Oprah and the "Fairness" Doctrine"
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 10, 2008 12:51am CST
Nancy Pelosi has made it pretty clear that one of the things she wants to accomplish as Speaker of the House is to make into law an old FCC policy that was called, "The Fairness Doctrine".
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcast media to provide contrasting points of view on controversial and/or political topics.
Many people feel that radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity need to be balanced with either liberal talk shows on the same station or guests from the "other side".
Oprah Winfrey has devoted her show to helping Barack Obama elected as president. She is so dedicated to that goal that she has refused to have vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a guest. Of course, the way things are now, she has every right to run her show the way she sees fit. A lot of Republicans have complained about it, and they also have the right to complain, but in the end, Oprah, Rush and Hannity are free to decide what they want in their shows and what they don't want.
Would a law written and sponsored by Nancy Pelosi be as "fair" as the name "Fairness Doctrine" implies? If it is made into law then it would be up to the FCC commissioners to decide what is "fair" and what isn't? Would Oprah be required to offer "equal time" to Republican candidates? Would Rush have to change his whole business plan and have guests? If Air America had of lasted long enough to matter, would they have to include conservative talk shows in their schedule?
A lot ot people want to see a return to the Fairness Doctrine because they don't like Conservative Talk Radio, but would "Fairness" end up turning against them and the shows they enjoy because they don't have conservative views presented?
3 people like this
11 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
10 Sep 08
The fairness doctrine was from a time when there were three networks on TV and you had a choice between them. There were very few radio stations. The government sold the channel to be used and you had to make sure that you allowed for the expression of opposing views. Usually if you had the President's State of the Union Speech you gave equal time to the other party. If you broadcast the Republican Convention then you would broadcast the Democrat convention.
Air America was the Liberal answer to Rush and Sean. The problem was nobody wanted to listen to them and they could not attract listeners. With today's technology you can have almost unlimited channels for TV and Radio. IF people want to have their opinion expressed they can buy time to express it just like Rush and Sean do.
1 person likes this
@evanslf (484)
•
10 Sep 08
I can understand why the Fairness doctrine is being proposed but to require it for every talk show I think goes too far. I think the main issue is to impose some form of Fairness doctrine on the newschannels and radio news channels as well. So when news is reported on fox news for instance, they would have to air the counterbalancing argument. Same would apply to the liberal news channels as well.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
True Babmu, there may have been a time when it was a logical thing to do... but that time has long past.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Sep 08
Feel-goody, warm fuzzy, whining euro-flavored legislation. Just what I expect from the Pelosi crowd though, leave it to her to drag this one back out of moth balls. I'm only hoping there are enough votes to keep it out for good, if not, I'm pretty sure it's going to get a veto stamp, no matter how many pieces of important legislation it gets attatched to or attatched to it.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
10 Sep 08
Speaker Pelosi is one of the strong backers of this and wants to make it law. She is refusing to allow a bill to come forward for a vote that would keep the airways free and ban the Fairness Doctrine. She has even stated that any Democrat who signs to have this brought to the floor for a vote will be punished in some way.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Sep 08
Actualy the fcc can't:
In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... and actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
10 Sep 08
I'm not for the fairness doctrine but it'd be nice to hear a conservative view in mainstream media (besides Fox News which everyone thinks is slanted cause they dare to actually have conservative opinions on their station.. they also have the liberal views and guests, most I like very well, even the show with Sean Hannity, the name escapes me right now, is co-anchored with Alan Combs).
- Air America the Liberal outlet on radio failed terribly.. so the fairness doctrine is a means to stifle the Conservative ones.. but say.. keep it free and people will listen to what they want.. If an Air America has a lot to offer, let them try again.. I hate it when the answer to an argument is trying to stifle other views! But then again, that tells me lots..!
- Disclaimer: I love Liberals and feel they are well intentioned and mean very well.. I just am usually of a more conservative/preservative bent..
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
10 Sep 08
When Oprah Winfrey decided to support Obama she made the anouncement that since she was exercising her right to campaign for her candidate, she felt it only fair to have NO candidate on her TV show. She never had Obama on after that announcement. She did not have Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, Romeney, Edwards, Biden etc. Suddenly when she takes the same stance with Sarah Palin, she is being boycotted. Her so called loyal fans are refusing to watch her TV show unless she extends to Ms Palin an opportunity to go onto her show. In other words, give air time to Sarah Palin that has been given to no other candidate from either party or we will attempt to destroy you. This is fairness????
This woman is running for VP of the USA and as far as I'm concerned that makes her as much a target as any of the rest of them. If she becomes VP (God forbid), you can't keep her under glass. Try telling, Europe, Asia & the Middle East; "you weren't nice to Sarah, now we'll boycott you, refuse to sit down at the conference table etc. What a crock!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
I agree that the "fans" who are complaining are out of line. Yes, they do have their freedom to complain if they want, but as you said, Oprah did say she wouldn't have any candidates on.
On the other hand, she has also made herself an active part of Obama's campaign, so she is fair game, just as Palin is.
@jerzgirl (9327)
• United States
10 Sep 08
The "Fairness Doctrine" wouldn't apply to Oprah, Flush or Hannity because they aren't broadcasters. They are hosts of syndicated shows. The broadcasters themselves would be obligated to show opposing points of view, but not the shows themselves. A network news program would have to offer opposing views on an op-ed piece. But, it didn't require equal air-time - just that the contrasting perspective be addressed in some way. And, yes, the FCC does have the authority, even now, to require opposing points of view be shown for anything they deem to be a "controversial issue of public importance" (which is also phrased "fair and balanced" - and as we pretty much know, some networks DON'T share opposing views even as they consider themselves to be "fair and balanced".) The FCC has the authority, but not the mandate to put this into action. They can require all sides be represented, but they cannot forbid a point of view from being presented, at which point it becomes a breach of the First Amendment.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
The fairness doctrine was just an FCC policy, that was enforced very unevenly and ended up costing radio and tv stations huge amounts in man hours filling out paper work and justifying their formats.
Yes, the FCC does have the authority, but it dropped the policy back in the 80s. Congress tried to make it into a law, but Reagan vetoed it.
Now Pelosi is trying to get the law passed again. The question is, why? The FCC doesn't want it, the stations don't want it. The only people who seem to want it are people who want to shut down Rush Limbaugh and other Conservative talk shows.
2 people like this
@jerzgirl (9327)
• United States
10 Sep 08
Personally, I'd like to see Rush Limbaugh (aka Flush Limpballs) gone from the airwaves, but he has the right to speak his viciousness and his lies and his hypocrisy as much as anyone. What would be nice is if people somehow got to hear a rebuttal. Somehow. Somewhere.
@Damien2213 (90)
• United States
10 Sep 08
I think it would be a good idea thought it may need to be adjusted for today's standards. The problem is we live in a media controlled world and a very media controlled nation. The Election of '08 should tell you everything you need to know. Look at the candidates for both sides of the GOP that got less than the fair time to express there views. Look at the upcoming months when debates will alienate anyone that is not Republican or Democrat. This kind of "unfairness" resides all over the media. Personally I think a talk show host having as much power as an Oprah has isn't a great thing for the world. She used her power to manipulate her audience to vote and support a political candidate. When it comes to politics stuff like that should be outlawed. Just my opinion... Not sure whether this is the answer or not...
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
If you look back at when there was a "fairness doctrine" you might notice that it never was used to allow 3rd parties access. If 3rd party candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to conceiveably win can be arrested for showing up to "presidential debates", do you think the likes of Nancy Pelosi will allow it to be used to include 3rd party candidates in the future?
Nancy Pelosi isn't working to get this passed in the name of "fairness" or "equal access".
@Damien2213 (90)
• United States
10 Sep 08
I would have to look up and research what your talking to and her connection to that. As for now I can't comment. I can however comment on how she was holding up the Troops/Returning deal as she and all other Democrats promised they would get the troops home right away which they failed to do. I have no love for any politician...this you can bet on.
@rogue13xmen13 (14402)
• United States
10 Sep 08
Everyone is entitled to "freedom of speech" and that means they if people want to do something that is political, they have the right to and they have the right to support whoever they want to support.
@gitfiddleplayer (10362)
• United States
11 Sep 08
What a name for a doctrine, "Fairness?" It would be the end of conservative talk radio because the media is controled by the liberals. They don't like to debate anything so they just try to shut it down. Pelosi and company have controlled the media for so long its disgusting. I don't want Palin to be on Harpo's show, she is higher class than that, but O should realize that she is violating a law that says if you have one candidate on for political reasons you better have both on. To correct you, Rush, Sean, Bill and all the people at Fox news do show liberal stuff, they show how they are double talking liars. I'm not saying that the GOP are all saints but the dems want to silence anybody who doesn't agree with them.
@blackmantra_x (2732)
• Philippines
11 Sep 08
Good day... I think fairness doctrine should only be applicable to news broadcasting where both sides of the story be told and heard,make it non bias and informative. In a talk show where it usually deals with opinions and as we know opinions are always different and often times contradicting, the host also has the right to have his/her own point of view to the matter and discuss it to the public and often times with the intention of swaying the viewers to that point of view.
My opinion if one needs non biased information go to the news if one wants opinions go to a talk shows that agrees or disagrees to one's opinion.
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
10 Sep 08
I think any talk show host/hostess should be able to have on their show whomever they choose. It's their show. If people don't like it they can change the channel. I think the "Fairness Doctrine" should apply to talk shows, in reality they are just for entertainment right?
@medney1988 (560)
• United States
10 Sep 08
Not that I particularly like Oprah but the woman has gone through a lot to have what she has. And if she wants to pick sides let her. What happened to freedom of speech and press? Why should she be forced to have someone on her show that she doesnt want?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Sep 08
She absolutely shouldn't be forced to have someone on she doesn't want. But while she can choose who will be on her show, she can't choose what people do or say about it.
