Why do people think the Fairness Doctrine is wrong, it just holds broadcasters responsible?

Question

It supports that the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remain in practice. The "personal attack" is that whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast, stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule is when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The supreme court stated "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."

Answer 1

Well I totally agree. The only ones fighting it are of course the Republicans. The same people that fine Janet Jackson for a 1/2 sec nip slip are the ones that want to attack. Its funny how they are so hypocritcal at every turn.

Funny thing is... the FCC which is republican controlled are the ones that enforced it so hard it went away...hmm imagine that one. They control the media as well.

Answer 2

The outcome of the Fairness Doctrine is to stifle free speech. The bureaucratic and administrative nightmare that comes from responding to every paranoid nutjob or radical with an agenda amounts to taking talk radio off the air. No station manager wants to put up with such hassles. That is the real purpose of the Fairness Doctrine and it is wrong.

Answer 3

the only ingredient that we are in a position to assert approximately Obama on something is that we ought to attend and spot what he genuinely does. He has already back pedaled on his tax will enhance for the rich and he hasnt even taken place of work yet. i'm hoping you're precise and that he would not help it. i'm hoping he appoints a Director of the FCC who won't impose it. upload: I right now appeared up the information and spot which you're precise. It feels like Obama isn't in desire of the fairness Doctrine inspite of the undeniable fact that many dems in congress are. (I had assumed that he substitute into in certainty a proponent of this) i've got faith greater useful approximately this, and that i'm hoping he sticks together with his perception in this subject. The fairness Doctrine is an attack on our first substitute. upload: to those saying Rush Limbaugh is spreading this around - he DOES point out people in congress in desire of this (besides he ought to) yet I dont have faith he has EVER stated Obama's call the place it particularly is worried.

Answer 4

The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating political speech.

Opinions don't have rights; people do. How on Earth can a system that responds to the will of the public (ratings) be said not to give them what they want?

The Constitution guarantees liberty, not some bureaucrat's idea of "fairness."

And under your rule, Bush would get a free half hour after every nightly news broadcast! I don't think he needs the FCC to help him defend himself.

Answer 5

The liberals have their knickers in a twist because most of conservative radio is successful and has listeners where most of liberal radio has tanked and has two Chihuahuas and a fly listening in. Their seeming answer is the usual for them, fascism, force and Indoctrination. "If the masses don't want to listen to our stupid, whining drivel, we will force them to by taking away their choices!!!"

If the fairness doctrine returns, this will end up being a HUGE victory for censorship. It's not enough for left to allow passionate ideas to compete freely on the airwaves.

If the liberals ever did more than whine, blame, insult God,, reinvent morals into green slime and pretend there is really no evil in the world, only misunderstood world views, maybe more of the nation would want to listen in. Our freedom of speech is a precious heritage and right. We all have the right to say what is on our mind, challenge, agree/disagree, criticize etc……Our country has been tilting morally for some time like the Titanic and certain cowards who call themselves politicians, leaders and billionaires can't handle our freedom of speech anymore.

Answer 6

It's unconstitutional - a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Government can not infringe upon the right of free speech.

Laws requiring stations to take actions based on opinions they air are the textbook definition of the word INFRINGEMENT.

To be fair, the GOP has infringed upon free speech A LOT for more than a generation - but that doesn't make the Fairness Doctrine acceptable.

EDIT: In response to your additional details:

The present right-wing radio knuckleheads are NOT "monopolizing a frequency to the exclusion of others."

The 1st Amendment obviously doesn't address radio licensing rights, but as I stated above it does address government INFRINGEMENT on free speech, a point you have conveniently ignored.

Finally, the phrase "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount" is the cornerstone of FASCIST THEORY, not to mention exceedingly offensive and oppresive in nature.

Please go back to school.

Answer 7

You will have a radio station airing Sean Hannity have to also air Al Franken or some other lame talk show.

It would be like a TV station that airs Oreilly will also have to air Rosie Odonnald.

Nothing to do with shows getting ratings and making money for the stations. Just have to be "fair."

Do you see how communist the whole concept is? I guess that's why Liberals love it.

Answer 8

The Fairness Doctrine did not require broadcasters to present issues in a "fair and honest manner"; it required them to turn their stations into ping-ponging punditry if they allowed opinion to appear on the air at all. It created such a complicated formula that most broadcasters simply refused to air any political programming, as it created a liability for station owners for being held hostage to all manner of complaints about lack of balance.

Answer 9

the 'fairness doctrine' is anything but. it's only purpose is to end the airing of conservative views on network news (already accomplished), cable news (mostly accomplished), and of course and especially, talk radio (not nearly accomplished) which is why it is being revived with such fervor by the likes of dennis kucinich. he is, after all, the congress' resident stalinist. you remember stalinist russia right? the one that stifled free speech and political dissent with bullets...yeah, that one...oh, and i almost forgot, it would be a direct violation of the first amendment...the founding fathers would hang you for this...

Answer 10

So you think we should force a country radio station to play Rap. You think we should force conservative radio stations to play 3 hours of Al Franken. You think we should force ESPN to play old movies. You think we should have a censure in Congress monitoring radio stations.

Al the stuff you quoted was lawyer speak for shutting people up. Wake up!

Answer 11

There is nothing wrong with a personal attack rule or a political editorial rule but we are supposed to have freedom of the press in this country. If a station is a pronounced liberal station what right does the government have to tell them they must let a conservative on? If you want to hear what the conservative has to say, you can hear them on a conservative station.