-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2007/01/29/democrats-abandoning-the-first-amendment-part-1-the-fairness-doctrine/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Personally, I don't care what party any politician is in, just their policies. Why even bother listing their affiliation or setting this up as an attack on Democratic Party politicians? Why not just focus on any politician who is introducing similarly anti-free speech policies?
RE: Sanders.. Even though he he calls himself an independent, he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and is counted as a Democrat when committee assignments are made.
RE: "Why bother listing affiliation..." / "attacking Democratic politicians..." .. I am trying to highlight the fact that Democrats are abandoning whatever claim they once had to being the party of the First Amendment. We have come to expect the GOP to support just about all forms of content regulation, but now there seems to be little difference between the Dems and Republicans on these matters. This is very troubling to me since it means that, in essence, there will no longer be ANY free speech champions in Congress if the Dems abandon us.
I think parties need to be singled-out on occasion when they betray core principles. Many of us here have jumped on Republicans who support Internet taxation, for example, since the GOP is suppose to be the anti-tax party.
Finally, I'm an independent and have never voted for anyone from either party in my life. So, this is just me being an equal opportunity offender as usual!
Personally speaking, I look at the media landscape today and I cringe. Far from the "vibrant and diverse media marketplace" you cite, I see one filled with propaganda and talking heads. I see commentary being passed off as news, pundits as journalists, sound bytes as coverage, and outright falsehoods as truth. I see dearth of anything that resembles real information, facts, or analysis. And while Fox News is the worst offender, CNN and its other competitors are no better. The fourth estate has completely abrogated it's responsibility to inform the public and serve as a check on government.
The fairness doctrine is a terrible idea, but I can at least understand the motivation behind it. The "free market" isn't going to solve this problem, since that's largely what got us to this point - the newsroom is now expected to turn a profit, which means attracting viewers and advertisers. Which means that Michael Jackson gets hours and hours of painstaking coverage, and (for example) proposals to bring back the fairness doctrine get almost none at all. The "market" does a hideous job of selecting for what's important and relevant.
As I said, I don't like the fairness doctrine, or any solution where the government dictates what's on the airwaves. But at the same time we can't ignore the fact that television is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to shaping the public discourse, and the current state of television news is incredibly damaging to our republic.* That, rather than the fairness doctrine, is the real issue here.
*For a specific example, see the 2004 election. More than half of the people who went to the polls on that day did so with the belief that WMD's had been found in Iraq; around 40% believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 - both demonstrably untrue as a factual matter. That's not something that's supposed to happen in a country with a free press.
http://w...