I remember hearing something along the lines of some legislation getting passed that basically allowed news to become a profit center. And that was the downfall of journalism. Anyone know anything about this? I believe it was in Clinton’s term.
I remember hearing something along the lines of some legislation getting passed that basically allowed news to become a profit center. And that was the downfall of journalism. Anyone know anything about this? I believe it was in Clinton's term.News is no more a profit center than it ever was. A lot of print newspapers have gone bankrupt and folded. TV News, though more likely to make some profit, is very competitive. There are many, many channels on cable and satellite, all the broadcast channels and most local channels have news broadcasts. Few are getting rich on news. Maybe Fox News does, but that's more commentary than news. It's best to know the difference and not to conflate them. Lois
Of course they have to make a profit, usually from advertisers. Newspapers partly from subscription. I wonder, at this point, what the difference would be?
I remember hearing something along the lines of some legislation getting passed that basically allowed news to become a profit center. And that was the downfall of journalism. Anyone know anything about this? I believe it was in Clinton's term.Are you looking for this:
Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill June 21, 1987 | PENNY PAGANO http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday. The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." ...
A BRIEF HISTORY OF The Fairness Doctrine By Dan Fletcher ~~~ ... every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the "fairness" part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so. Now, more than 20 years later, a group of Democratic legislators are calling for it to be brought back to life. "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," said Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow. The news has outraged conservatives, who see the proposal as a transparent attempt by Democrats to muzzle talk radio bigwigs like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh. But the latest effort, backed informally by Congressional heavyweights including House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry, raises old questions about the government's role in regulating the airwaves. (See pictures of embarrassing diplomatic moments.) ...
I remember hearing something along the lines of some legislation getting passed that basically allowed news to become a profit center. And that was the downfall of journalism. Anyone know anything about this? I believe it was in Clinton's term.Are you looking for this:
Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill June 21, 1987 | PENNY PAGANO http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday. The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." ...
A BRIEF HISTORY OF The Fairness Doctrine By Dan Fletcher ~~~ ... every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the "fairness" part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so. Now, more than 20 years later, a group of Democratic legislators are calling for it to be brought back to life. "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," said Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow. The news has outraged conservatives, who see the proposal as a transparent attempt by Democrats to muzzle talk radio bigwigs like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh. But the latest effort, backed informally by Congressional heavyweights including House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry, raises old questions about the government's role in regulating the airwaves. (See pictures of embarrassing diplomatic moments.) ...That presents a hilarious picture. Can you imagine Sean Hannity and others on Fox News actually presenting "multiple perspectives"? That would be serious competition for Saturday Night Live. Lois
I remember hearing something along the lines of some legislation getting passed that basically allowed news to become a profit center. And that was the downfall of journalism. Anyone know anything about this? I believe it was in Clinton's term.Are you looking for this:
Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill June 21, 1987 | PENNY PAGANO http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday. The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." ...
A BRIEF HISTORY OF The Fairness Doctrine By Dan Fletcher ~~~ ... every few years, someone in Congress brings up the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the FCC abolished the policy, which dictates that public broadcast license-holders have a duty to present important issues to the public and — here's the "fairness" part — to give multiple perspectives while doing so. Now, more than 20 years later, a group of Democratic legislators are calling for it to be brought back to life. "I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," said Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow. The news has outraged conservatives, who see the proposal as a transparent attempt by Democrats to muzzle talk radio bigwigs like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh. But the latest effort, backed informally by Congressional heavyweights including House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry, raises old questions about the government's role in regulating the airwaves. (See pictures of embarrassing diplomatic moments.) ...Yes that's it. It used to be that news shows had to report just the news and present opposing viewpoints. And I believe they even had to keep their news departments separate from their entertainment departments. It was seen as something boring and a money loser but performing a public service. Once the fairness doctrine went bye bye, media companies could report anything at all, did not separate the news and entertainment departments, and began focusing on whatever would bring in the ratings. And that was the big downfall. Last spam sentence.