Advertisement

Prickly City by Scott Stantis for March 16, 2009

14 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Jack noire comic
    LordDogmore  almost 11 years ago

    Yep, that ‘bout somes up the “Fairness Doctrine” quite nicely. Oh and Pelosi isn’t partisan at all!!! (wink wink, nudge nudge, choke puke)

     •  Reply
  2. Warthog
    wndrwrthg  almost 11 years ago

    The fairness doctrine will never be revived.

     •  Reply
  3. 80x80 cartoon0144 55lwwwustftoczzcecr3q
    tracht47  almost 11 years ago

    The Fairness Doctrine simply meant that individual broadcast stations (which use the public airways)had to present various points of view on their stations. Individual programs could be as conservative or liberal as they wanted to be.

     •  Reply
  4. Flash
    pschearer Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    Lordy! Who woulda thunk I’d ever agree with WWH! Or at least share his/her hope.

    Tracht47 slips in the notion of public ownership of the airways, which is the basis of the “Fairness” Doctrine. Ayn Rand refuted that concept back in the ’60s in an article “The Property Status of Airwaves” in the book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”. In it she argued for the treatment of the airwaves as private property and not as a nationalized natural resource.

    Once one accepts the premise that the airwaves are public property used by permission, it is an easy step to force content on broadcasters, then to close down recalcitrant station owners.

    It has happened. One of the earliest religious-right radio stations was WXUR in Media, PA, in 1973 the first station ever closed down for refusing to offer programming contrary to their beliefs. Admittedly, the Rev. Carl McIntyre was a rightist crank, but even nut-jobs have rights.

    Of course, once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, the result was an explosion of right-oriented radio–and the nearly total failure of radio on the Left, which is why the issue is looming its ugly head again.

     •  Reply
  5. Ceiling cat sq
    danielsangeo  almost 11 years ago

    “the nearly total failure of radio on the Left, which is why the issue is looming its ugly head again.”

    …I guess you guys define “total failure” as “number one in many markets” and “doing better than many right wing stations”.

    Oh, and by the way, the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t tell how long someone may talk. It just says that, if someone talks a certain amount of time, someone else gets that amount of time, too. Carmen gets all the time she wants. Winslow just gets that amount of time, too.

    I don’t think these right-wingers know what they’re talking about.

    And, no, I don’t see it coming back. This is just another boogeyman that, like socialism, doesn’t actually exist except in extremely delusional minds.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    ianrey  almost 11 years ago

    The argument is moot, because no one in the majority is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine, but regarding talk radio ratings - if Rush is on 20 times as many stations as Ed Schultz, and has 5 times as many listeners, who is doing better?

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    YoullNeverHearFromMeAgain  almost 11 years ago

    “if Rush is on 20 times as many stations as Ed Schultz, and has 5 times as many listeners, who is doing better?”

    Umm….Rush?

     •  Reply
  8. Mcgehee
    McGehee  almost 11 years ago

    Ian Valenzuela says: no one in the majority is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine

    Obama thought he could achieve the same thing just by taking on Ruch Limbaugh rhetorically. Now that that hasn’t worked out the way he hoped, who knows?

     •  Reply
  9. 80x80 cartoon0144 55lwwwustftoczzcecr3q
    tracht47  almost 11 years ago

    How can you be sure your point of view is accurate if your are not exposed to other opinions? Broadcasters have a responsibility to try to present as many points of view as possible. And the air waves are public despite what Ayn Rand might have said. Ayn Rand promoted a philosophy of selfishness. She had disdain for the common good.

     •  Reply
  10. Ceiling cat sq
    danielsangeo  almost 11 years ago

    “Obama thought he could achieve the same thing just by taking on Ruch Limbaugh rhetorically”

    Um. When did that happen?

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    jmworacle  almost 11 years ago

    Wanna bet that the fairness doctrine supporters will try to re-instate it? What would be interesting is if there were “execptions” for N.P.R. or P.B.S.

     •  Reply
  12. Ceiling cat sq
    danielsangeo  almost 11 years ago

    “Wanna bet that the fairness doctrine supporters will try to re-instate it?”

    And who are these people? Got any quotes? And any names to go with those quotes?

    Or is this merely a hypothetical?

     •  Reply
  13. Radleft
    Radical-Knight  almost 11 years ago

    Fairness?

     •  Reply
  14. Joe dam
    Freezing  almost 11 years ago

    Wait a minute. Commercial broadcasting is just that. Commercial. Listenership ought to dictate what is heard. That is what pays the bills for commercial broadcasters (I know, that is a pretty foreign concept these days). Now, if taxpayers are picking up a substantial part of a financially insolvent broadcaster’s budget, then that broadcaster should adhere to some sort of fairness doctrine. Like that’ll ever happen

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Prickly City

Advertisement