Is it true that Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?

[jasmine621]

Link, please.

[NYCGirl]

1. Yes, because it does not address the more serious problems like media

consolidation. (And, BTW, it does not effect cable, the net, and other new media.) The Fairness Doctrine is, IMO, severely outdated.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

[marlonm81]

4. Did anyone here make that argument BEFORE Obama said it?

I'm new here. Were members making the same argument against the Fairness Doctrine before Obama's recent statements? Or was the Fairness Doctrine popular?

[Occam Bandage]

8. I've never been in favor of bringing the fairness doctrine back so long as

other major problems exist. It's comparatively trivial.

[Bjorn Against]

24. I have always had mixed feelings on the fairness doctrine...

While in the current media environment the fairness doctrine would help us bring truth to the airwaves, the truth is that if we broke up the media conglomerates we would not need a fairness doctrine because we would have so much more diversity in the voices that we hear.

The fairness doctrine would be a band-aid that would help cover a small part of a gaping wound in our current system, but I have thought for some time that it would be better to break up the conglomerates and give the airwaves back to the people who own them.

[Occam Bandage]

25. And that's exactly the issue. It seems that so many of us are still of the opinion that the

band-aid is all we could ever hope to get. Obama isn't in favor of the band-aid, no--he's in favor of disinfecting and suturing the wound. The band-aid of Fairness Doctrine is a plan that is both inferior and redundant (as it does nothing about the source of the problem), and yet is one that would be very difficult to sell politically; the suture of breaking up consolidation is a far easier sell in addition to being a real long-term fix.

I don't really mind people shooting low. It's very frustrating when people shoot low, see that Obama isn't shooting low, and then complain that Obama isn't even shooting at all.

[QC]

33. It was an extremely popular idea here until just a few days ago,

when it suddenly became a bunch of shit. Interesting timing, eh?

[Bjorn Against]

37. FISA is still pretty popular here despite Obama's support of the so-called "compromise"

Most of us are willing to criticize Obama when we think he is taking the wrong position, but I really think that the fairness doctrine is a band-aid that does not address the real problem. The real problem is that a small handful of media conglomerates control virtually all of the media outlets, and the fairness doctrine will not change that. I would rather attack the disease than focus on just one symptom of that disease, that is why I don't get enthused about the fairness doctrine because it does not address the real issue. If we want to get serious about democratizing our media we need to break up the conglomerates, and we don't need the fairness doctrine to do that.

[wyldwolf]

40. if they did, I've never seen it. I'd like to see a DU link pre-Obama.

[Catchawave]

6. Isn't it a progressive issue to bring it back ?

...snip...

Bringing back fairness?

For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

According to TV Week (11/30/04), a coalition of broadcast giants is currently pondering a legal assault on the Supreme Court’s Red Lion decision. “Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners—NBC Universal, News Corp. and Viacom—made clear that they are seriously considering an attack on Red Lion as part of an industry challenge to an appellate court decision scrapping FCC media ownership deregulation earlier this year.”

Considering the many looming problems facing media democracy advocates, Extra! asked MAP’s Schwartzman why activists should still be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine.

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

....snip...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[Occam Bandage]

9. Sure. It's very progressive to say, "Once we get consolidation under control, bring back

the fairness doctrine."

It is not progressive to say, "omg there's no point in voting for Obama, he isn't taking the Kucinich approach to progressivism."

[Catchawave]

10. Who said that ?

It's an issue, can we discuss it, and maybe educate ourselves here?

My understanding about wanting to bring the doctrine back, is to stop letting lying bloviators like Hannity and Limbaugh spew unchecked. I linked to an article by FAIR, probably more updated ones available.

[Occam Bandage]

11. There's a thread with 160 replies right now saying that. Anyway,

yeah, it would be great to bring Fairness back--but that isn't the issue at the moment. A bigger, more-insidious problem is that of media consolidation, in which one corporation buys up all the media outlets in a market, and then can dictate the spin and content of every bit of information that reaches the ears and eyes of their new subjects. Unless you get a handle on that, the fairness doctrine is all but worthless.

[Demit]

12. I agree with your plaint: "It's an issue, can we discuss it...?"

Unfortunately there is a school of thought here that anyone seeming to question Barack Obama's policies is undermining his candidacy. And that, furthermore, they're doing it on purpose. I wish they'd understand that if they agree with Obama, and their arguments in favor of his policies are strong ones, discussion will help cement people's support of the Democratic candidate. I wish they'd understand that ridiculing people for posing questions looks very much like fear that the candidate's ideas aren't strong enough to withstand scrutiny. That's a mistake, I think.

[Occam Bandage]

13. His ideas are certainly strong enough. If only people discussed his ideas,

instead of simply declaring that he does not support their specific pet idea and then leaving the thread.

[Demit]

15. If only people discussed his ideas instead of repeatedly posting only to ridicule others.

Follow your own advice, why don't you.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Yeah, gee, it's not like I've done that

in this very sub-thread.

If you discuss his actual ideas, then yeah, I'm game for a full discussion. I'll be game to write entire pages. But if you're just pulling a one-hit concern seagull, I'm not going to waste fifteen minutes.

[Cha]

14. It's not the questioning that's against the rules..

it's the purity/concern trolls who didn't mind Anything their primary candidate Did but now want Obama to walk the straight and narrow or he gets tossed aside for mccain or just whined on incessently because their candidate didn't win.

And, there is a big difference and they're not fooling anyone who's been paying attention on this board for the last year.

[Demit]

17. ANYBODY who posts a question, like the OP did, gets jumped on for their possible motives.

Just like in this thread. If someone voices worry over Obama's change of heart on FISA, their idea that principles matter is ridiculed as 'purity'. As if having principles when it is hard to is a BAD thing. Or they are called trolls, as you just did, lumping everyone together by a snide suggestion that they all must have been Clinton supporters. It's dishonest. It's also a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't say much about your confidence in Obama's ideas. Oh yeah, I've been paying attention all right. This is a very unlikeable strain of thinking running through this board recently. It's very authoritarian, very bullying, very Republican.

[Occam Bandage]

18. And anyone who thinks there's more to an issue than whether he voted like DK would have

gets called a Republican bully. Again: if you want to discuss his ideas, great. Discuss them. If you just want to say "Obama isn't pure!" and then retreat back into the darkness, well, it gets tiresome. I've seen at least ten one- or two-line threads in the past 24 hours (this included) on FISA/Fairness in which the OP simply declares/"asks whether" Obama is impure on an issue, and then leaves the thread entirely. Do you really think they actually wanted to discuss the issue at hand?

[Demit]

22. You are repeating yourself. You are chasing me around this thread merely to say the same thing.

Your posts would have more substance if you backed up that made-up trope with links to the miscreants here who supposedly said 'Obama isn't pure'.

[Occam Bandage]

23. Because you continue to declare that we're not interested in discussing Obama's ideas, while

steadfastly refusing to actually discuss any of Obama's ideas. Again, you want to discuss Obama's ideas? Nobody's stopping you. Tell us what Obama is in favor of doing on an issue, tell us why he's in favor of that, and tell us why his arguments are flawed and that his is the wrong way to go about doing it.

[Cha]

19. You read my post ..you

know the difference and so do I.

[Two Americas]

28. who defines that?

Who makes the decision as to who ia a "concern troll" - and now this new one "purity troll?"

By this new definition of "purity" Kucinich supporters, for example, would not be allowed to express their views - the same views they have been expressing all along - without being attacked and accused of being trolls.

I don't see any "whining." How do you know that people are motivated to post what they post "because their candidate didn't win?" Are Kucinich supporters, again, supposed to stop saying the same things they were saying before because their candidate lost? That is not what a primary is a referendum on - which opinions can and cannot be expressed within the party.

[bunnies]

42. When the people posting the questions are...

know anti-Obama posters... it causes people to question their motives. A mistake? I think not.

[MoonRiver]

20. No. This cannot be discussed. Furthermore, don't you understand,

resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated.

[Occam Bandage]

21. *shrug* so discuss it. I honestly haven't seen anyone try to explain why

Obama's position on media consolidation is incorrect.

[rodeodance]

30. ah, star trek. I love to watch the re-runs. The borg episodes were great.

[MoonRiver]

35. Yes.

And who knew it was so prophetic! :hi: rodeodance!

[ananda]

2. "least of our concerns"

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AustinHill/2008/06/29/the_fairness_doctrine_is_the_least_of_our_concerns

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9711637

[rox63]

3. Until media consolidation is under control, the fairness doctrine won't make a difference

The media must first go back to serving the people instead of just serving the corporations.

[ashling]

26. But that's sort of the point

to having a fairness doctrine in the first place.

[rox63]

38. But it won't be enforceable until the media monopolies are broken up

The media is no longer about informing the public. It's about making money off misinforming them. For the fairness doctrine to have a chance of changing that, the media has to be about information once again.

[babylonsister]

5. Nice framing; looking for a fight? Nah, not you. nt

[Occam Bandage]

7. Yes. It's surprising how many 'progressives' cling to the issues of decades past, and

ignore the actual problems of today. Media consolidation is the biggest threat to free speech right now.

[Forkboy]

27. Like you couldn't have found this out in two seconds on Google.

Not too obvious or anything. :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

29. Yes, but so what.

Fairness doctrine disappeared two decades ago, and it's now really irrelevant since most television is transmitted over privately-owned cable lines instead of the public airwaves

[PM7nj]

31. Yes, thank god.

[scheming daemons]

32. Yes, it is true.... and BRAVO for Obama.... he's on the correct side...

Let our ideas win in the marketplace.... forcing ideas to be heard is as unAmerican as it gets.



If our ideas are better than the Republicans', then they'll get heard.

[anonymous171]

34. He considers it a distraction from the true problem: Media Consolidation.

As do I.

[LWolf]

36. I disagree.

An updated fairness doctrine would be an important piece of the solution, not a distraction.

I agree that media consolidation must be addressed, of course, and that cable, etc., needs to be included.

[jasmine621]

39. So why can't consolidation be addressed in an updated fairness law?

Simply saying I am against it makes a lot of people turn away from all the issues surrounding the media.

[LWolf]

41. That's what I was thinking.

We need an UPDATED fairness doctrine that would address all those concerns. Or at least address some, if consolidation doesn't work in that context.

Do we also need updated, stricter, more comprehensive anti-trust laws?

[ClassWarrior]

43. I haven't supported the FD since FreePress and Center for American Politics...

...released this report:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

If I trust anyone about the media, I trust these two Progressive organizations.

NGU.

[dionysus]

44. OMG OHNOZ!!!11!!!!!