1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,697 Messages
    119 Likes Received
    Link

    FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
    McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.
    By Jeff Poor

    There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

    FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

    The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

    “I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

    “Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

    McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.

    “The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”

    A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,658 Messages
    2,676 Likes Received
    Stupid Stupid Stupid.

    You want to be better on the air waves, put out a better product...nuff said.
  3. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,478 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep voting for the Democrats. Those of you who keep squawking that your rights have been violated under Bush, keep voting for these dopes.
  4. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    The lefty numbies have no idea what would happen if there guys got total control. 1984 would be just around the corner. But they are too stupid, and so arrogant in their stupidity, to figure that out.
  5. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Seriously, folks who support things like the "fairness" doctrine, stop and think this thing through. A man or woman speaking with their vocal cords....what authority does this government have to regulate that? None? OK. A man or woman speaking into a megaphone, using electronics to amplify the voice so more can hear at once, does the government get to regulate the content of that? No? OK. That electronic signal is now sent through an AM or FM modulator to transmit beyond the range of earshot so that the signal can be picked up by a demodulator in a radio and reconverted into accoustic waves for a would-be listener? What if I bought the microphone for them? Somebody else bought the modulator? Perhaps they speak these words into these electronics on property owned by a third person? Where is the line where the government gets to step in and tell me (or anybody else) what I *must* say before "earning" the "privilege" of saying what I *want* to say?
  6. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    40,942 Messages
    1,208 Likes Received
    The Libs in their usual muddleheaded way see this Fairness Doctrine as a way to destroy conservative talk radio. They are too stupid and biased to realize all the other consequences.
  7. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Unfortunately, for some, the notion of a moment of "Hell YEAH! In - your - FACE!!!" means more than any potential long-term consequences.

Share This Page