What is your opinion on the Fairness Doctrine?

Question

1. What is your understanding of the law?

2. How does it violate the First Amendment?

3. How does it violate the premise of free markets?

4. How will it destroy conservative radio, if it gets reimplemented?

I'm sorry, let me add that the Doctrine is no longer in use (it ended in the late 80s I believe) but the current Congress is considering bringing it back

Answer 1

1. It is designed to force conservative shows to give an equal amount of time to opposing voices.

2. Because it takes the right of conservatives to express their views. People who listen to Rush want to hear what Rush says, not what liberals say.

3. It violates free markets because it forces the consumer to listen to viewpoints that they did not tune into to hear.

4. It will destroy conservative radio because they will lose considerable listeners. Most will tune out because they do not want to hear the opposing viewpoint. It is also an impossible idea to enforce.

Since liberals cannot beat conservatives on ideas, they try and silence them.

This was law until 1987

Answer 2

1. It was put in place to avoid the airwaves being dominated by one point of view....the FCC understood that people are sheep and did not want them led in one given political direction without hearing both sides of the story.

2. I don't believe it does violate the first amendment. It does not keep an entity from expressing an opinion, it merely states that opposing entity's be allowed to express theirs. If anything, it protects the first amendment.

3. I don't believe that news organizations should be allowed the same liberty's as others in the free markets. They should be held to higher standards. If they report something as news, it had better be news. If they want to hand out opinions, the opposing view points should be heard as well so that the people can make the most informed decision possible. This is still a democracy right?

4. People will hear the other side of the story and not constantly get led down the red brick road by fascist talk show hosts who are interested in nothing but spreading their propaganda. If people truly agree with the conservative talk show hosts, why would you be afraid of them hearing the other side?

Answer 3

I had forgotten what the Fairness Doctrine was until you mentioned radio. I thought the FD was still in place and used; we just weren't forced to have to listen to the other side.

From what I remember from journalism school, the Fairness Doctrine was put in place by the Supreme Court after they found that certain politicians, particularly those in office, has unfair exposure to the media and, therefore, the "other side" had to be given the same amount of air time. For instance, if Letterman has Pelosi on his show, then he was forced by the FCC to have her opposition on his show for the same amount of time to tell the audience how Pelosi was lying. (Hmmm...doesn't sound so bad now.)

I suppose it violates the premise of free markets because people like Letterman have the right to have on their shows whoever they want to for whatever reason, without having to also give airtime to the opposition.

I'm not sure they could apply this to talk radio in a practical way unless they force off the air every one of the shows that refuses equal airtime.

Answer 4

As I recall -- from skimming through my book "Constitutional Law For a Changing America," published in 1991 (this is the kind of book used as a textbook for Con Law classes in undergrad programs like Poli Sci) -- the Court has said that it DOES violate freedom of press when government forces PRINT journalism to give space to "the opposition," but the Court has said that it does NOT violate freedom of press when government forces BROADCAST journalism to do so. And, if I recall correctly, this distinction has to do with the fact that broadcasters operate only with a government-issued license, whereas print journalists don't need to have licenses, and that broadcasters are operating within finite time and space, whereas print journalists have an infinite amount of time and space to work with. When a journalist "slams" some politicians/candidate in a newspaper, the person who was "slammed" can simply respond with a publication of their own. But when a TV or radio station "slams" someone, what can that someone do to respond? Hence, TV and radio have to be fairer to the persons being "slammed" than do newspapers.

But this kind of First Amendment issue isn't really my area of expertise.

Answer 5

I think it is unenforceable. The intent is to offer the views of the loyal opposition, but in many, if not most cases, it ends up that the person chosen to present those opposition views (of the network execs) are usually chosen to present their case weakly

Besides, who can say with any certainty what is fair & what is not? On the Jim Lehrer Report, It seems they chose equally qualified people to discuss different sides of an issue presented to them. But outside of PBS, to this moderate's ears at least, the effort usually falls short.. And In almost all cases, you seldom hear what a moderate view would be, which sometimes is an entirely different approach than the middle of both sides' positions.

If it was un-Constitutional, I believe the Supreme Court would have decided the issue by now. The law has nothing to do with free markets as the networks & local stations are using the airwaves that rightfully belong to the people. And considering that the doctrine has been in effect for decades, & conservative talk radio has thrived, how could it spell the end of it (unless it is actually enforced, which hasn't happened yet)?

Answer 6

a million. It became put in place to ward off the airwaves being ruled by using one attitude....the FCC understood that everybody is sheep and did no longer choose them led in one given political path with out listening to the two components of the story. 2. i do no longer have confidence it does violate the 1st modification. It would not save an entity from expressing an opinion, it in basic terms states that opposing entity's be allowed to particular theirs. If something, it protects the 1st modification. 3. i do no longer have confidence that information businesses must be allowed an identical liberty's as others interior the loose markets. they must be held to bigger standards. in the event that they checklist something as information, it had greater helpful be information. in the event that they choose to hand out evaluations, the opposing view factors must be heard besides so as that the individuals could make the main counseled determination obtainable. this continues to be a democracy suitable? 4. human beings will pay attention the different facet of the story and not continuously get led down the pink brick highway by using fascist talk practice hosts who're fascinated in no longer something yet spreading their propaganda. If human beings particularly accept as true with the conservative talk practice hosts, why might you be petrified of them listening to the different facet?

Answer 7

I'm kind of mixed on it. I think it would be a terrible law BUT being that Savage has already commissioned the best 1st amendment lawyers and has promised to be on every single news and radio broadcast to "put the liberals in their place" since they refuse to have him on shows I think it would be fun for at least a while.

Answer 8

1. The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

2.It doesn't: "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969

3. It doesn't

4. I doubt it would

Answer 9

1. It requires broadcasters over the public airwaves to provide balanced political coverage.

2. It does not. Media outlets are not required to use the public airwaves to distribute their programming, but if they do, they must follow the regulations.

3. It does not. The radio and TV spectrum is a public resource that companies freely choose to utilize.

4. It will, because listeners will be forced to hear opposing viewpoints and the number of dittoheads will inevitably plummet.

Answer 10

Wouldn't you just LOVE to go on Air America and make Al Franken's voice crack?

Put another way, wouldn't this go BOTH ways? Wouldn't liberal media be required to allow opposing views as well?