Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Elections
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 840975" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Obama spoke to the AIPAC group today to a standing ovation crowd. Over and over his ideas were embraced and welcomed with applause.</p><p> </p><p>He clarifies that he was "misrepresented" by fox and the right wing and he punked both of them out.</p><p> </p><p>I wish he would do more of that. Slap fox news everytime it misrepresents something, or blast right wing radio for flat out distortions.</p><p> </p><p>Its no wonder the republicans dont like the "fairness doctrine" in broadcasting. It would make them out to be nothing more than anal portholes.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine</a></p><p>The <strong>Fairness Doctrine</strong> was a policy of the United States <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">Federal Communications Commission</span></a> (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">broadcast licenses</span></a> to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1949_Commission_Report&action=edit&redlink=1" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ba0000">1949 Commission Report</span></a> served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-0" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">[1]</span></a> The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">Equal Time</span></a> rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine imposed two rules for broadcasters: First it required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, and it required broadcasters to provide reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting view points. The second rule required contingent access obligations on broadcasters to provide reply time to issue oriented citizens and editorialized on public issues. Broadcasters could trigger fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. Spectrum scarcity was the doctrines reason for being made. Because more people wanted to broadcast than available frequencies could accommodate, broadcasters’ public trustee obligations required regulatory clarification, the FCC reasoned. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-1" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">[2]</span></a></p><p>In 1969, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">United States Supreme Court</span></a> upheld the Commission's general <em>right</em> to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is <em>obliged</em> to do so.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-RedLion-2" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">[3]</span></a> In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-3" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">[4]</span></a> Following the 1969 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Federal_Communications_Commission" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission</span></a> decision, which provided the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0645ad">Federal Communications Commission</span></a> (FCC) with more regulatory power, the main agenda for this doctrine was to ensure that the viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Peace,</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 840975, member: 17969"] Obama spoke to the AIPAC group today to a standing ovation crowd. Over and over his ideas were embraced and welcomed with applause. He clarifies that he was "misrepresented" by fox and the right wing and he punked both of them out. I wish he would do more of that. Slap fox news everytime it misrepresents something, or blast right wing radio for flat out distortions. Its no wonder the republicans dont like the "fairness doctrine" in broadcasting. It would make them out to be nothing more than anal portholes. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine[/URL] The [B]Fairness Doctrine[/B] was a policy of the United States [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission"][COLOR=#0645ad]Federal Communications Commission[/COLOR][/URL] (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license"][COLOR=#0645ad]broadcast licenses[/COLOR][/URL] to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1949_Commission_Report&action=edit&redlink=1"][COLOR=#ba0000]1949 Commission Report[/COLOR][/URL] served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-0"][COLOR=#0645ad][1][/COLOR][/URL] The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule"][COLOR=#0645ad]Equal Time[/COLOR][/URL] rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine imposed two rules for broadcasters: First it required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, and it required broadcasters to provide reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting view points. The second rule required contingent access obligations on broadcasters to provide reply time to issue oriented citizens and editorialized on public issues. Broadcasters could trigger fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. Spectrum scarcity was the doctrines reason for being made. Because more people wanted to broadcast than available frequencies could accommodate, broadcasters’ public trustee obligations required regulatory clarification, the FCC reasoned. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-1"][COLOR=#0645ad][2][/COLOR][/URL] In 1969, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"][COLOR=#0645ad]United States Supreme Court[/COLOR][/URL] upheld the Commission's general [I]right[/I] to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is [I]obliged[/I] to do so.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-RedLion-2"][COLOR=#0645ad][3][/COLOR][/URL] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-3"][COLOR=#0645ad][4][/COLOR][/URL] Following the 1969 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Federal_Communications_Commission"][COLOR=#0645ad]Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission[/COLOR][/URL] decision, which provided the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission"][COLOR=#0645ad]Federal Communications Commission[/COLOR][/URL] (FCC) with more regulatory power, the main agenda for this doctrine was to ensure that the viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. Peace, [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Elections
Top
