47% of Americans favor Govt. regulation on media

[black]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...rnment_mandated_political_balance_on_radio_tv

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.
At the same time, 71% say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) do not agree.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary (full demographic crosstabs available for Premium Members.)
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update(it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
In a July 2007 Rasmussen Reports survey, Americans were evenly divided on whether or not the government should require political balance on TV and radio stations. A survey this week has shown that voters consider media bias a bigger problem than large campaign contributions.
Conservatives have expressed alarm in recent months over congressional Democratic efforts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine which would mandate politically balanced commentary on the airwaves.
Just this week Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee to the Federal Communications Commission, suggested that the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, abolished in 1987 by the Reagan administration, could lead to government regulation of content on the Internet.
Democrats are more supportive of government involvement in the airwaves than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats favor it, and only 26% are opposed. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.
Even Democrats say hands-off the Internet though but by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.
Only 45% of Americans say they are following recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine even somewhat closely, while 15% say they are not following the story at all.
Democrats have been pushing the Fairness Doctrine in part because of the long-standing complaint by liberals that conservatives dominate talk radio. Conservatives counter that their political foes are just trying to use the government to push liberal talk radio even though it has been rejected by the marketplace.
In the new survey, 42% say there are more conservative radio talk shows because they get better ratings, but 28% believe it is because stations owners are biased. Seventeen percent (17%) attribute it to an unspecified other reason, and 13% are unsure.
Most Republicans (61%) believe conservative talk radio has flourished because of the ratings, with only 11% saying it is due to bias. Democrats, on the other hand, see bias as the reason over ratings by a 42% to 28% margin. Among unaffiliateds, 42% say ratings and 27% say bias.
Voters in all categories agree by sizable margins that it is possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media.
With the Congress expected to stay firmly under Democratic control, the responses of those who plan to vote for the party’s presidential candidate Barack Obama versus his Republican opponent John McCain suggest what direction the Fairness Doctrine debate is likely to take in the coming year. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely Obama voters believe the government should make all radio and TV stations offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal commentary, as opposed to 40% of potential McCain voters who feel that way. But 63% of McCain voters and 53% of Obama voters reject similar regulation of web sites and bloggers.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race between Obama and McCain remains close and stable.

It's the free market that determines who is on top in the media. It's obvious that talk radio is dominated by the right BECAUSE of the free market. Liberal talk radio has never done well, but they own the television and a good deal of the internet. The fairness doctrine is nothing more then the democrats wanting to silence the other side. The 1st amendment is only ok, if it helps the far left agenda.

 

[Rachen]

And yes, I am one of the supporters too!

WAAAAAAY too much garbage on TV today. We should have more John Adams, Revolutionary War epics, Civil War epics, and others, if we want our future generations to embrace the cherished rights and customs passed down from our Founders.

 

[Double J]

All my radios and television sets came equipted with "ON" and "OFF" buttons. If I get tired of listening to the noise, I can opt to use my little pinky and end anything I don't want to hear. With the remote, I don't even waste the energy of getting off the couch to enjoy the personal right of choice. No one chains us to the wall and forces us to endure hours of T.V.
--Freedom of the Press is a great thing. So is that "SELECT" button.

 

[Recon7]

That is scary, look what public education has gotten us. Many people out there can't tell you the first thing about the constitution or even name a few supreme court justices.

 

[fburgtx]

Ninety percent of the population could believe that the other ten percent should give them all their wealth. Does that make it right?? (socialism)

Sixty years ago, a majority of Americans would have told you that it wasn't ok for minorities to go to the same schools as whites. Did that make it right??? (racism)

A large portion of the populace believes that every single viewpoint should receive equal time in the media. While that may sound like a good idea, this "fairness doctrine" is actually something being pushed by the Democrats to shut up conservative pundits. This will not mean that you'll be seeing Rush Limbaugh or conservative viewpoints on NBC, ABC, etc. Now the government will have control over how much of a viewpoint can be aired. Who's going to be the judge of whether a network is being completely "fair" or not?? This will not be "fair", it will be fascism. If you don't like NBC, watch FOX (or vice-versa).

 

[MeekAndMild]

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require...

I'll bet I know which 47% this is.

Personally I believe NPR should pay taxes. "Donations" to NPR should be taxable for citizens and treated as advertising costs by for-profit corporations. Not-for-profits should be under the same political gag rule as churches.

 

[mountainclmbr]

The last I heard the Bill of Rights is not subject to popular vote (the tyranny of the masses). The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The less government "intervention" (bungling), the better.

They need us, we don't need them.

 

[LightningJoe]

How did they ask the questions? There's such a thing as a push poll. They know how to get the results they want.

 

[JustDreadful]

the Bill of Rights is not subject to popular vote

If it were, the only measure that would pass today would be the bit about quartering troops. Everybody's 25% libertarian, but also 25% fascist.

And yes, I am one of the supporters too!

What's that other Amendment, again? Comes right before the Second?

You can't pick and choose your Amendments. It's all or none.

 

[SDC]

I'll bet you that 47% includes the 22% who can't tell you which country the USA declared independence from....

 

[Unregistered]

I will bet a lot of the 47% are neo-conservatives that voted for Bush and associates. They are continuously harping about media bias against them.

 

[poptime]

I am wondering who gets to decide what is equal or fair?

 

[Silver Bullet]

If a new "fairness" doctrine levies balanced reporting on the radio, it should also apply to television, movies, public schools, and newspapers.

I'm not in favor of a new law at all, I just don't want it in a manner that only favors the socialists.

 

[wncchester]

"Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,"

It really sounds nice, doesn't it? Sadly, like much of what government proposes, this one will bite us in the butt, badly!

Consider that MOST of liberal commentary is presented as straight news, they deny any liberal slant. If any conservative objects, they will look us straight in the eye and say, "What bias? We are just telling it as we see it." And it will stick.

There are NO successful straight-out liberal broadcast commentary programs unless funded by the tax payer, such as NPR and PBS. All of the truely successful commercial commentary programs are conservative. But that's because libs mostly listen to rap or gangsta music, Oprah and the like, not thought provoking commentary. And it's their free - fair - choice. It would make no difference if more liberal programs were offered, those who vote liberal simply don't care much for programming that challanges them to think rather than being entertained.

Thus, the only "fairness" the lib politicians seek in this bill is to force those people who are successful at presenting our side of the issues, as a conservative counter to the constant undertone of the mass media, that is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, almost all of the newspapers and news magazines (all of whom are loosing market share) to shut up. Against them we conservatives have Hannity, Limbaugh, Regan and a few others on radio and the Weekly Standard magazine so I suppose we should understand why they think they "can't get their message out" and seek a fairness law to silence our side.

The libs want to silence conservative broadcasters because they are effective. If they can force commercial media outlets to provide programs for liberals, few people will listen to them and that means it would have to be done for "free". Few stations could afford to do that. The stations would simply drop the presently successful (conservative) broadcast commentary programs and carry reruns of Maury Povich or cheap shock-jocks and jive music.

Don't let the polliticians sneaking in a law with some sweet sounding name including "Fairness" deceive you! It's like a "Crime Control Bill" that only targets honest citizens, as in the "Gun Control Act" of '68. You really think we can trust the Government to determine what is "FAIR" or that's even what they honestly seek? Gov. control of the media is NOT what we need to determine who says what. Freedom in the broadcast media market is what we have now and THEY can't stand it!

I write as I listen to Obamma Vs. McCain on TV at Saddleback Church. Filter OB's use of "Ah" and "you know" and he speaks in stumbling stacatto bursts but says practically nothing of consequence and that with a flowery style. McCain's answers are quick, lucid and clear, and he tells the truth on some politically sensitive things, some of which I disagree with but I'm impressed with him much more than I had expected to be. I simply can't imagine OB being a "leader" of any nation, anywhere! A bumbling college professor, yes, sure, but a world leader of the USA? NO!

 

[danweasel]

This post is completely ridiculous. Did you get this number from Rush Limbaugh?

47% of the American Population couldn't give a @#$% less about who is blabing on the radio.

47% Of people in the US watch or listen to about 2 hours of news per week now that the internet has been invented.

47% of people who actually listen to or watch the "media" actually believe that liberals or conservatives (whichever they aren't) are dominating the media.

47% of people I actually know and associate with realize that the media is dominated by the rich folks who own it and/or are paying the bills with their advertisments. FOX news will never run an hard hitting story about Wal-Mart manipulatiing local markets and influencing who can buy what. NBC will never run a story about the "military industrial complex" as they are owned by it. Air America will never broadcast a negative story about Al Frankens bid for Senate. And so on. Money runs the world and you are being manipulated by the "EIB network" the same way as anyone who gets influenced by any dumb noise they allow someone to shove into their heads without thinking about it for themselves. In short, tune up the ol' BS filter brother.

47% of the above statistics are just as farsical as the ones you originally presented. The other 53% percent are a W.A.G.

Oh and 47% of the vote is going to Obama. Don't get excited though, because write in votes, Ralph Nader and my man Bob Barr are going to pick up a good 7%

 

[JustDreadful]

They are continuously harping about media bias against them.

There's a difference between complaining about a thing, and actually advocating government action against that thing. I despise those Blue Goof mobile phone Borg-implant ear things, but even if I were Ceasar (and, by the way, I ought to be) I wouldn't actually ban them.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Ouch, if they did that, then people would really have something to complain about as the amount of Republican coverage gets slashed on several major channels.

 

[Wuchak]

The call for the fairness doctrine is the result of a group of people who don't have enough people that will willingly listen to their ideas to attract enough sponsors for their own show wanting to force others to listen to their drivel. If your idea is good you'll find an outlet for it where people willingly support it. If there aren't enough people willingly supporting it either your idea sucks or you aren't trying hard enough to spread the word.

Not very surprisingly it's the people who have a predominately socialist message that feel they are entitled to have the government force private entities to allow the socialists unpaid access to their broadcasting equipment and bandwidth.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Not-for-profits should be under the same political gag rule as churches.

Yes they should and that gag rule should be non-existent in both cases.

Not very surprisingly it's the people who have a predominately socialist message that feel they are entitled to have the government force private entities to allow the socialists unpaid access to their broadcasting equipment and bandwidth.

That is a fact.