Thread: Fairness Doctrine and Term Limits--- Your thoughts

So I have a 2 part question... Even though these things dont have anything to do with each other.

1. What do you think of Term Limits for our Federal Government (senate, congress and president)???

2. What do you think of the Fairness Doctrine???? Agree, disagree, think it should be re-enacted?
For those who are not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives a basic over view..

Just curious about your thoughts....In particular on term limits.

let us hope obama can stop the waar usa is involved in thhe to larst presidents only wanted waar just to do like this to countrys who dont vdo what the us president says they shal do

^ Um, no. Wrong answer.
I think the term limits are fine, Jonesy, but seeing as how FDR (think I got that right) changed the term limit, I wonder if bambam will try.

Originally Posted by AjarnJonesy

What do you think of the Fairness Doctrine?

taken from the link in your OP....

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

seems fine to me.

but in today's media environment, radical right wing talk radio is the clear market leader. the 'middle-aged, white, not that bright' crowd tune in everyday because they feel disenfranchised.....and i've always been curious as to what types of jobs these people have that they're able to listen to talk radio all day.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by AjarnJonesy

What do you think of the Fairness Doctrine?

taken from the link in your OP....

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

seems fine to me.

but in today's media environment, radical right wing talk radio is the clear market leader. the 'middle-aged, white, not that bright' crowd tune in everyday because they feel disenfranchised.....and i've always been curious as to what types of jobs these people have that they're able to listen to talk radio all day.

K so first thank you for the response..... and I agree with you I dont really have a problem with the fairness doctrine act...
However I am white and 32, and take pride in the fact that I am a cynic who doesn't accept what I am told UNTIL I study for my self.... I do listen to talk radio (albeit for comedic value more than anything, and it is usually NPR Kinda like the fact they bring in both sides., oh and I very rarely agree with either side of the isle. ) And as you said I am not sure where people get the time ... I listen to what I can in the evenings rather than at work..

Term Limits for our Federal Government

Seems a bit arbitrary. Touch of the paranoid to it actually.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Rush, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm etc rock!

Yep, an then there are few TD posters.....



Care to guess which one this is?

I kind of like the idea of term limits. Seems like a lot of members of Congress, particularly the Senate, become entrenched. I would rather them stick around for two terms maybe, serve those people who they were elected to serve, and then move on to greener pastures. After two terms (that's my somewhat arbitrary limit, I guess), it's too easy to become a part of the political machine.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I used to be in favor of it. I may still be at the end of the day. The thing about broadcasting is that it's supposed to meet the PICAN standard (or was at some point, anyway): Public interest, Convenience, and Necessity. I would argue that a lot of broadcast media today, radio and TV, does not serve the public interest. The trouble is, how does one define the public interest? It's a nebulous concept, although one could certainly argue that "honest, equitable, and balanced" meets the criteria.

I think the PICAN standard came about because of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, but my memory on this is a bit fuzzy. The airwaves are or were designated a national resource, ie. public property. As such, their use was supposed to serve the interests of the people, and in such a way that they were treated as citizens, not mere consumers. Strangely enough, it was Clinton who did the most damage to TV and radio with the '96 revamping of the Telecommunications Act, relaxing ownership rules and allowing a handful of companies (Clear Channel, Infinity, etc.) to buy up many of the independent radio and TV stations or those owned by smaller corporations. Localism was dealt a heavy blow.

If you watch News Hour on PBS, they adhere to the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, I think, in that they present the news in a straight-forward way with no bias that I can perceive. And when discussing an issue they more often than not present two sides: pro/con, lib/con, etc.

I'm sure Sen Byrd has another 50 years in him.

^555. Yeah, Jet. He was definitely on my mind when I was writing that, along with a few others (Kennedy, Thurmond, Bond, etc). I guess it takes a while to jockey yourself into the right committee and then once you get there, you don't want to leave. Unless you're the junior senator from NY and you decide to use it as a stepping stone to the presidency or failing that, the State Department.

Hey BMEE Maybe I should finish my earlier comment .... I dont really have a problem with the fairness doctrine because it was repealed during the presidency of the last great president this country has had. btw for those who dont remember that was 1985. Dont really want to see it re-enacted however... I think that anything that tells a private enterprise what they can or can not say is wrong.... If it really is such a problem then go after their advertisers or listeners... OR MAYBE, and this really something special here... HOW ABOUT coming up with competition that is able to hold the peoples attention like the right does......???? no takers anyone?

They had to wake up Byrd in the middle of the night and wheel him over to the Senate for a vote the other night. I was peeing my pants laughing so hard. Is he really still alive?

I'm definitely in favour of term limits. Increasingly so, year on year.

Fairness doctrine- well I'm in favour of an objective, diverse and balanced media, and a distinct differentiation being made between 'Reporting' and 'Opinion'. Predictably, it is Fox that is the worst offender in this regard and I suppose can be used as somewhat of a case study. I don't think however that a 'Fairness doctrine' is the best way to achieve this.

Anyone who engages in political debate with Americans, at least where the Republican Right is involved, is going to be regaled with the mantra of the 'Liberal media' or 'Lamestream press' repeatedly- no matter how many times you show it to be nonsense. How telling though that the most strident political opposition to the Fairness doctrine is invariably from Republicans.

Bill Clinton is in favour of the 'FD', but Obama is not-
Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] 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. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm with Obama. Frankly, it was concentration that spelt the death knell to a good media. Concentration of ownership, and of news sources- most outlets get their 'real' news from three sources these days, being Reuters, AP or AFP. There is little investigative journalism left, especially in the mainstream media. Opinion or slant is then produced from either the bias of the proprietor (aka Murdoch) or the diversity or lack thereof of it's target market (e.g the New York Times)- and thank goodness America still has that. Thank goodness too for PBS- but few watch it.

Another layer of bureaucracy will not help the situation, fundamentally. The Murdoch type response to a 'Fairness doctrine' is already there, ergo
' HANNITY and [colmes].

^ Here we go again. Without Fox and its popular opinion shows, not its news progs, America would be in the dark on most issues. More and more people are watching. I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Here we go again. Without Fox and its popular opinion shows, not its news progs, America would be in the dark on most issues. More and more people are watching. I wonder why?

You are correct...
The one or two times there have been a right leaning article in the NY TIMES the writer has gone *missing* or removed moving forward... I mean can you imagine how hard it was for the left to swallow when Dan Rather had to step down for being caught in a lie? It really was amusing to watch..

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ ....... Fox . More and more people are watching. I wonder why?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x

Maybe for quotes like this one :


"This is the first time I have spoken to Michelle Obama, and I was impressed. She is charismatic, articulate and beautiful."

- Bill O'Reilly /Talking Points December 17, 2009 -

^ How gratuitous of you, LB. And see, that shows why the right wing not only has brains, it has class and grace -- they don't spit on the opposition.

[quote=Jet Gorgon;1270766]... that shows why the right wing not only has brains, it has class and grace -- they don't spit on the opposition.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So according to this, you have no brains, no class and no grace.