- Sep 4, 2009
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
One thing I can never understand is why are the same people who complain about liberal bias in the media against the fairness doctrine?
Oh I did not know that. Would you be for it if it applied to all media equally?
One is as bad as the other, but I do have more trust(10%) in state news than private news(1%).I would rather have highly biased news than state controlled news.
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.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.
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.
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.