"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate. Would we
be
better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured.
They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on
public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the
government
the right to change their ownership or shut them down?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have
never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition)
and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

OK, how about one paper towns? Would it be a good idea for the government
to ensure that the opponents of the editorial policy of the paper in a one
paper town got their own space in that paper?



And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

How would the new fairness doctrine keep the political partisans and
kooks
from harassing media stations with nusiance complaints? Who would
define
what a nuisance complaint is?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and
some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I
worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the
occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event,
management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless
the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let
him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think
that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.


Politics in the US seems to be going through an unusually nasty period
lately. I have no doubt the Republicans and the Democrats would be actively
searching out or creating local pressure groups, in order to push media
stations around. Maybe I'm wrong about that and my opinion of the likely
politicization of the fairness doctrine just reflects the lower regard that
I've developed for both parties over the last 20 years. But I honestly
think any attempt to revive the fairness doctrine is going to turn into a
real can of snakes. Better to leave bad enough alone.

Frank Dresser