Will President Obama help re-enact the Fairness Doctrine and force Fox Noise

[thoughtcrime1984]

to comply or shut down? I sure hope so, they are nothing but a hateful mouthpiece for Republicans and the naive/stupid, and rich.

[YOY]

1. It would be another nail in the Neocon coffin.

A WELL NEEDED one at that.

The other networks wouldn't have to compete with them anymore...that's a good sign.

[anonymous171]

2. Media consolidation is the real problem.

Also, fairness doctrine isn't all it's cracked up to be. One could argue that Hannity and Colmes complies with the fairness doctrine.

[rocktivity]

7. Yes, deconsidilation, like re-regulation, is the answer.

All Obama has to do is call for public hearings about how to make the public airwaves more public and level the playing field. That would make the MSM nervous enough to start policing themselves.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Overseas]

26. I hope media deconsolidation is on the Obama agenda.

But I can certainly understand not making a big deal about it right now. It is hard enough to fight through the right wing spin as it is.

[Unsane]

3. I've read the fairness doctrine doesn't apply to cable networks.

[FrenchieCat]

5. It doesn't. But something else that will be relevant to cable

I'm sure will be worked out.

But we need to wisper it.....as the media still, by large, control our elections.....in term of swaying opinion.

[onenote]

4. He might push for the FD to be re-applied to broadcasting

But its exceedingly unlikely that it would be extended to non-broadcast cable networks and, if it was, it is exceedingly likely that it would be struck down on first amendment grounds.

[TrogL]

6. The Fairness Doctrine never worked (at least in Buffalo)

I used to watch Buffalo TV news (from Canada). They would get a conservative commentator on to make his point, then introduce for "counterpoint" some complete idiot babbling nonsense who was clearly a Republican plant.

[anonymous171]

12. It would be like Hannity and Colmes.

[Marsala]

28. I'd settle for that if it would shut Rush up

Or make him take on a Colmesesque sidekick.

[izquierdista]

8. How about a Truthiness Doctrine?

Such as requiring factual inaccuracies to be corrected, and multiple corrections be broadcast free of charge to clarify the 'mistake'. Just being able to have right-wingers have to swallow their lies will shut down a good part of their game plan. Misinformation is one leg of their three-legged stool, and sawing it off would upset them greatly.

[onenote]

11. how about letting the First Amendment work

The last thing we need is a government run "truth police" telling broadcasters (or,for that matter, newspapers) what to say.

RW'ers would harass every station in America over every statement they make.

[izquierdista]

15. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre ok too?

A civilized society should not have to put up with either type of lie, a false "fire!" or falsifiable facts. If a station is unwilling to correct what they have aired, they are not worthy of having a broadcast license. Maybe you should go back and see how the Fairness Doctrine worked, I thought it worked pretty well.

[onenote]

21. nice non sequitur

We have slander and libel laws now. If someone thinks that they've been defamed by a false statement they can sue. I sure as hell don't want the government sitting in judgment of every statement made by a radio station, tv broadcaster, or newspaper. It would be ridiculous. What is a statement of fact. What is opinion. WOuld it cover statements made on shows broadcast? Would every statement in a Michael Moore movie be subject to vetting for its absolute "truthiness"? When is hyperbole and exagerrration a "lie" and when is it not?

As for your other comment, with 30 years experience as a communications lawyer appearing before the FCC, I have some familiarity with the Fairness Doctrine. And, no, it didn't work all that well.

[raebrek]

14. I'd settle for that in campaign adds. n/t

[pretzel4gore]

9. vandalising truth...

your question is remarkable in that: shouldn't thousands of the noosemedia lying liars go to jail? Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg, and he did nothing Foxnews/cnn etc don't do everyday- turn people into animals by getting them mad as hell (in both cases, the rage was aimed at liberalism, with Streicher attacking the Jewish people precisely for their socialist opinions etc, while fuxcnn etc now promote white racism, nudgewink of course)

[thoughtcrime1984]

17. I'm all for punishing these liars, absolutely.

Sarah Palin needs to be punished, as well as John McCain for their blatant lies, and inciting hatred and anger at our candidate.

[endarkenment]

10. False Noise is cable not broadcast.

So the answer would be no as far as False is concerned regardless of the fairness doctrine.

[Tribetime]

13. could it still make them state that they're republican not neutral

[endarkenment]

16. no - cable is not licensed public airwaves

the theory under which speech is regulated on broadcast tv is based on the airwaves being a public good and the government having the right to regulate that public good in the public interest by requiring that public airwaves licensees provide adequate coverage of news events and that the coverage they provide be balanced and impartial.

Cable is not a public good - it is a private service. Extending the FD to other media would be a huge mistake - should newspapers also be required to be impartial? Would The Daily Show fall afoul of a new pervasive FD? Why not DU?

The fairness doctrine is obsolete. Instead we should be pushing for media deconsolidation. Regulation should focus on creating increased competition in all media markets including cable print internet and other emerging media, and not on imposing what amounts to censorship on the small group of huge companies that currently control 90% of mass media outlets.

[pretzel4gore]

22. ok, but a question

why is it that in a nation that produced 'the sopranos' etc and features a show about a serial killer on tv, why hasn't anyone made a show about a serial killer targetting reactionary rightwing thugs/traitors like limbah and savage and brocawcaw and kkkoulter and....there's tens of thousands of them in the media! Surely the idea must be common a dirt, yet...nada! The Fairness Doctrine is just 'pennies on the dollar' at a bankrupcy sale now- the reactionary pigs stole several trillion dollars at least, and it's stashed in foreign banks

[NYCGirl]

18. No, That'd be far too slippery a slope. NT

[gravity]

19. No

I am for freedom of speech, and don't like the idea of the government shutting down a news organization no matter how vile it is.

[thoughtcrime1984]

20. How about the toning down of hateful programming? It's a Reich Wing fantasy over there.

Akin to a Nazi propaganda outlet.

[Bleacher Creature]

23. He's not the President.

We've still got 29 days to go. Let's not get ahead of ourselves (or jinx anything).

[Tesha]

24. Nope. (NT)

[thesubstanceofdreams]

25. I am DISGUSTED by this post

Freedom of press is enshrined in the constitution. Let the republicans ignore the constitution, democrats should set the opposite example. Freedom of press is freedom to disseminate points of view one DOES NOT agree with, INCLUDING information which is factually wrong.

There are laws against libel and hate speech and in principle they could be applied to Fox today.

As the saying goes (wrongly attributed to Voltaire) "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it".

Frankly it's sickening to see so many posts in this thread going against the first amendment.

[thoughtcrime1984]

27. Okie dokie, I guess they can slander whoever they want. What if they call you a

terrorist? Do you still support them saying whatever they want? Disgusting indeed. Free speech does not equal say whatever the hell you want whenever you want. I believe libel is the word.

[NEDem]

30. Nice straw man

The poster is absolutely correct. This is an offensive original post.

And free speech DOES mean saying what you want, when you want. Welcome to America.

[thoughtcrime1984]

31. Even something libelous?

Then why do people get sued for libel? Because it's legal?

[NEDem]

32. give it up

Obviously you have no idea what your are talking about.

First of all: Libel is written, Slander is spoken.

Second: You can't sue anyone for an opinion. ONLY, If it was reported as fact. All they have to say is it was an opinion, case closed.

Finally: Censorship is Un-American. Get over it.

[thoughtcrime1984]

33. Give it up?

Chill out.

[NEDem]

34. NO I won't chill out

Suggesting censorship is as disgusting and vile as anything those assholes a fox would ever do. Chill out? Read the fucking bill of rights!

[thoughtcrime1984]

35. I don't understand why folks want media to be able to flat out lie about Obama

If I said something completely false and damaging about you, you would have a strong case against me in court. Do you see what I am saying? Repercussions for lying, not censorship at all. Fox News lies about Obama constantly and that's OK?? Bullshit!!

[NEDem]

29. I wouldn't support that. This is America, we don't do that.

Even if they are disgusting people they still have the right to say what they want. The answer isn't to shut them down, its to drown them out, with more speech. To even suggest we "shut them down" is absolutely against everything this country is about.