Author Topic: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine  (Read 4369 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« on: March 05, 2007, 10:38:45 PM »

[I had no idea this was the start of the Fairness Doctrine.]

   
Obituary
Billy James Hargis


Rightwing preacher laid low by sexual scandal

Michael Carlson
Friday December 10, 2004
The Guardian

Although Billy James Hargis, who has died aged 79, never achieved the respectability of Billy Graham, his mix of fundamentalist Christianity and virulent anti-communism, disseminated at his peak in the early 1960s across a network of some 250 US television and 500 radio stations, gave him an influence reminiscent of the 1930s right-wing radio preacher Father Coughlin. When someone finally stood up to his red-baiting broadcasts, the result was a landmark court decision on broadcasting fairness.

Article continues
His use of his churches to organise rightwing candidates might have served as a template for the strategy of George W Bush's svengali, Karl Rove. Hargis's ministry brought him a vast fortune, and, in a tradition going back at least to the inter-war period and Sister Aimee McPherson, he was brought down by sexual scandal.

Standing 6ft 6ins and weighing nearly 20 stone, Hargis resembled the stereotypical southern sheriff more than a preacher, and his brand of fire and brimstone preaching came from a tradition known in the Ozarks as "bawl and jump". Born in Texarkana, Arkansas, the orphaned Hargis had promised to devote himself to Christ if his adopted mother recovered from illness. Although he never finished Bible college, he was ordained by the "Disciples Of Christ" while still a teenager, but after a few years abandoned his pastorate after finding success preaching on radio.

In 1950, with the red-baiting McCarthy era in its ascendancy, he launched the Christian Crusade Against Communism. In 1953, he travelled to West Germany to launch 100,000 balloons, with Bible verses attached, over the iron curtain.

Hargis's "communist" targets soon expanded, to government, the media, and even churches less committed than his to his fight. In 1957, the Disciples Of Christ withdrew his ordination, but by then his televised ministry was bringing in more than $1m a year, and he had established links with another evangelist, Carl McIntire, and General Edwin Walker, the rightwing general and John Birch Society leader. But the seeds of Hargis's downfall were planted firmly in his success.

First, the Internal Revenue Service decided Hargis's work was political and removed his tax exemption. Then, in a 1964 radio broadcast, Hargis accused journalist Fred Cook of smearing the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, saying Cook had been fired from jobs for journalistic misconduct. When Red Lion, a Pennsylvania radio station refused Cook a right of reply, he sued, and, in its "Red Lion" decision, the US Supreme Court established the "fairness doctrine". Under the first President Bush, the requirement of balance was removed; the current administration has reduced the protections even further.

As his media power waned, Hargis founded the American Christian College in 1971. Having denounced the Beatles as "godless", he sold his school with cleancut images of its choir, the "All-American Kids", which became a touring show. In 1976, however, Time magazine reported that a student couple, married by Hargis in the college chapel, discovered on their wedding night that both had lost their virginity to Hargis. A number of male choir members accused him of coercing them into sex, justifying his seductions by quoting the example of David lying with Jonathan. Hargis denied the charges, saying communists and Satan were conspiring against him. But Hargis was forced to resign from his college.

He spent the next two decades back on the revival circuit, and founded a missionary foundation that set up orphanages, hospitals, and leprosy clinics in the third world. In his autobiography, My Great Mistake (1985) he wrote: "I was guilty of sin, but not the sin I was accused of." Despite a series of heart attacks, he continued to run Christian Crusade ministries until last year, when his son, Billy James Hargis II, assumed control.

He survives him, as do Hargis's wife Betty Jane, and three daughters.

· Billy James Hargis, evangelist, born August 3 1925; died November 27 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1370700,00.html
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2007, 10:40:32 PM »
More accurately referred to, of course, as the Anti-1st amendment's unFairness Doctrine.  I'm not sure you really want to go down this path again, Lanya.  You ran away from some tough questions from Prince & Ami the 1st go around.  You going to do it again, in your twisted way of trying to defend your support of anti-free speech when it's speech you don't like?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 10:57:34 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2007, 10:57:38 PM »
Publicly owned airwaves are, or should be, protected by the Fairness Doctrine.
As to who I respond to and if and when and why, I don't have to respond to any post.

 
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2007, 11:06:21 PM »
Publicly owned airwaves are, or should be, protected by the Fairness Doctrine.
As to who I respond to and if and when and why, I don't have to respond to any post.
 

Protected??  ANYTHING that tells someone they can NOT speak is anti 1st amendment.  ANY legislation that says unless you have some equal representation of x speak to y speak, then you can NOT speak at all is anti 1st amendment.  But let's pull up those Ami, Plane & Prince Questions, and see how fast Lanya runs

Ami- "So, you're good with creationists in schools? Nazis at political rallies?"

Plane- "Who decides what equal is?"

Prince- "I wonder if you want to see pro-choice rallies forced to give equal time to anti-abortion activists. Do you want spouse abusers and pedophiles given equal time in the name of fairness?"  Prince adds "Lanya, you're the one arguing for points of view to get special privileges. Rush Limbaugh et al do nothing at all that stops you from getting your opinions out to the people"
« Last Edit: March 07, 2007, 07:07:34 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2007, 11:14:48 PM »
The facts in the Red Lion case:

The Supreme Court's decision in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969 was the high-water mark for this view. In 1964, a minister who owned a radio station in Red Lion, Penn., sold 15 minutes for $7.50 to the Rev. Billy James Hargis for his Christian Crusade program, which aired on 200 stations. Hargis then took two minutes of his program to criticize Fred Cook, author of Goldwater—Extremist on the Right. Cook complained to the FCC and demanded equal time to respond. The broadcaster offered him 15 minutes for $7.50, but Cook declined, demanding free airtime under the doctrine and its "personal attack rule." The FCC granted him the free time, and the justices unanimously sustained the doctrine on the grounds that the airwaves are scarce.

I believe the FCCand the courts were wrong in their decision. The plaintiff was given full opportunity to rebut under the same circumstances as the defendent. Can't get much fairer than that.

And the whole premise that airwaves  are scarce is as outdated as the telegraph. There are plenty of opportunities to get your opinion out there. Cable, satellite, radio, broadcast tv, internet and print. What the govt is not required to do is provide an audience. And therein lies the rub.



Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2007, 11:47:27 PM »

Publicly owned airwaves are, or should be, protected by the Fairness Doctrine.


You're assuming that the "fairness doctrine" protects publicly owned airwaves. I suggest that assumption has no basis in reality.


As to who I respond to and if and when and why, I don't have to respond to any post.


Yes, of course you don't have to respond. You don't have to answer contrary questions. And if you're okay with people thinking you want pedophiles, Holocaust deniers and racists to be given equal time, by all means you should refuse to answer questions that bring up such issues. If you really want there to be a doctrine enforced by the government that stifles free speech and infringes on the freedom of the press (i.e. news media) by placing an onerous burden on broadcasters, then please do just keep posting about how we need a "fairness doctrine". Then we'll all know that any concerns you express about rights and freedoms is just talk without substance. Which is to say, we'll all know you're full of sh--.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2007, 05:40:24 AM »
I see a certain someone ran pretty fast when asked to try & defend this anti-1st amendment feldercarb.  Hmmmm, I wonder why
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

terra

  • Guest
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2007, 01:39:05 AM »
You're all the same...What would you "men" know about fairness...except the kind of fairness in the Faux Snooze, the Faux kind? You all think that you being able to say all you want any time you want, even calling names  is fair and if people place limits then it is not Fair...

I still think rethugians are the most narrow minded know nothings on this Green Earth. You all are so afraid of admitting your party and it's ideals are so full of shit that you are afraid to think. You are all hidebound...frozen in some kind of  alternative universe, where calling someone a faggot  is funny...the thing is the dumb harpy forgot she was on C Span.

Bush can not get up inthe morning without something new happening to find out how corupt and really down low he and his believers are.  How can semi literate people still have any faith in him? Or is it if you wake up and smell the napalm, you will have to admit you got taken? Lied to? F**ked?

But any way how's it been?

terra


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2007, 01:55:30 AM »
Feel better now Terra?    ;D   Welcome back. 

A most interesting tactic in defending the indefensible.  Minus the rant, I was most intrigued with your quote
Quote
"You all think that you being able to say all you want any time you want, even calling names  is fair and if people place limits then it is not Fair..."

In a word YES.  That is the foundation of the 1st amendment, arguably the most important the founders considered as our rights.  The freedom to dissent, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to "say all we want, any time, even calling names", without fear of government retaliation.  Good gravy, folks like yourself are doing that 24/7 regarding Bush and the "rethugians".  What kind of ground are you standing on to declare how unfair it is for others to call those you support names, yet perpetuate the same thing on a routine basis??
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2007, 03:43:27 AM »


terra



terra!

Nice to be criticised !


Welcome

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2007, 07:35:08 AM »
You're all the same...What would you "men" know about fairness...except the kind of fairness in the Faux Snooze, the Faux kind? You all think that you being able to say all you want any time you want, even calling names  is fair and if people place limits then it is not Fair...

So, since your post is nothing more than calling people names, are you claiming that your own post is unfair?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2007, 12:46:41 PM »

You're all the same...What would you "men" know about fairness...


You're joking, right? To start out that way, you have to be joking.


But any way how's it been?


Not bad. How are you, ya Pagan witch?  ;-]
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2007, 05:15:38 PM »
I know it's only mid-day, but I'm continually amazed how folks like Terra, Lanya, & Brass will preach how "fair" the fairness doctrine is, yet refuse to answer those questions posed that demonstrate precislely how anti-free speech the doctrine actually is.  It seems to happen every single time the subject is brought up.

Me thinks that deep down they actually believe it to be so (anti-1st amendment), but in certain circumstances, oh let's say when a RW pundit or conservative talk show host is crucifying some Liberal democrat with facts decorated with a fair amount of hyperbole, well, in those cases, they shouldn't be allowed to, because........well, because it's not fair, people are actually listening to them.  Or something along those lines
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2007, 01:22:32 PM »
Just thought I'd throw in a reply to this thread, to let messers Lanya, Terra, and Brass (where ever he is) know that this isn't going away as fast as they would wish, and that those questions posed to them are stell pending an answer      8)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Origin of the Fairness Doctrine
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2007, 03:49:58 AM »
Volunteer State blogger, Bob Krumm, looks at Gore's demands for the suppression of dissent. Yesterday's Tennessean reported on a speech the erstwhile veep gave in Murfreesboro:

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly--and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias.

"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."


Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

Krumm notes that Gore was complaining as early as 1992 about excessive balance in the media. Yet in a speech at the October 2005 We Media Conference, Gore seemed to urge government-mandated balance, at least on other topics:

As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."

As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.--including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine--though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.


Gore is mistaken on two out of three points: Although the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine (which regulated the presentation of "controversial issues of public importance") in 1987, the Public Interest Standard (which is part of the law that created the FCC) and the Equal Time Provision (which applies to political candidates) remain in force.

So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias?


Naaaaaaaaa
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle