Is the Fairness Doctrine really fair?

Question

Check this out and then tell me what you think.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfm

Answer 1

I remember TV under the Fairness Doctrine. I don't miss it much. Every hour or so, some nervous looking 'concerned citizen' would babble incoherently about one political issue or another for 30 seconds.

It sounds, though, like the current incarnation isn't about fairness, at all, but about jetisoning political opinion from the airwaves. You see, under the fairness doctrine, you put up a political opinion, you have to /give way/ your airtime. Anything that could constitute a political opinion effectively costs you /double/ to broadcast. The Dems are pushing this version of the fairnes doctrine to target 'conservative talk radio.' The idea is simple. You can't sell enough add time to stay in business if ever hour of Rush or Savage must be met with an equal hour of bland public service BS, so those guys'll be dropped. Heck, talk radio will likely disapear. Shows that feature political opinion will die, because accusation of showing more of one view than another will siphon away valuable air time.

OTOH, more subtle bias, as in FOX news (it's actually kinda sublte, it just shows up because of the contrast) and the liberal bias in the rest of the media, would probably skate.

Answer 2

Please note that the Heritage Foundation is a RIGHT WING, conservative source, and therefore possibly not the best arbiter on this issue.

When the Rebublican Congress scrapped the fairness doctrine in the 1990s, it scrapped rules that required broadcasters to give equal time to different sides of an issue.

What you see a decade or so later is a media which is largely owned and controlled by just six corporations, 5 of which: NewsCorp, General Electric, Disney, Time-Warner and Viacom, have CEOs who are registered Republicans (the 6th is Sky/ Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch who, not being a US citizen cannot be a registered voter, but is an avowed conservative). They pay, at best, only lip service to "informing the public" - and that is not good for a democracy or a free society. They set an editorial policy in line with their political beliefs. Seriously, if you watch any US news channels with an open mind and you will see:

- News and public affairs that are predominatly pro-military and pro-business
- Promotion of policies such as expansive Presidential executive powers and deregulation of corporations
- Critical or absent coverage of progressives Democrats (e.g., pro-peace 2004 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich) and Green party candidates (e.g., Ralph Nader)
- Soft coverage on Republicans and conservative Democrats.
- "Experts" on news programs often come from "conservative think tanks", such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is an effort to restore some meaning to the public information function of the media by requiring it to report both sides of an issue - just like public broadcasters in every other democratic country are required to do.

The right-wing is opposed to this because it threatens the near-monopoly they've obtained in many areas - NOT because the public has chosen this, but because a small group has bought or forced out so many outlets that there is no real diversity of opinion allowed.

The airwaves are PUBLIC airwaves. No-one has a right to monopolise them. The "freedom" it seems conservatives want is the freedom to put out their message - while silencing everyone else. And that's not freedom, and it's very bad for democracy.

Answer 3

Yes, it required people using the public airways to give equal time to BOTH sides of an issue. I don't want our airwaves to be used as a tool for right-wing propaganda. But that's what happened after Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Now it's brainwashing spin and propaganda on a daily basis. FOX News and Limbaugh are grateful for the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

Use your brains!!! Do you want the wealthiest few that can afford to buy airtime putting only THEIR views/agenda on TV for the public to see? Or do you want anyone using OUR airwaves to be also required to show other points of view in addition to their own?

Answer 4

The fairness doctrine ought to by no potential be enforced the two terrific down the midsection. I do think of that its some thing meaning nicely yet is relatively tricky to enforce. yet i think of that the reason it replaced into introduced extra those days during the immigration debate replaced into that many in government relatively had to silence those speaking out against amnesty. yet that relatively could violate unfastened speech. i think of the answer must be that if a community has a pundit like Rush Limbaugh who speaks out against unlawful alien amnesty and so on.. then he must be required to grant it sluggish to proponents of amnesty to allow them to grant their own take on the situation to the customary public as antagonistic to having Rush tell the customary public what they are asserting, and putting words of their mouth. this ought to be conscious to all matters. If Rush is going to circulate on the air and talk politics and take a verify out to steer public opinion to a ideology, then he must be required to on a regular basis invite a minimum of one centred visitor that provides a distinctive handle issues that disagrees with Rush. so as that the customary public could have the two sides and make up their on minds. that's significant, by using fact if the ideologica conflict is between those with money and skill and people who're slightly making ends meet, then it follows that those with money and skill might have extra money to impact possessing radio and television stations and networks, or pay for vast advert campaigns or sponsor and finance books that pertpetuate their propaganda, mutually as the undesirable are left to in basic terms count on their gut feeling that they are being screwed, yet no longer able to unfold the be conscious approximately it to the lots.

Answer 5

It is fair. I was recently in Germany, and they have a similar doctrine in effect on their shows...the discussion was very lively and animated, and both sides were able to effectively get their point across. It makes for much more intelligent discussion than the scream-a-thon drone sessions that pass for "political talk radio" these days.

I think it would do everyone a great service to see to it that both sides are allowed to be represented when it comes to discussion of issues.

Answer 6

It is very discouraging that there are people who believe it would be a good idea to put the government in charge of deciding what is fair.

Answer 7

Thanks for the reference. Haven't read it yet.
I do know the fairness doctrine amounts to nothing more than a thinly disguised method of legalizing censorship, just like the bill regarding political advertising close to an election.
citizens who love truth and support constitutional principles must object strongly to such specious legislation.
It is TREASONOUS by its very nature!

Answer 8

For liberals who want to use the government to stifle conservatism yes.

Answer 9

No. it is the antithesis of fairness. It's not unusual for pols to give something a name that is the exact opposite of what it really is. Ex: immigration reform.

Answer 10

life ain't fair,but it would make no difference to me if they shut down radio and tv news