaires.

4) And yes, you bet, billionaires would accept "Joe Public calling them out on their own media outlet" for complete elimination of taxes. Absolutely. And they can do it without Joe Public calling them out because they can simply never run stories about their own business. So there would be no 15% rebuttal.

4b) Further, since you explicitly say that the new media defines who is the "responsible party" to do the rebuttal, they would define a favorable commentator as the "responsible party" and there would be no real rebuttal but there would be a real tax holiday for the entire operation because your idea is, as you proudly describe it, "simple".

[ZX86]

93. These right wing talking points are tiresome.

We can't any rules or regulations (i.e. guns) because nobody would follow them.

No. The news media would not define what a responsible party anymore than they can decide what a fiscal year is. If Fox News refuses to allow the ACLU rebuttal time then they would not be complying. It's pretty cut and dried.

It would be like saying we can't have land management rules because Bundy will declare himself a sovereign citizen. Rule breakers don't decide what the rules are. We do.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

94. I never said any of that. Self-delete your post to drop your un-DU personal attack.

[anoNY42]

103. "right wing talking points"

Here at DU, that is pretty much a violation of Godwin's law...

[Exilednight]

100. The first amendment would stay intact. The way I read the OP is that it's

Optional. No one could force CNN to be compliant, if they do, then they get a tax exemption.

They'd still be free to say what they want.

[Rex]

13. Um YES the government is in the job of fairness!

They have an entire department dedicated to it.

[X_Digger]

6. Post hoc ergo propter hoc silliness.

Let me guess, you're not actually old enough to remember news before the fairness doctrine fell by the wayside, right? Or do you have some magic nostalgia for something that didn't actually exist.. hrmm?

[ZX86]

8. Yes I do remember.

What was your problem with it?

[X_Digger]

12. What do you imagine it did against..

"right wing racists, drug addicts, and degenerate sex perverts"?

[ZX86]

19. Is there a point somewhere in there?

I'm not getting what you're trying say.

[X_Digger]

22. It's your thread, you're railing against such.. so.. how did the fairness doctrine affect those?

I mean, if you think that a super-duper new version would get rein in "right wing racists, drug addicts, and degenerate sex perverts" again, then you should be able to demonstrate that it actually DID so, right?

[ZX86]

38. I think you're missing something here.

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh did not exist before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. That's kind of the point.

[X_Digger]

58. Post hoc ergo propter hoc again.

Right wing radio existed before 1986, dear.

[ZX86]

82. And therefore what?

The reason for a Fairness Doctrine is not to eliminate right wing radio. What gave you that idea?

[X_Digger]

84. "Fox News and Rush Limbaugh did not exist before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine."

The fairness doctrine had nothing to do with the existence of Faux News or RL.

Derp.

[ZX86]

86. So what are you saying?

The Public shouldn't regulate the airwaves it owns? You keep going off on tangents that don't seem have to any relevance to the topic being discussed.

[X_Digger]

97. I'm saying that you're wrong in your intimation that the FD had anything to do w/ creating RW radio.

Is that clearer?

[melm00se]

105. Regulate?

as long as that is defined as:

- You must radiate at no more than x watts of power.
- You must operate on this assigned frequency/channel.

Sure.

Regulate as in:

- You must promulgate/report this opinion
- Your content must be _____ or ______

Absolutely not.

[ZX86]

109. Fairness Doctrine doesn't make anyone do anything.

It simply lets citizens review and rebut. And considering if the speech is on public airwaves that are wholly owned by the public we can decide to do anything we want with it.That's the nature of ownership.

We've decided topless bars are not appropriate in national parks. We regulate that. It's not a free speech issue. You can't operate any kind of business you want on public land. Same goes for public airwaves.

The idea we owe for profit corporations like Clear Channel "free stuff" and free reign over our property is ludicrous. We own it. If we want to make a rule that all radio stations play polka music 10 hours a day we can do that because the airwaves belong to us. Not them.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

11. I remember

... talk radio in the 70's here in Ohio always had pro-Republican and pro-Democrat hosts.

It's all pro-conservative trash full of lies now.

[X_Digger]

15. And you think that's because of the fairness doctrine (memory accuracy notwithstanding..)?

What, you think that radio stations hired hosts and based programming off of the fairness doctrine?

See "magic nostalgia for something that didn't actually exist"..

[Buckeye_Democrat]

21. Yes

It's not exactly a coincidence that the liberal hosts went by the wayside in the 80's after it was repealed.

It was also extremely popular in the 70's. Some guy named Bob Kwessel was the conservative host on WAVI. I should remember the liberal guy's name since he was my mother's favorite, but his name eludes me at the moment.

My parents and their friends often discussed what was said by those guys, so I know it was popular.

None of it was as extreme as Limbaugh in the years that followed. Now Limbaugh is pretty tame in comparison to the new wave of liars.

[X_Digger]

25. Post hoc ergo propter hoc again.

Radio stations generally moved away from talk radio when people stopped listening. They changed formats and programming in response to listener engagement.

Funnily enough, the majority of diehards left? Conservative idjits.

But just for shits and giggles, tell me, what section of the fairness doctrine affected hiring at radio stations?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

30. I think you misunderstand me

My main point is to have opposing viewpoints aired, not determining which individuals are hired to do it.

It seems to me that you might be okay if defense attorneys were scrapped in our legal system. After all, there's already a prosecutor to REPORT the charges and a jury to DECIDE guilt or innocence. Right?

[X_Digger]

32. Oh, so your recollection of the composition of hosts had nothing to do w/ fairness doctrine?

talk radio in the 70's here in Ohio always had pro-Republican and pro-Democrat hosts.

What did I misunderstand? How was one supposed to link to the other?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

36. I'll take the rap

... for not being more clear.

I don't care how a radio station does it. I remember both conservative and liberal hosts following each other here, but they could do some other format that still allows opportunity for intelligent debate.

I'll use the defense attorney analogy again. As talk radio stands now, it's pretty much a series of anti-liberal prosecutors and nothing else. Maybe they'll take a phone call from some moron, like some court pulling a homeless person off the street to argue for the defense.

[X_Digger]

42. That radio station(s) chose to do programming that way had nada to do with the fairness doctrine...

.. and more to do with the listeners they were serving.

Under the fairness doctrine, you didn't have to have conservative follow liberal. And it was never equal time. (That's something entirely different.)

And if you really didn't want to bother with the mess, you just had your hosts couch their language in such a way that the fairness doctrine didn't trigger. But if you did, chuck your 'public interest' programming, pro and con, into an overnight spot, and you can say whatever you like during the day.

Nostalgia for something that the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with.. sheesh.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

48. How can you mention

... the ways that the radio stations were affected by the Fairness Doctrine, then argue that my example had nothing to do with it?

WAVI put their public interest programming on during the day. As such, they balanced it with opposing viewpoints. The hosts, in my example, would often take up arguments made by the other hosts and essentially debate them indirectly.

It was very popular around here. based on anecdotal evidence. I'm not sure where I could find ratings from the 70's and early 80's at this time.

Bottom line is that it's not right to have only prosecutors in a court room, and it's not right to only have Inquisition-style conservatives discussing important political issues on our PUBLIC airwaves.

[X_Digger]

52. It didn't do what the OP (and you) seem to think it does.

I told you exactly what it did, and nothing more. None of which would affect the golden nostalgia that seems to be at play.

That WAVI did things that way likely had little to do with the fairness doctrine, and more to do with the audience (you).

How hard is that to grok?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

57. I'll make it simple

Would the former Fairness Doctrine have allowed hours and hours of conservative talk show hosts back in the day without any liberal opposition?

If not, then it had an effect.

[X_Digger]

62. YES, it would! Fucking duh.

Couch your hosts on how to stay away from 'controversial' subjects (in so many words), and you could say whatever you please.

If not, then you throw up a 30 minute editorial at 3am, and the fairness doctrine obligation would have been fulfilled.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

72. Even a late-night

editorial would be a nice change.

That means to me that the Fairness Doctrine wasn't well-defined and applied. Using my analogy again, I certainly hope that you're not arguing, "Our legal system allowed a defense in the past, but it was after the jurors all went home! It didn't work, so it can't be solved by requiring defense attorneys!"

I will look into the matter further without dealing with your rudeness. Perhaps I will come to agree with you, but you didn't do yourself any favors for now with your attitude.

[X_Digger]

74. It didn't work before, so let's do it again; but this time with feeling! n/t

[Buckeye_Democrat]

80. Quid facis nt

[ZX86]

26. Hiring reasons of radio stations is irrelevant.

The issue is a private company could not use the public airwaves without restriction. This is one of the main responsibilities of ownership. Overseeing operations and enforcing restrictions.

[X_Digger]

28. Goodness, who knew that the fairness doctrine disappearing meant broadcast 'without restriction'!??!

Why that whole FCC must have nothing to do now that the fairness doctrine disappeared.

[ZX86]

40. What's your point?

The FCC should have eliminated with the Fairness Doctrine? The FCC's only job was to enforce the Fairness Doctrine? Something else?

[X_Digger]

44. The stated goal of the fairness doctrine is diversity of viewpoint.

When the sources of information were limited, it was a fair concern that diversity could be stifled.

Now? With cable, newsgroups, podcasts, youtube, twitter, news sites, vlogs, blogs, vimeo.. there's no lack of diversity.

No, what you want is something that never actually existed.

[ZX86]

49. You're missing the point.

The issue was ownership of the airwaves. Full stop. The public airwaves are a public owned resource that should be operated in the public interest. Just like a national park.

You wouldn't sell Yellowstone to Six Flags because Disneyland is so popular.

[X_Digger]

54. You mean operated like you imagine they were ran 30 years ago.

Free clue: it didn't work the way you think it did, and it's a silly unconstitutional idea to try to make it so.

[ZX86]

65. What are you talking about?

You're making a straw man argument and not even identifying what the straw man is.

[Jim Beard]

43. It was called "EQUAL TIME".

[X_Digger]

46. Equal time is about selling TV / radio time, not equal viewpoints.

The fairness doctrine had nothing to do with equal time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

[Festivito]

9. Excellent. They absolutism of denial/approval of air use does not work. Too harsh, so not effected.

For each verified report of non-compliance, fines should increase until denial of air finally ends broadcasting for a company that refuses to comply with our democracy that allows them to use our airwaves in the first place.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. Our airwaves

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. NO. Climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxers, birthers, and 'truthers' do NOT deserve 15% time. nt

[ZX86]

16. What part of responsible parties scares you?

Fringe weirdos do not qualify as responsible parties. Responsible parties within a community deserve to have their voices heard even if they're stupid. If I have a news organization and declare the earth is round I'm really not worried about what some crank flat earther thinks.

[X_Digger]

18. Oh, so YOU get to decide what makes one 'responsible'? Lolno. n/t

[Rex]

23. No the FCC would, but you knew that already. nt

nt

[X_Digger]

27. The government deciding which speech is 'deserving' to be represented? Riiiight.

Please, do some reading on government's determination of speech. Keyword 'content neutral'.

Idiotic on it's face.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. FCC, being an arm of the government, would be a violation of the First Amendment. Duh. . . nt

[ZX86]

130. Can private vendors sell Confederate flags

in National Parks without restrictions? No!

The public airwaves are like national parks. We own them and can do anything we want to with them. That's the way ownership works.

[ZX86]

29. Yes. These determinations are made all the time.

You think determining a responsible citizen is some herculan task that cannot be performed by mere mortals?

[X_Digger]

33. I think when you ask the government to make decisions about the content of speech..

.. you get into dangerous, unconstitutional territory.

And what criteria makes one a 'responsible citizen' that would, at the same time, keep anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, or creationists from demanding equal time?

[ZX86]

45. Government makes decisions on the content of speech all the time.

Why do you act like this is something strange or unusual? They issue press passes, parade permits, arrest you for violent threats or inciting a riot. This is routine business that happens every day.

Also what part of 15% dedicated to rebuttals by responsible parties morph into 50% equal time for fringe loonies?

[X_Digger]

47. Actually, no, it doesn't. Regulation of speech must be content-neutral.

Press passes are content neutral. This admin doesn't deny passes to RT because they're out of favor.

Parade permits are content neutral. The government can't deny the KKK a permit because they don't like their speech.

Inciting a riot is not protected speech, therefore it doesn't fall under the first amendment. The same with a violent threat.

I think you need to research more.

[ZX86]

50. I think you need to enter the reality based community.

The government denies press passes everyday. Just as they do parade and rally permits. But this is a side issue. What horror do you see happening if tax exempt status is given to news organizations that devote 15% to peer and public review?

The blood drinking emo vampire group wouldn't get their allotted time on TV?

[X_Digger]

55. In a content neutral fashion. Fucking duh.

They don't deny a parade permit based on the CONTENT of the speech being exclaimed.



What you're proposing? Is NOT content neutral. Derp.

[ZX86]

60. What's your point?

The government wouldn't be determining anything. The news organization would devote 15% rebuttal time/space to responsible parties. Simple.

[X_Digger]

64. Can't keep up with your own replies? Determining 'responsible people' is not content neutral.

Recall, we're discussing how to avoid having every chemtrail moron, young earther, anti-vaxxer, climate change denier-- how to keep those fucking idiots from trying to claim time under your 'doctrine 2.0'-- you asserted that the government can make the determination that such weren't 'responsible people'. Doing such would not be content neutral.

Do keep up, yes?

[ZX86]

71. Again. The media outlet would determine

who is a responsible spokesperson. Not the government. Where are you getting the idea government would determine content?

[X_Digger]

73. "Government makes decisions on the content of speech all the time." -- did someone ninja your kb?

So by letting, say, Faux News, determine who's a 'responsible spokesperson', you've negated your statement:

Fringe weirdos do not qualify as responsible parties.

Lol.

[ZX86]

77. No. It's both.

Media outlets would determine responsible parties and government makes determination of speech all the time. Try exercising your freedom of speech in a court room for example.

[X_Digger]

79. Government does not (constitutionally) make non-content-neutral determinations, no. Derp. n/t

[ZX86]

81. Yes they do. All the time.

Just like they determine what a legitimate church is. Your understanding of how government functions is on a level of one of those sovereign citizens. Please cite some actual court cases instead imaginary clauses in your pocket Constitution.

[X_Digger]

83. Oh for fuck's sake. Ladue v. Gilleo, Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, etc.

Here, let me do your research for you-

http://digitalcommons.mcgeorge.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=facultyarticles

[ZX86]

88. What does those cases have to do with Fairness Doctrine?

I'll tell you. Nothing. That's about yard signs and tent cities. You're going to have to isolate some specific issue, rule, or opinion. Saying the Fairness Doctrine won't work because "free speech" is just vague and overly broad.

[X_Digger]

99. Get a lawyer friend to explain it to you. Content neutral regulation of speech is permissible.

When the government takes a non-neutral stance, the regulation falls under strict scrutiny, and that's almost always fatal for the regulation.

[ZX86]

110. First of all

The program is voluntary. Secondly it doesn't regulate speech, it allows for review and rebuttal. The cases you cite have nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine or broadcasting which has unique issues such as public ownership and limited bandwidth.

[X_Digger]

136. That is regulation of speech. A "voluntary" program with a carrot is a too-cute-by-half attempt..

.. by someone who has a tenuous grasp on constitutional law.

[ZX86]

139. Can you sell a Confederate flag in a national park?

No, you can't. That speech is regulated.

One of the biggest success of the right wing is to have liberals accept their racist hate speech as the norm.

[X_Digger]

143. I think you need to research more and post less.

What the fuck makes you think that I can't take a flag of any kind and sell it in a national park?? And that would be regulating commerce, not speech, if such a rule actually did exist.

If park rangers said you couldn't fly a particular flag, that would be a non-neutral content decision, and would be an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of expression.

I have to wonder if you aren't some kind of performance artist.

[ZX86]

145. Here's a clue. Start a collection.

the House banned the selling of the flag in all stores on federal lands operated by the National Park Service and prohibited its display on graves in federal cemeteries.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/07/08/house-votes-ban-confederate-flag-national-parks-cemeteries/

[X_Digger]

146. The house also tried to repeal obamacare. That doesn't make it constitutional. Derp.

What, because the house voted on something, it must be right? Funny, I don't think you'd agree with H.R. 75: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations, or H.R. 25: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. Scary? Cool? Scary-cool?

Lolno.

[ZX86]

147. So can vendors sell Confederate Flags unrestricted in National Parks?

That would be a no.

[X_Digger]

150. What vendors *choose* to sell has fuck all to do with SPEECH.

I swear to god, you seem to google something, misinterpret it, then repeat it ad nauseum like a parrot on crack.

The Department of the Interior asked contracted vendors to *voluntarily* remove items bearing the confederate flag from gift shops. That's it.

Nothing stops you or me from flying or selling any damned flag we want to each other in a federal park.

You want to explain to me how voluntarily asking vendors to not sell an item in gift shops has the fuck to do with speech?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/confederate-flag-national-park-service-sales/

The National Park Service on Wednesday asked its bookstore and gift shop vendors to remove standalone Confederate flag items from their shelves -- a move one of their biggest merchants agreed to make.

See that? Asked? Agreed? It didn't TELL them, there's no RESTRICTION on selling (as if selling a flag had fuck-all to do with speech.)

*shaking my head*

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Please do not place fear on me or play the "have you stopped beating your wife" gambit.

If the issue is, say, Evolution, then there are NO responsible parties on the anti-side, but a 15% requirement like you propose would mean that creationists would be given 15% because the vacuum must be filled under your idea.

NO.

Who decides what a "responsible party" is?
Is the decider responsible?
How do you apply your idea to a site like DU? Force DU to give Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter 15%? Force Ann Coulter to give 15% to DailyKos?

The further down the rabbit hole you go trying to fix up such details like that then the more complicated your scheme gets.

No. Don't go there.

The best quick fix is not a new unicorn / old leprechaun "fairness doctrine" but more speech, not less.

[font size="+1"]The real solution to the media madness is one that is hated by people looking for a simplistic quick fix because it is not quick and it is foundational: Make a first class educational system that helps all speeds of learners and emphasizes critical thinking and analysis.[/font]

People (as a mass) get the (mass) media they get because (as a mass) they like it.

The internet opens up options for everybody but nothing forces a FReak to read the New York Times or forces a Bernie supporter to read Glenn Beck.

These days there is a lot less mass media and a lot more media.

[ZX86]

51. You're missing something here.

The program would be voluntary. Nobody has to participate just like nobody company has to operate as a church. If you want tax exempt status, devote 15% of your content to rebuttal. If you don't want to that you don't have to.

Simple.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

53. "Simple" -- When you say that it is clear that it is you who are missing something.

Do some research on the history of the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rule. People with recycled ideas like yours often confuse those too, as your "simple" idea does.

Simplistic ideas like yours never stay simple but become complex Rube-Goldberg devices with multitudes of moving parts because they do not proceed from a deep understanding of the issues.

I was fully aware of the voluntary aspect of your "simple" idea. All my critical analysis applies. But of course you can't be bothered to address any of the points I made because you are so self-impressed with how "simple" your idea is.

It is simple.

[ZX86]

85. Your critical analysis confuses the point of a Fairness Doctrine.

While I disagree with creationists a member of the Catholic Church would be a responsible party eligible to present a rebuttal to evolution. It would be filled with nonsense but the Fairness Doctrine is not designed to be a safe space for reality based progressives. It's there to promote the diversity of opinion on public policy issues.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

87. You really don't have a clue. The Catholic church accepts Evolution! Hahaha :D

Your "responsible party" idea is nuts.

Right wing broadcasters would put a right wing spokesperson on as the "responsible party" for the 15% and then claim the tax break. After all, you have been saying the FCC would not be involved (unlike Rex upthread who thinks the FCC controls every aspect of every media) and that the broadcaster would decide who is "responsible".

So in your own example you would have a group advocating Evolution as a theory and the rebuttal 15% from a group that accepts Evolution as a theory. Exactly how it would work out in practice and just one of many ways your proposal sinks below the water.

[ZX86]

90. No. Fox News could not reject responsible parties

and get the tax exemption just like you can't start a sex church and get tax exempt status or claim to be a sovereign and skip out on your taxes.

The idea that government agencies can't make common sense determinations on routine matters of public policy is right out of the right wing playbook. I'm surprised to see it promoted here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

92. DROP the accusation that I am Right Wing. Stop it Now. You want your cake & eat it too.

First, upthread, you say that the government would not be involved and then you say they would have to be the ones to make "common sense determinations".

On DU you do not get to accuse members of promoting Right Wing policies just because they disagree with you and just because you attempt to stuff words into their mouths that they never said. You wrote:

No. Fox News could not reject responsible parties

View profile
and get the tax exemption just like you can't start a sex church and get tax exempt status or claim to be a sovereign and skip out on your taxes.

The idea that government agencies can't make common sense determinations on routine matters of public policy is right out of the right wing playbook. I'm surprised to see it promoted here.

1) Reality is NOT part of the "right wing playbook".

2) The concept of "common sense determinations" is incredibly naive. Any determination of the application of public policy, especially on highly contentious political issues, is going to be examined with a microscope and litigated intensely. It is naive to think that everyone has common sense.

3) I did NOT say that government agencies can't make determinations on matters of public policy. Do NOT attempt to stuff words in my mouth.

4) Giving or denying tax free exemptions is NOT "routine".

5) Government agencies giving or denying corporate / billionaire breaks that involve speech automatically invokes the First Amendment. That is NOT "routine".

[ZX86]

95. The idea that government can't solve problems

is right out of the right wing playbook.

And quite frankly the excuses for not liking the proposal is just silly. It reminds of those promoting voter id. Creating wild scenarios that don't exist to justify a position that makes no sense.

Free speech will be crushed because a voluntary program requires that participants to include responsible citizens from the community. "Oh my God! That could never happen! How could anyone ever, ever, ever determine what a responsible citizen is? We'll be pulled into a vortex of fascist demagoguery because someone was asked to separate concerned citizens from people who hear voices in their head".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

96. That's not my idea or my thesis or my statement. Stop.

[anoNY42]

104. But

"No. Fox News could not reject responsible parties"

But you said above that the media outlet would determine who is a responsible party, not the government.

Which is it?

[ZX86]

111. As with everything

The government will make any and all final decisions if taken to court but the media companies would determine responsible parties. That doesn't mean they get to redefine what a responsible party is however. If they want to allow a solitary citizen respond that would be fine. They couldn't reject an ACLU though.

[anoNY42]

112. I still don't get it

So the court would be tasked with deciding whether the "solitary citizen" actually believed in the arguments he was making?

I would prefer that this mind-reading not be carried out by any branches of government.

The current system we have is better, Fox news can have anyone of any political stripe on their shows, and the Washington Post can then write an article about how wrong the Fox news show was on a given issue.

[ZX86]

115. Yeah? So?

Why are you so afraid of some court case, over a voluntary program? I'm sure some nutcase will bring a lawsuit eventually claiming some media outlet wouldn't let the representative from the Man/Horse Love Association appear to make a rebuttal to some story they broadcast. So what?

Not everyone will get to appear on some show. That is not discrimination. That is not the squashing of free speech. As long as the the media outlet is making a good faith effort to have the community's opinions reflected that's all that's needed or expected. Which is the entire point of the program.

This in so many ways mirrors the gun control debate. Many will say if you can't stop all gun violence we shouldn't have any gun laws at all. On this issue people claim that if we can't have all views represented (no matter how nutty) we shouldn't have any views represented.

[anoNY42]

117. I would be more worried if it were not voluntary, sure

but I also do not want to give Fox news and other large media firms a complete tax break in exchange for some token liberal viewpoints.

[ZX86]

120. Not liberal viewpoints.

Reviews and rebuttals. Fox News would not control the content of the rebuttals. To be honest I seriously doubt Fox News would participate in the program. The idea that Glenn Greenwald types taking down your network on a regular basis would not be appealing.

[TipTok]

151. You are all over the place...

I don't think you understand how laws work...

At all....

[harrose]

24. I think the entire Rethug party...

... is in the same camp as climate-deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers and truthers. I'm all for banning them from the airwaves.

[ZX86]

31. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Don't worry. They can't win a fair fight.

[MichMan]

39. I thought corporations needed to pay their fair share?

So with our party opposed to tax breaks for corporations and expecting everyone to pay their fair share, why would you think letting broadcasting corporations pay zero tax would somehow resonate with the public

[ZX86]

56. I think you're missing something here.

This is about tax exempt status for news organizations. Not broadcasting corporations. Just like tax exempt status is for churches and not for real estate developers.

[X_Digger]

70. I think you're missing something here.

News organizations are broadcasting corporations.

[ZX86]

76. Really?

The Young Turks is a broadcasting corporation? Red State is a broadcasting corporation?

While some media corporations have news divisions to qualify for tax exempt status, it would be only the news division. Not your media empire. It would open your broadcast operation to the ACLU, Greenpeace, Occupy Wall Street, Concerned Scientists, Doctor's Without Borders, etc. to review and rebut your broadcasts everyday.

[X_Digger]

78. There is a corporation behind YT, yes. The Young Turks LLC.

https://tytnetwork.com/privacy-policy-terms-and-conditions/

Welcome to the TYT Network website (“Site”) which is owned by The Young Turks LLC. This Site is operated by The Young Turks, LLC and materials on the Site are owned, for the most part, by The Young Turks, LLC.

Red State is owned by the Salem Communications Corporation.
http://media.townhall.com/townhall/privacypolicy/privacypolicy.htm

[ZX86]

91. Anyone can incorporate their lawn cutting business or lemon stand.

Last edited Mon Aug 1, 2016, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Trust me. Cenk is not crossing the country in his corporate paid Gulf Wing.

[X_Digger]

98. So your distinction between 'broadcast corporation' and 'news organization' is meaningless.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Exilednight]

101. The only change I would make is that the 15% must be between

The 4pm eastern and 9 pm eastern.

If not, they could bury it to the overnight hours when no one is watching.

[anoNY42]

102. No

"The solution is surprisingly simple. Just treat the news media like churches. Completely tax free with one provision. To qualify for tax exempt status you must devote 15% of your airtime/page space to opposing views from responsible parties. "

This is funny. Churches are non-profit. How many for-profit news media companies do you think are going to switch to non-profit status in order to avoid taxes? Do you think Rupert Murdoch will try to save a little in taxes by completely forgoing profits?

Oh, you say, we will not actually treat media companies like churches, and they can be completely tax free and still be for-profit entities? I predict several new liberal shows on Fox airing, oh, around 1am or so...

[ZX86]

107. You're misunderstanding.

Fairness Doctrine would not dictate programming. Whether your're programming is liberal or conservative responsible parties could review and rebut the program in the time slot of the original program.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

106. I'm not interested

in having the government decide who is responsible enough to present opinions in the media.

[ZX86]

113. The government is us.

You act like the government is some outside force responsible to no one. The way it stands now only corporations "decide who is responsible enough to present opinions in the media".

I don't think that's a good thing. I remember the run up to the Iraq War. There was not one anti-war voice on the public airwaves. It was shameful.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

114. We elect the government

but the government definitely isn't us. You or I wouldn't be making those decisions, it would be a government employee, most likely not appointed, that would decide.

No, I'm not in favor of that.

[ZX86]

116. What are you talking about?

What government employee? What decision?

This would be a voluntary program. Nobody is forced to do anything. Worst case scenario is some person wouldn't be able to review or rebut on a certain media outlet. Which is the way it is right now.

The idea that the country would face some free speech, Constitutional crisis, if a voluntary Fairness Doctrine doesn't allow for every nutcase that thinks dogs should vote, on the air is just silly.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

118. Hmmm....

Yes, it's voluntary, but for those outlets that choose to participate, someone will still have to decide what constitutes "responsible" when it comes to providing alternative commentary. You've said that the government should be that someone...are you now changing your stance?

[ZX86]

121. "Responsible" is a word that has meaning.

You couldn't turn down, ACLU, Greenpeace, Doctors Without Borders, etc. If a media outlet failed to comply they would simply lose their tax exempt status and operate as they do now.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

123. Yes, responsible is a word that has meaning

And you've provided an example list of responsible groups.

Media outlets would have to choose from a list of "responsible" groups, got it.

So, who decides who is on that list?

[ZX86]

125. There's no list.

People and groups would apply to review or rebut and the media outlet would select as many respondents as time would allow.

I'm fascinated with all the concern over who decides. For the 25+ years corporate interests decided exclusively. Y'know, drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh and predatory sex perverts like Roger Ailes. It's long past time for ordinary citizens and community organizations get thrown a few crumbs.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

127. As many respondents as time would allow?

But you specified that they would have to be responsible respondents.

So, who decides what constitutes responsible?

Having responsible respondents is crucial to your plan, so why do you hesitate to say who will make the decision?

[ZX86]

129. Why is this one tiny aspect of such concern to you?

Right now drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh and predatory sex perverts like Roger Ailes are making those decisions. Exclusively.

I don't know where you get the idea there will be some master list of respondents drawn up in some dark secret place. Every week you get list of people or organizations that want to respond to the previous week's broadcast. Representatives of civic groups and experts in the topic being discussed would get priority with set asides for ordinary citizens as well.

It's not rocket science.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

132. Because it's not a tiny aspect

Who will make the decision about what constitutes "responsible" is foundational to your entire plan.

[ZX86]

133. Who's making it now?

Racists, drug addicts, and predatory sex perverts. That's who!

Being a person of color I really don't have the luxury to sit around ponder a bunch of "what if questions'". For the last 25+ years my AM radio has spewed nothing but a bunch of racist dog whistles 24/7 with no opposing opinions. Let me remind you, I'm a tax paying citizen. Those are public airwaves. I'm paying to be insulted every time I turn on my radio.

I wish your concerns about the word "responsible" applied to the current custodians of the public airwaves as much as it does for the ones you imagine in the future. Because right now these custodians are straight up racists. You know it and I know it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

134. Yep, they are

And they still have the right to free speech.

[ZX86]

138. So racists have the right to free speech

But the tax paying public which owns the rights to the airwaves do not? Corporations enjoy Constitution rights that actual people do not?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

140. Citizens have the same rights to free speech

But no one has the right to be on the radio or on TV.

[ZX86]

142. So the right to be on the public owned airwaves

belongs to corporations? No matter how racist the hate speech?

[Act_of_Reparation]

119. Yes, and "us" is reliably stupid.

"Us" has made pretty horrible decisions over the years. I don't trust "us", and neither should you.

[ZX86]

122. So the alternative is to let

predatory sex perverts like Roger Ailes decide? That's your plan?

[Act_of_Reparation]

124. I am having trouble discerning...

...the qualitative difference between one incompetent making these decisions and 350 million incompetents making these decisions. At least a system independent of majority consensus would allow competents, however few, to override the fickle whims of the impassioned mob.

[ZX86]

126. Impassioned mob?

Is that how you characterize concerned citizens and community groups? I think ordinary citizens involving themselves in issues that affect their families and community is a good thing. Not something that should be disparaged.

[Act_of_Reparation]

131. Damn right.

Ordinary citizens involving themselves in issues that affect their families and communities is a good thing insofar as those getting involved know what the fuck they're talking about. What happens when they don't?

[karmaqueen]

108. We definitely need something!

I listen to talk all the time so I know what hate they are promoting that day. 24/7 hatred and lies cannot be good for a society. This sort of hatred is what is causing the adoration of guns and hatred of anyone who is not one of them. Right out lies should not be able to go unchecked.

[ZX86]

128. I live in the southwest.

You turn on the AM dial and all you hear is "Obama is a Muslim", "BLM is the new KKK", "Nancy Pelosi is ugly", "Hilliary is a crook", and being this is the southwest, Mexicans are responsible for everything, from bad schools to rape and murder.

As a tax paying person of color I find this highly offensive. Something does need to be done. The idea that my tax dollars are subsidizing racist hate speech against myself and my neighbors I find insulting.

[karmaqueen]

144. Agree,I hope we can win and stop some of the hate. (eom)

[Throd]

135. What a horrible (and unworkable) premise.

With a little authoritarianism to boot.

[Dr. Strange]

137. A "little" authoritarianism?

[ZX86]

141. What's authorian about a voluntary program?

Unfettered racist hate speech may be okay with you. Not with me.

[Throd]

148. Volunteer or be punished isn't authoritarian?

[ZX86]

149. Paying your taxes is not punishment.

That's a right wing trope.

[Igel]

153. That's why Obamacare has a penalty.

Get insurance, don't pay it. It was billed as a penalty, it was sold as a penalty. It was intended to be a punishment to drive people to get insurance.

But it turns out Congress didn't read their pocket Constitutions, because there's no permission for Congress to impose a penalty. It can impose tariffs, it can impose fees for services, it can impose taxes. So that penalty turns out to be retconned as a tax that kicks in only if you fail to meet the requirements.

So that's a tax that was intended as a penalty.

But paying your taxes isn't punishment. Next April, be sure to not take your deductions and revel in the blessing of paying more than you need to.

[TipTok]

152. Wow...

What a train wreck this turned out to be.

[Dustlawyer]

154. I would add busting up the media oligarchy.

Six companies control 95% of our media making deals to air the RW hate on all their stations. Once busted up local ownership would start to diversify radio and TV content.