Talk:Fairness doctrine

message: Anyone that follows politics hears about this constantly. Therefore, I believe it is important. Saksjn (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on High Importance Tag

message: Damn few articles are without bias but this one is golden. Good job.
--149.152.34.128 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed. I hope that recent changes will not embolden people to edit this article to be biased like most others. Fool4jesus (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seems well written 

message: It appears that the article is broken... It looks like a massive chunk of Talk: page got dumped into the end of the External Links section.
I am going to excise that and place it into its own section here on the Talk: page for somebody (possibly me, but not right now) to sort through later. --AStanhope 17:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article is Broken 

message: The following text appeared to have been accidentally placed in the External Links section of the main article. Some of it, at least, appears to have come from either this talk page or some users' misunderstanding of how Wikipedia editing works. --AStanhope 17:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the board of mr. Limburg's Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago - http://www.museum.tv/about.htm
Notice the representation of Cumulus, The Tribune and others who stand to gain from the present deregulation of the media. 
Board of Directors – Officers and Executive Committee
    * Bruce DuMont, Founder/President & CEO
    * Richard Fleming, USG Corporation (retired), VP & Treasurer
    * David Plier, Retail First Corporation, VP & Secretary
    * Jack Weinberg, Pro Consulting Associates, Ltd., VP
Members of the Board
    * Jennifer Anderson, Impact Basketball
    * David Bart, McGladrey
    * Lana Brown (education consultant)
    * Sean Cassidy, DKC
    * Chris Gladwin, Cleversafe
    * Dennis Green, Cumulus Media Networks
    * Jon Harris, The Hillshire Brands Company
    * Andrew Hayes, Fifth Third Bank
    * David Kovach, Citibank
    * Michael Shmarak, DKC
    * Rocco Smeriglio, Yahoo
    * Larry Wert, Tribune Broadcasting MrSativa (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Mystery clarified if not entirely solved: that text (signed by Val E. Limburg) is from the Museum of Broadcast Communications page on the Fairness Doctrine that was linked in "External Links". What might have happened is that (as has often happened to me) the poster thought s/he was copying and pasting the URL from the address bar, but instead pasted the text of the page itself. I think this was an attempt (successful or not) to give a balanced account, and to my humble eyes it seems to contain some useful background and clarification that might well be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Shakescene (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text excised from the article 23 Apr 05 

message: : Mystery clarified if not entirely solved: that text (signed by Val E. Limburg) is from the Museum of Broadcast Communications page on the Fairness Doctrine that was linked in "External Links". What might have happened is that (as has often happened to me) the poster thought s/he was copying and pasting the URL from the address bar, but instead pasted the text of the page itself. I think this was an attempt (successful or not) to give a balanced account, and to my humble eyes it seems to contain some useful background and clarification that might well be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Shakescene (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystery solved?

message: Any references on this guy? Googling on Bill Ruddee or William Ruddee only brings references back to this article.--Eyemeansit 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Ruddee? 

message: Not sure, but it appears that the last bit about the FCC's response to court action in 2000 was only to temporarily suspend the policy:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/2000/nrmm0041.html
(MicahMH 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeal 

message: I also see that this article is under scrutiny for a question of importance.
Well, as the newly elected democratic majority in congress is pushing for a
reinstatement of the fairness doctrine right now, and given the opposition they are already seeing from those in talk radio broadcasting, I think you will find, very soon, that this article will become very popular and very timely.
As for it's importance, the new fairness doctrine promises to completely change the face of talk radio media. I would personally consider that of notable importance, no matter which side of the issue you favor.
Artmonkey 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sounds like this article is important enough. I removed the tag for notability. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: It looks like there are actually a number of "references" in the external links section, including to the line I just tagged as needing citation about GHW Bush. Anyone actually feel like reading through those articles and making them citations? I'll fix the markup, but sorry reading through those articles sounds deeply boring to me. I'm just here via the Recent Changes feed. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Almost referenced

message: Does anyone object to me formatting all of the references to use the citation templates (see the last citation I added for an example of what I'm talking about)? Apparently this is a contentious issue with some folks and if there are any objections I'll not bother. --Hiddekel 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Templates 

message: Trent Lott made some negative remarks about talk radio but reiterated that the solutions was not to regulate but instead better communication directly with the public. This does not constitute support for the Fairness Doctrine. Please stop erroneously adding that he supports it. Talmage 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trent Lott 

message: Since it has been pointed out that talk radio uses the public airwaves, I think it should be pointed out that Hollywood uses the public airwaves as well (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, et al) and that academia, both private and public, receive billions in taxpayer dollars. This is as relevant as talk radio using the public airwaves, and I would like to know if anyone out there has links/sources to recommend in pointing these facts out? Thanks. -- Gerkinstock 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts at reinstatement 

message: The "Attempts" section has been renamed to "Controversy" since the very existence of the attempts is in controversy. I have also made it clear where assertions are made by opinion commentators; typically these are not sources for facts. If this article is to be factual, it should quote people directly, not refer to 2nd-hand quotes filtered through opinion pieces. It's not as if it's difficult to get quotes from politiciansrewinn 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting section name to "Controversy"

message: Within the Controversy section, I split out the legislative matters (which are easy to state objectively) from the commentary (which is inherently POV). Since no link was provided to Pence's proposal, I substituted Coleman's which was basically the same (and an editor (below) had provided the link --- thanks! rewinn 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split out "legislation" 

message: Such legislation - although none has actually been introduced in Congress - has been criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed, despite the overwhelming (90%) conservative bias in the media and media ownership, especially in talk radio as shown in reports out of the Center for American Progress.
Ok this is absolute crap, the Center for American Progress is run by Liberals, how about this, 9/10 reporters give to Democrats! How's that for media bias.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
The above anonymous addition was made on 18:00, 2 August 2007 by User:155.104.37.17
:I wouldn't use profanity, but I do agree with the sentiment that a factual claim (90%) should be linked to the exact study making the claim; and I hope you would make that addition. In a section about a controversy, whether the Center for American Progress is partisan does not disqualify it as a contributor to the controversy; to the contrary, there are conservative commentators quoted earlier in the section. In describing a controversy, it is probably best to provide a representative sample of the parties in the controversy, their positions and the evidence they provide in support; then let the readers hash it out. rewinn 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous addition

message: Blatant POV-pushing about the most recent controversy is not helpful. Wikipedia's job is to lay out both sides briefly, not to argue for either side. The argument that there is a conspiracy to revive the Fairness Doctrine was introduced by commentators and therefore their statements should be mentioned first. Factual support for their assertions is best left in their articles, but since an anonymous editor insists on citing directly to the relevant politicians, those secondary citations go AFTER the commentators. Otherwise, this would be forbidden OR. Or put it another way: to assert there is a conspiracy and then to argue for the conspiracy by producing evidence is OR; to claim that someone says there is a conspiracy and to link to their claim is being encyclopedic. rewinn 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: 'On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.'
this is in fact OR.
your edit reintroduced all of the pov-pushing and weasle-wording i removed. i'm going to revert. if you revert back, you will be in violation of 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. There was a claim about Media Matters that required balance. How would you provide balance without referring to the MM site? rewinn 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise there are claims about Kerry and Durbin, yet "Fairness Doctrine" is not found on their Senatorial websites. It would appear that these are not, in fact, very important to them. One must wonder where that YouTube clip came from and what question prompted Kerry's response, as well as the Durbin quote which now looks a little shakey rewinn 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rewinn, you've literrally declared that you will not accept digital media documentation of a figure's own words as legitimate. to continue working with you as if you're approaching this with good faith would be foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Anonymous Vandal: you are at best mistaken. I'm pointing out that the clip is editted to eliminate any hint of context. I will try to find a complete text so readers may decide for themselves. Your continuing deletion of data from this page should stop. rewinn 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an Actual Original Research Violation 

message: :You are mistaken. There was a claim about Media Matters that required balance. How would you provide balance without referring to the MM site? rewinn 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise there are claims about Kerry and Durbin, yet "Fairness Doctrine" is not found on their Senatorial websites. It would appear that these are not, in fact, very important to them. One must wonder where that YouTube clip came from and what question prompted Kerry's response, as well as the Durbin quote which now looks a little shakey rewinn 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rewinn, you've literrally declared that you will not accept digital media documentation of a figure's own words as legitimate. to continue working with you as if you're approaching this with good faith would be foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Anonymous Vandal: you are at best mistaken. I'm pointing out that the clip is editted to eliminate any hint of context. I will try to find a complete text so readers may decide for themselves. Your continuing deletion of data from this page should stop. rewinn 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing claims is not OR

message: October 2007 Xinunus added to the article:
* I suggest someone do a study about national news networks. Following the example of the Center for American Progress, we could call it, "The Structural Imbalance of the National News Networks". How do you like them apples?
:I moved those comments to this talk page since this is where such comments go. rewinn 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Xinunus suggests

message: Another editor seems to be doing some improvements, so I'll take a break and maybe things will quiet down. This is only wikipedia and no-one with any sense will change their political opinions based on a wiki. Have fun - and if you really want to, ping me talk page, I'll be back. Thanks. rewinn 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outta Here for a Bit

message: Can someone explain why this link should remain in external links?
# Fixing the Fairness Doctrine - A modest technology proposal Writer and Blogger Mike Wallach offers a topical commentary on the Fairness Doctrine.
Thanks. Pgrote (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External commentary link

message: An interesting paragraph on what came before the Fairness Doctrine has been temporarily removed so it can be sourced. It should also be more comprehensive - if the purpose is to cover antecedents to the Doctrine. Here's the text:
:The Yankee Network was on the receiving end of the FCC’s first major act of censorship. In 1938, Yankee was airing editorials against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The FCC requested that the network provide details about these programs. Yankee got the drift and dropped the editorials. The FCC declared that radio stations, due to their public interest obligations, cannot be editorially devoted to the support of any particular political position. In application, this meant that airing Roosevelt's fireside chat was considered nonpartisan, but broadcasting a critique of his proposed legislation would be unacceptably biased.
I think the above is interesting, but needs work. rewinn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Fairness Doctrine

message: One or more anonymous editors (it's hard to tell ... why not use a logon?) keeps trying to insert a highly partisan section based on a single source, a book by Fred Friendly. And this keeps getting reverted because it's nakedly partisan. It may well be that the is notable and balanced (I won't say) but the subject matter of that section must be covered in a more NPOV way before it works. Let us talk about it on this "Talk" page. rewinn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Friendly Book

message: I spotted the "citation needed" flag and it got me thinking. How do you cite the "lack" of something? I.e. no legislation had been introduced in the 110th congress. So I started doing a little googling to find the 110th congress voted on the fairness doctrine on 2007-06-28 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine). Focus on the Family Action Vote Scorecard states an amendment (H.AMDT. 484) to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2829) strips the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to reinstitute the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would order broadcasters to give equal air time to both sides of controversial issues.Navywings (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain negative citation's a problem. One solution would be to find an authority who says that "No bills have been introduced" and then cite to that. rewinn (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be thinking hard enough, but the verifiability/citation requirement applies to statements that might be subject to challenge. Since the way to challenge the absence of legislation in any given recent session of the Congress is to offer a counter-example, and the sources are not obscure but relatively ready to hand (The Congressional Record, reports of Congressional committees, keyword searches on the THOMAS [ Library of Congress ] site, C-Span.com, etc.), shouldn't the onus be on those who doubt the absence of legislation? Of course that doesn't apply to all negative assertions everywhere ("There is no X conspiracy" or "No Y have died because of Z") but on the other hand, one should not have to search for a secondary source to claim that "The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series of baseball since 1908" or "No woman has yet been elected President of the United States." Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agree: In matters of this sort, if a counterexample exists, then it would be far easier to produce it than the other way 'round; and of course a counterexample can spring into existence at almost any time ... after all, some day the Cubs might win a World Series ;-) rewinn (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legislation

message: I don't doubt that this was put in place due to anti-communist sentiment, but it needs to be cited. There are journal articles foreshadowing the implementation of this policy before 1949, and none of them discuss communism. A search on J-Stor reveals many discussions of these issues years before 1949. Here is one example for reference:
Radio Editorials and the Mayflower Doctrine -- Columbia Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 5 (Jul., 1948), pp. 785-793
More over, there is a time line of events provided at the First Amendment Center (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=17491) showing that regulation was increasing, suggesting that the Fairness Doctrine was inevitable. While this article does a pretty good job of explaining the ins and outs of the Fairness Doctrine, it really lacks on empirical evidence. I also fault this article for failing to provide the language of the Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.132.95 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism

message: Don't liberals want free speech? I guess the exception is when it comes to criticizing liberals, then it's not okay to have free speech. Go figure.
*Fairness is evil? It's just not fair! In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes when posting. Thanks. SuMadre (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness Doctrine Is Evil

message: Typo:
"An August 13, 2008 poll released by Scott Rasmussen stated that 47% support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine for radio and television while 31% favor the Internet."
should say: while 31% support instating it for the internet
(note:maybe one could argue the internet was extant while the fair doctrine was also extant -
i am not getting into that :)
Otherwise, you are saying 31% of the people like the internet.
The wording should be revisited. Regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to make the same correction myself, although I wanted to take a peek at Mr. Rasmussen's poll first. But, really, Mr. Doe, you shouldn't feel shy; Be Bold and just put in those clarifying words yourself. Shakescene (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is moot, because I felt impelled to rewrite the whole sentence into a paragraph that, in my humble and far-from-unchallengeable opinion, better reflects the actual results of the poll. (No offense to the original writer, who provided a sound source for verification.) Shakescene (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasumussen Poll of August 13, 2008 

message: I deleted this addition by user:James A. Donald to the "Criticism" section because while well-intentioned it was giving a judgement rather than providing a verifiable example of conservative critiques:Conservatives often depict the fairness doctrine as the “Hush Rush Rule”. In practice, the FCC idea of what was “fair” could be depicted, and frequently was depicted, as extremist, as moderately in favor of Democrats, but as overwhelmingly and extravagantly in favor of regulation, in favor of state power, and in favor of FCC authority in particular. I don't believe in applying any Wikipedia rule blindly—and there are times when I don't think it absolutely necessary, although it's nice, to find secondary verification of uncontested statements (e.g., "many people love Jalapeño peppers, but many others find them much too hot")—but this happens to be an extremely contentious issue; and Wikipedia (which speaks for all of us and to everyone) can't say how the FCC's idea of Fairness is depicted or could be depicted without either retrievable (print, video, audio or Internet) examples of such depictions or documentation of what makes such depictions possible "in practice". While I wasn't involved in the back-and-forth that produced them, you can see that the other arguments, pro and con, all have specific references to sources which made such arguments.
This isn't, of course, intended as an attack or a scolding, but just to explain my own reasoning. Shakescene (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 18 August 2008 conservative critique 

message: I am doing some research on the Fairness Doctrine and I noticed that the first paragraph in the History section was taken word-for-word from this (pro-fairness doctrine) article: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm. I tried adding quotes and a reference to give credit to the original source but I don't know how to do that on Wikipedia and this is actually my first time editing it. If someone wants to do it properly or fix the first paragraph so it isn't plagiarism, please do! 24.116.39.250 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This issue is not entirely BLACK OR WHITE. There are many gray areas in respect to the legality of a fairness doctrine. Cable television is a pay service and operates under slightly different rules than free, network television. However, they are both commercial entities. The "free" networks in television and radio make their money indirectly from viewership. Thus, the audience determines what will be shown...and the size of that audience determines how much money the network can charge for advertising. The media is rapidly approaching a point where "free" television is anything but "free." It is all commercial. There is a question whether or not a different set of rules is needed between "free" media and pay media.
Moreover, there is a very real Constitutional debate concerning whether or not a "fairness doctrine" would actually stiffle free speech. This was part of the concern voiced in the most recent Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s and 1990s. Would the reintroduction of such a rule be Constitutional given today's media (and how vastly different it is from a few decades ago)?
This might warrant further development within the article (perhaps under a "Constitutional Questions" section). The greatest opposition to the reintroduction of this doctrine comes from conservative and religious broadcasters. They seem to fear that this doctrine might limit their time on the air...regardless if they are an entirely commercial or nonprofit venture.
Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Viewpoints 

message: February 05, 2009
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to
be bringing accountability to the airwaves.
Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation used in the "Support" section of the main page is obviously (e.g. "yesterday") a direct copy-and-paste from somewhere. which needs to be acknowledged. The quotation needs closing and attribution. That's not to say anything about its substance, which seems useful to me. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WorldNetDaily is a controversial, on-line only source. As such, it is questionable that it qualifies as reliable. If Stabenow really supports something like the Fairness Doctrine, then she presumably will say something similar to a more reputable publication, and then it's acceptable for us to include information about her position, in the Wikipedia article. Or, if she actually files a bill in Congress, then that would be worth including. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Sen. Stabenow was talking on Bill Press's radio show (rather than WorldNetDaily), and the affiliation to WND was mentioned as an aside and additional identification for WND's own readers, since apparently Press's column appears on the WND site. Bill Press is a liberal and former chairman of the California Democratic Party. WND must show a few alternate viewpoints in addition to its own. I think WorldNetDaily, like the World Socialist Web Site (or for that matter al-Jazeera.net), none of which approximates my own personal views, has good material that just has to be used with caution and is often presented in a non-neutral way. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senator Stabenow : "it's absolutely time to pass a standard" 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something, but is there any particular reason to replace existing citations with new citation templates? I can understand that they may be helpful in making sure that a fresh citation of one's own includes all the necessary items in one of several acceptable orders, but if someone else's citation already looks complete and OK, is there any special reason to bring in all that extra wordage and awkward formatting? I'm just asking since I've never used one myself. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, should Wikipedia decide to change its citation format, then it would be changed wherever the template is used. Using a template encourages consistency of style. Copysan (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, leave complete citations alone. There are much better things to spend time on. Yes, templates have advantages - but they take up extra space, and some editors accordingly dislike them. Citation style is a matter of choice, and some editors get (appropriately) irritated when other editors change theirs. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a particular need for replacing citations with citation templates? 

message: THIS IS A REALLY POORLY DONE ARTICLE. ALL IT HAS IS QUOTES. NO EXPLANATION. AND NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS ALL ABOUT!
I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING AT THE TOP OF THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ALERTING READERS THAT THIS ARTICLE "NEEDS CLEAN-UP" OR ONE OF THOSE TYPE OF MESSAGES!
I LEARNED VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE F.D., INCLUDING THE MAIN QUESITON - WHICH IS HOW MUCH AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE F.D. APPLIED TO STATIONS? I KNOW IT IS NOT TIME BASED BUT IS IT OVER THE FULL 24/7/365 PERIOD THAT THEY MUST PRESENT BOTH SIDES OR JUST SUNDAY MORNINGS? 
AND NOBODY EVEN EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS HANDLED IN THE PAST? IN THE 70'S AND 80'S WHAT WAS IT LIKE? HOW DID THE STATIONS HANDLE IT? WHEN DID CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO COME ABOUT - ONLY AFTER THIS WENT AWAY? HOW HAVE THE STATIONS KEPT DOING THINGS AFTER THE F.D. WENT AWAY LIKE ON SUNDAY MORNINGS WE SEE AND HEAR LOTS OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMMING?
EXPLAIN SOMETHING!
GOD. WHAT A HORRIBLE ARTICLE!
NO CONTEXT. NO REAL INFORMATION. JUST QUOTES!' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.63.133 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS IS A REALLY POORLY DONE ARTICLE 

message: Annie, please discuss your proposed changes here. They are far out of keeping with Wikipedia articles; we rely heavily on reliable sources, for example, and your additions provide none; we have a general style in which Wikipedia articles are written, and your additions are far from that style. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add that Annie's historical comments may (or may not) be appropriate; but Jpgordon's comment is correct - they have to be in wikipedia style. Citation to objective sources is mandatory so people can go check the facts for themselves. If you can provide sourcing perhaps we can work on the wording together. Wikipedia is all about teamwork! rewinn (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest contributions by [[User:Annie birdsong]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228062416/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081026103641/http://www.cnsnews.com:80/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38008 to http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38008
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fairness Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015065201/http://www.commondreams.org:80/views05/0212-03.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When reading through this article, I was a little confused by the "Formal revocation" section stating that the FCC removed the Fairness Doctrine in 2011, when it was stated that FCC had voted to abolish the doctrine in 1987 and the corollary rules were repealed in 2000. I think it should be stated more clearly that while the Doctrine was no longer in effect, it was to officially take it off the books. Schoe043 (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing section 

message: The article seems biased in that it may be pre-arguing against reinstating the 1940s post-WWII "Hitler-Crippler" Doctrine by transposing modern internet communication back into 1987, a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS.  That modern argument runs something like this: With all the privately owned communication venues now available, the public airways may be as biased and one-sided as the private broadcasting company using them so desires.  (They don't word it that way, but that's a "logical" equivalence.
Below are a sample of those unsupported statements and implied arguments that need correcting:
* "upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited."
* "a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the fairness doctrine."...seems to be a contradiction of so-called "limited resource" as a reason to remove the regulations.
* "a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. "
* "to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors."
Below, the editorial/POV; "limits" should be replaced with; "requirements" or similar.   Furthermore the quote (and questionable  history) does not support that POV introductory claim. 
The Court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the fairness doctrine's limits unnecessary:
“	We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)"
 <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:7077:A52D:CCF6:EF94 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems biased & "pre-arguing" against Reinstating 

message: At the part under "Revocation" where the article tells how the FCC rejected the list of alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine, the article simply says this was done "for various reasons". This is an important moment in the events of the doctrine's revocation and I believe the FCC's reasons for rejecting the alternatives are a key piece of information necessary to readers' understanding of the overall events. 
I have never used Wikipedia's talk pages before (and please forgive me if I'm not using them correctly) but I feel a great need to point out this issue. I would find and list the reasons myself but I unfortunately don't have the time or present mental capacity (I'll just say "medication changes") to do so.
Mantha065 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Various reasons" needs describing 

message: How can you say "source has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine"?  
The section you deleted contained two references:  
* :  This book is devoted to the Fairness Doctrine including especially the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC US Supreme Court decision.  The reference to ch. 4 may be goofy.  The National Council for Civil Responsibility (NCCR)" (actually "Civic" responsibility) is mentioned on pp. 10 and 39-40:  P. 10 is in the end of Ch. 1, and pp. 39-40 are in Ch. 3, not 4.  
*  does NOT mention the Fairness Doctrine by name but does mention the Red Lion Supreme Court decision and describes Red Lion broadcasting as a fountain or arch right wing (unfair) broadcasting.  
I've corrected the typo "Civil Responsibility" > "Civic Responsibility" and replaced the references to Friendly with citations to a Wikidata item I created for that book.  (I love Wikidata references, because they link to other items in ways that the citations they replace do not.  And for web links, they are more easily maintained against link rot:  If a link goes bad, fixing it in one place fixes it for every use if the same reference is used in multiple places.)    
I deleted, "The NCCR ended its use of the fairness doctrine to harass broadcasters in light of the Nixon Watergate scandal.Friendly, Fred (1976). The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, and the First Amendment. Random House. pg 41., because that seems to be a misstatement of what appears on p. 41:  Friendly says the NCCR was created in 1964 and ended in 1969 with the Red Lion Supreme Court decision.  On p. 41 Friendly wrote, "Larson, who had long been a target of the radical right, recalls, '... we decided to use the Fairness Doctrine to harass the extreme right.  In the light of Watergate, it was wrong.'"  I disagree:  Using "the Fairness Doctrine to harass the extreme right" -- more generally "using the Fairness Doctrine to harass media outlets that are unfair and fundamentally dishonest -- is what the Fairness Doctrine was designed to do and is VERY different from burglarizing the offices of your political opponents and other blatantly dishonest and criminal practices.  However, that's a digression that does not need to appear in an article on the FCC Fairness Doctrine.  
I also deleted the reference to O'Mara, because it's not clear how much of what O'Mara described there in 1995 pertains to the earlier period during which the Fairness Doctrine was operating ... and the article is already long enough. 
Comments?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly, Red Lion, and Fairness