Comments about ‘Fairness Doctrine unfair’

This is just more liberal hypocrisy! Liberals are really big on free speach as long as everyone agrees with them. If not, they will try to pass laws to shut you up! This is just an attempt by the left to silence voices of differning opinions.

Although I'm sure my father didn't originate the saying I will always remember his councel to me that "With every right comes a responsibility." Broadcasters have been granted the 'right' to make a living by broadcasting the news. In obataining that right, it seems the least those broadcasters should do is present both sides of an issue (or all sides, depending on the issue) when it comes to presenting things other than the news, or to put it another way, editorializing. It is sad to think that rules and regulations (or laws) are required to get those broadcasters to do such a simple thing when they have been granted so much by their use of the public airwaves. It seems that with their right to use the public airwaves they have a responsibility to present issues in a fair and responsible way.

Why is it the only people talking about the fairness doctrine seem to be conservatives. I have yet to hear any liberals calling for a return of the fairness doctrine; it seems to be just another boggy man cooked up by conservatives to give them something to rail against.

Free "Speach" (sic), I don't understand your comments? I think you need to read the article again.

I do agree with the writer of the story, however. The so-called "fairness doctrine" forces radio stations to finance a liberal rebuttal to any conservative program the station broadcasts. As far as I can tell, the station must pay for the air time which the "fair-less doctrine" requires be GIVEN to a liberal rebuttal (?). The original program is paid for by the advertising which is played during the program. The only way it could be "fair" is if the liberal rebuttal was also paid for - by the liberals, who would benefit from the air time. Of course, the end result would be that the radio stations could not afford the unpaid air time granted to liberals, so the conservative programs would also be terminated. This is an absurd and dangerous "doctrine" which is another example of the hatred which liberals have adopted since 2000. HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS NIGHTMARE LAW EVER GET PASSED??? It is as blatant a violation of basic rights as we opposed in 1776!

I am not a teacher nor do I have any relatives who are, (my motives are pure). I agree strongly that teacher pay needs to be raised, especially in math, math education which has gone down hill since I went to school. (I won't here get into how) We need teachers who are more highly capable, who will when text books are adopted, be able to choose better ones, who won't leave out important subjects that need to taught.

There is a talk show host on a local radio station who is always talking about how the state should not do anything to raise teacher pay. He says we don't need very intelligent people to teach school.

I called up to disagree with him, got a few sentences of my rational in, and he cut me off, then he went on for several minutes giving his side of the story why he was right.

If talk radio were truely fair, I would agree that we don't need a fairness doctrine. But its not fair. Unless a host is fair minded, what is to prevent them from doing what this host does on a regular basis. I agree with fairness.

The problem is that liberal ideas and principles are pushed in subtle ways without being labeled as such in the mainstream press for decades. Conservative ideas and principles have been squelched in large part by those who decide what gets airtime in news and other programs that are supposed to be unbiased. After years of trying to get some fairness from the media conservative talk radio was born out of the success of a few pioneers like Limbaugh. That success came because there was an audience for those ideas that could not find any other way to get out. Now that Fox has been successful in giving television coverage to conservatives where other networks either won't give them airtime or cover them in a negative way, liberal politicians feel threatened and seek to find a way to limit the damage done by radio and TV outlets that broadcast anything conservative. If the mainstream media would admit that their programs have a liberal slant the fairness idea might actually be fair, because they would be forced to give conservatism a fair shake, but in reality the "fairness doctrine" will be anything but fair to conservatives by squelching their speech.

of speech is an "inconvenient truth" to the left. If they could take it away from their opponents they would, and I expect they will try.

Constitutionality issues aside, I'm not too concerned. I've become accustomed to taking anything the media says with a grain of salt.

To "and off they go | 6:24 a.m." here is a list of pepole that have come out publically in support of reinstating the "Fairness Docrine" (or stating that they want to curb talk radio):

Dick Durbin
Dianne Feinstein
Trent Lott
Barbara Boxer
Hillary Clinton
Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner

With that many politicians on record as wanting to reinstate the fairness doctrine, do you think that it is still a "boogy man"?

"This is an absurd and dangerous "doctrine" which is another example of the hatred which liberals have adopted since 2000. HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS NIGHTMARE LAW EVER GET PASSED???"

what "LAW" what hatred? there is no current law on "fairness"

I'm not in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine, but I do think that station owners should strongly consider abandoning the "all Republican all the time" talk show format in favor of one that showcases a wider variety of viewpoints and focuses on issues, rather than personal attacks and unconditional partisanship. It would be even better to see the return of the old fashioned interview talk show to commercial radio with hosts interviewing a wide variety of prominent people in the manner of Socrates to see if they actually know anything.

Either of the above might even increase the number of listeners beyond the hard core Republicans that form the vast majority of the audience for Rush Limbaugh and his clones. Certainly it would do a better job of encouraging people with conflicting opinions to discuss them intelligently, instead of screaming at each other.

I really dont care about the fairness doctrine. Anyone who listens to those reich wing idiots is just looking for a group with which to identify. Morons attract morons.

The problem with the writer's point of view is that commercial radio uses a common property resource (CPR), i.e. the public spectrum if you will. Since radio stations use a CPR they are under at least an ethical obligation to present a variety of points of view. As for the Fairness Doctrine per se, I have generally opposed government enforcing such. But I do think and wish radio stations (e.g. 570 and 1160) which hammer us with right wing schlock all day long would be a little more considerate. Of course I can always tune out offensive stations if I want, and I no longer listen to KSL or KNRS.

Don't worry, you poor conservative paranoids. Nobody's going to take your ball away from you.

Can you imagine it? The Limbaugh lying down with the lamb? The Christians-and-lions slaughterhouse of talk radio turning the other cheek, or, at least, the other ear? Conservatives can -- though in place of the word imagine, they're more likely to use fear.

They say the incoming Barack Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress plan to strangle talk radio with fairness: specifically, the Fairness Doctrine, a long-abandoned federal policy that requires radio and TV stations to balance conservatives with liberals and vice-versa.

At its most extreme, the Fairness Doctrine might require Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to follow every right-to-life phone call with one from a doctor who does partial-birth abortions. Or, for that matter, pro-gun-control people calling in to lefty Randi Rhodes to be balanced by commentary from AK-47 owners.

Even a more moderate and more likely scenario -- forcing stations to carry shows from across the ideological spectrum -- would wreak havoc with talk radio, station managers and other industry figures say, since most talk stations brand themselves as either conservative or liberal. Read my full story on the controversy over the return of the Fairness Doctrine in Sunday's Miami Herald.

To "Lew Jeppson | 8:48 a.m." please give me the name of the law or act that states that the public airwaves are a public resource.

If you read the FCC's web page, and the act that created it, the FCC and the US government do not own the public airwaves. The FCC was created to make sure that radio stations do not interfere with eachother, and in essence act as a policemen with the broadcast spectrum.

I don't know why any LDS person would tune into the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. They are both blatant liars. They misinform and incite their listeners. I remember about 3 yrs ago hearing a caller on each program talk about wanting to "take matters into their own hands" against "liberals. I don't think it is a coincidence when a Hannity/Limbaugh listener goes into a church in Knoxville, Tennessee and kills 2 people, admitting he was targeting "liberals." Limbaugh has insulted every race and class except Conservative white men. Does the LDS church still own KSL? Then why does KSL carry Hannity? The LDS church ought to have have higher standards for their radio programming.

The fact that "ownership" of a frequency is contingent on behavior means that the airwaves are a public resource, much like fisheries. Fihsing is licensed like radio stations are licensed (for a certain frequency). The resources must be common pool resources for that reason.

@ECR & Fairness needed- if there is a fairness doctrine in Radio broadcasting then it must be expanded to television and cable as well. That means CNN and MSNBC must hire as many conservatives as they do Liberals and give them equal airtime in comparable time slots. Networks can no longer have on air personalities where 93% vote Democrat. These must be divided equally 50/50. Every TV show that promotes liberal ideas or has a liberal bent, must be balanced with ones promoting conservative ideas as well. The West Wing would have to have a conservative counterpart, as would all shows.
Maybe the movie industry should be involved as well. For all liberal films released, a conservative counterpart must be made as well. So Michael Moore cannot just put his stuff out unopposed, neither could Al Gore. Equal screen time. Besides, movie theaters are operating under a business license given by the govt, and should act responsibly by your thinking.
The fact is, liberals only want this "fairness" applied to talk radio, not to television and other communication industries as well. They are hypocrites. They have started crying because Liberal Talk Radio is not popular enough to make money.

And BTW, Redshirt, I never said government owned the airwaves.