Should we bring back the fairness doctrine?

[snodog]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

 

[Black Dog]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

Complaining about bias is not the same as the government being used to silence or in this case promote an agenda. In reality that is all the fairness doctrine is.

 

[jamesrage]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

Because the fairness doctrine only applied to the media on the radio, not the television. Plus it is unconstitutional to force speech is the main reason conservatives oppose it.

 

[digsbe]

Because it's against freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We hate the liberal bias, but we respect their right to free speech enough to allow them to be biased.

 

[mac]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

I would rather have highly biased news than state controlled news.

 

[snodog]

Because the fairness doctrine only applied to the media on the radio, not the television.

Oh I did not know that. Would you be for it if it applied to all media equally? I would agree it is hardly fair if only applied to radio.

 

[Black Dog]

Oh I did not know that. Would you be for it if it applied to all media equally?

I am going to jump in here and say no. We don't need the government dictating what we can or cannot watch or listen too. That is what the remote/dial is for. As adults we can choose to watch/listen etc to what we want when we want, period.

 

[jamesrage]

Oh I did not know that. Would you be for it if it applied to all media equally?

No. It's anti-free speech.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Screw the fairness doctrine. I don't care if it's used against Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity, it's about as opposite of "American" as you can get.

TED,
Who couldn't vote because he doesn't fit the political labels.

 

[earthworm]

I will not allow labels to be pinned on me(other than opinionated old fool....lol...) and I do not know what this "fairness" thing is.

 

[earthworm]

I would rather have highly biased news than state controlled news.

One is as bad as the other, but I do have more trust(10%) in state news than private news(1%).
We need reform , and better people here as well.
It can start with open-ness and honesty.
Right now we have conservative and liberal biased media mixed in with sensationalized "news". Quite the useless mess.

 

[MaggieD]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

The rub lies in who appoints the Commission and how balanced is their assessment? Slippery slope. If that definition, from Wiki, is the upshot, then I would absolutely NOT support it.

HOWEVER, I do think that something should be done about both left and right intentional misinterpretation of the facts in order to confuse the general public.

With the healthcare debate, there was an email circulating that, if one read it, one was appalled that Congress would pass something so tricky-dicky. It cited chapter/verse in the bill itself. After closer examination, checking out these cited sections and subsections (who does that except some dumb lady in Chicago?), it was all lies.

 

[winston53660]

Screw the fairness doctrine what I would like to see is more localized ownership of media.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Screw the fairness doctrine what I would like to see is more localized ownership of media.

THAT. A lot.

 

[mac]

One is as bad as the other, but I do have more trust(10%) in state news than private news(1%).
We need reform , and better people here as well.
It can start with open-ness and honesty.
Right now we have conservative and liberal biased media mixed in with sensationalized "news". Quite the useless mess.

You'd rather only hear what the government wants you to hear? The first indication that freedom is lost is state controlled media.....

 

[Josie]

I don't understand why ANYONE would be for the fairness doctrine. It's a restriction of the first amendment, for the love of God.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

For the much the same reason as you'd be for government regulations designed to protect the environment, or workplace safety, or accomplish any number of noble goals.

But wait, you say, aren't those the kind of goals we figure that everybody would be in favor of? So why would we need the regulations to begin with?

Because we bipeds, all too often, trade common sense, the well-being of others and our personal moral code for power and profit.

 

[mac]

You forget that the freedom of press is the only real safeguard against tyranny. When it comes to domestic freedom, the power of the pen is the mightiest of all.

 

[Gardener]

I don't understand why ANYONE would be for the fairness doctrine. It's a restriction of the first amendment, for the love of God.

The fairness doctrine addresses the fact that the airwaves are limited by very nature due to the fact that there are only so many bands upon which to broadcast and therefore the licenses for using the airwaves are restricted. Rather than restrict the first amendment as you are claiming, the fairness doctrine addresses the issue of monopolies and how THEY restrict free speech.

The fairness doctrine was removed by Reagan to LIMIT the expression of free speech rather than enabling it by ensuring that those who benefited from his trickle down voodoo would have greater access to influencing public opinion.

 

[Barbbtx]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

It only affects talk radio. Talk radio and Fox news are pretty much the only outlets for Conservatives.
Insisting that a talk show give equal time to the other side is ridiculous and very hard to monitor. It stifles speech rather than expands it. If people wanted to listen to liberal talk radio, it would be successful and we wouldn't be discussing the unfairness doctrine.
All the rules and lack of an audience would destroy talk radio. All radio would go to how to bake bread, to how to fix a toilet.
That has been the goal of Hillary Clinton, Nancey Pelosi and other progressives for a long time. The goal is to shut down Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck..........
It's nothing to do with fairness.

 

[TurtleDude]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

it is designed to attack talk radio, not the biased MSM news reporters who slant the news.

 

[Barbbtx]

Screw the fairness doctrine what I would like to see is more localized ownership of media.

Careful there! The Progressives are trying to reintroduce the "fairness" doctrine by calling it "Localization and Diversity"

 

[rathi]

The fairness doctrine is absurd. Even ignoring its blatant first amendment violations or that it specifically goes after talk radio, it implicitly forces the two party system onto the media.

 

[Goshin]

One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?

Because it wouldn't be used fairly.

 

[FederalRepublic]

The fairness doctrine addresses the fact that the airwaves are limited by very nature due to the fact that there are only so many bands upon which to broadcast and therefore the licenses for using the airwaves are restricted. Rather than restrict the first amendment as you are claiming, the fairness doctrine addresses the issue of monopolies and how THEY restrict free speech.

The fairness doctrine was removed by Reagan to LIMIT the expression of free speech rather than enabling it by ensuring that those who benefited from his trickle down voodoo would have greater access to influencing public opinion.

Let's be very honest. We're talking about AM radio here. How many AM radio stations were there when Reagan limited free speech, and how many are there now? Furthermore, is there any radio market in the US where even half of either FM or AM radio bands are broadcasting anything at all? If you want to broadcast your views on the radio, I'm quite certain you can start up a radio station and go to town any time you like.

So, what you are proposing is limiting the free speech of others simply because you don't have the ability to convince sponsors to air your views and you don't have the initiative to start a radio station yourself. Sorry, but that sounds like a personal problem. You can always put your views out on here. Or are we limiting your free speech here as well?