If you favor reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine?"?

Question

1) To what television and radio programming should it apply? Political points of view can also be embedded in news AND entertainment programming, as well as in "opinion commentary."

2) What issues require the broadcasting of a "rebuttal?" Which issues are "the subject of controversy" and which are not? What percentage of the public has to disagree with a proposition for the issue to be controversial? Does it include, say, KKK and Communist Party members, as well as just Republicans and Democrats?

3) Who decides? What government agency? How are its members appointed? Do they change with a change of president, or can a new Congress appoint new members? What would the regulations look like to implement this?

4) Is there an "appeals" procedure? How would that work? Would court cases drag on, or would there be an expedited procedure?

I think this is all a bad idea. Those are SOME of the reasons why.

PEOPLE have rights, not opinions. Let the people decide!

Answer 1

The biggest problem with it I see is in free enterprise.

For example, Al Franken's radio show sucks. His listenership is pathetic, yet he is a big lib. Rush Limbaugh rocks, as one in eleven Americans listen to him. Even if you do not agree with Rush, and love Al, you have to recognize that the marketplace (listeners) like Rush and do not like Al. Yet, with the fairness doctrine, radio stations will have to place Al on the radio for 3 hours, at a loss to them, to "balance" Rush. Therefore you are telling businesses to loose money.

The end result will be the elimination of Rush and other hosts because the radio statio needs to be profitable. AM radio will die on the vine. It is a bad idea.

There is the internet, the radio, paper, television....there are plenty of locations for consumers of news and information to go to.....the fairness doctrine was never fair or just, and should not be re-instated.

Answer 2

the fairness doctrine is funny, liberals (some not all) want to impose this censor and manipulate what we get. doesn't seem fair to me. seems like a double standard, cry that we have a fascist regime when it conflicts with your agenda, but implement a fascist tool like the fairness doctrine when it agrees with your agenda.

the truth of the matter is, the vast majority of the media is democratically biased, and naturally half the country is watching fox news, and half the country is watching everything else. it also goes to show that the majority of people have spoken. the people watch fox news because they want to, they can't help it that the democrats can't successfully market a news source.

there is no physical way of implementing an unbiased news source!!! take it with a grain of salt, do your own research and consider all sides.

Answer 3

No, it's nothing but a hassle. Fox News already has rebuttals so CNN and the rest can do what they like. Let us know when you see a bill for it so we can fight it. I don't trust the government to be "fair".

Answer 4

The "Fairness Doctrine?" is nothing more than a tool for government to censor free political speech and is a tool that the liberal democrats want. (They are pushing this).

It appears this is a disguised tool to institute a communistic society and should be opposed. Complain to your reps in Washington.

Answer 5

This is something that should really be policed by the media outlets themselves - the problem is the media has become so biased. Its a disgrace. The government needs to step in when the media gets out of control. I totally agree with it. If I had my way the media would outlaw opinions entirely, would have to stick to the facts, and any false statements would actually carry (get this....) consequences.

Answer 6

opinion and fact have been twisted together so much it's hard to know which is which. all news stations are responsible for it. they dont care what they say as long as it gets them the ratings. becuase of this there needs to be something to fix this problem.