What really is The Fairness Doctrine?

Question

In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld the fairness doctrine. It was always law in the United States since the advent of radio. Later, 1987, the FCC overturned the doctrine, under, a Republican administration. Congress sought to enforce the fairness doctrine but Republican administrations stated that such legislation would receive a veto from the President. Now, a new democratic Congress is bringing up the issue. Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, are as follows. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was 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 applied 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 Fairness Doctrine is NOT about limiting free speech. It is about broadcasters giving fair and balanced treatment when attacking a person or entity's character, or, endorsing a candidate.

Answer 1

sounds fair to me..... and Constitutional

Answer 2

Its an attempt for liberals to shut down talk radio. Since Air America tanked, Rosanne Barr was just booted from a local station, libs have had a difficult time competting in the realm of ideas. The only way they can survive is when it is backed by government handouts like NPR. No one wants to hear doom and gloom all day. And liberal radio cannot compete / stand the test of time in a capital listener market decided by the people.
The fairness doctrine is an attempt for governmental crackdown on free speech in trying to level the playing feild in radio. but if their ideas in radio don't work, and markets decide whats good and not good, should government step in and mandate chage?

We all have the right of free speech, we all don't have the right to be heard!

Thats exactly what this does. Its like, oh you don't like what you hear? Well we will just punish all the other radio stations that are successful bacuase it is not fair these were not.

Imagine the govenors wife open a flower shop, and it fails (poor quality flowers, bad arrangments ect.) Then that governor introduces legilation to punish successful flower shops via a 25% tax hike on all flowers sold in that state, or a standardized, pre approved governmental flower arangement commitee able to just walk in any shop day or night, harrass, intimidate and fine all non compliers.

Thats what the fairness doctrine is, the most unfair legislation in a attempt to sillence oposition. Taking over radio and TV station is a tactic used by many (Nazi's, Buatista's, rebel forces, ect.) just before a coup.

Answer 3

The problem with the fairness doctrine is that you would HAVE to give a balanced point of view. So I could say "Social Security is bad because it wastes X amount of dollars a year", then have to put on someone who says the exact opposite. So in essence the facts don't get reported because they're seen as biased. . So to get around that network news made inherent bias into an art form. i.e. "Joe blow when interviewed claimed 'GEORGE BUSH IS AN IDIOT' while Republican respondants diagreed, claiming that 'GEORGE BUSH IS AN IDIOT' was not true. I'm exaggerating but you get the idea.

The problem with the mainstream media nowadays is they're stil ltrying to be subtle about their bias, and haven't adapted to the new ways of communication the way talk radio, Fox, the internet etc. have.

Answer 4

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REGULATE THE POLITICAL CONTENT OF BROADCASTS.

Each of these rules will require many, many rulings. Each of these terms ("attacking someone's character" or "endorsing a candidate") will be subject to endless rule-making and litigation. Broadcasters won't be willing to deal with the hassle, advertisers will be scared off, and talk radio will just not be programmed anymore. WHICH IS WHAT PODESTA AND HIS CREW WANT.

Why not trust the people, to listen to what they want? No one is repealing libel laws.

Plus, if this rule oges into effect, Bush will get a half hour of airtime after every nightly news broadcast. I think he can get his message out without any help. Say goodbye to Leno's monologue and The Daily Show too.

PS Do we need a "fairness doctrine" for this?:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Answer 5

It can be interpreted however a court or committee of politicians deem it useful for their cause. That depends on who is in power. The words or intent mean nothing. And that is exactly why it is being revived today. When an argument can be made against a group of people or their politics, you shut them up. Why is it even being brought back up now, after all these years? Because we're getting ready to see abuse of the fairness doctrine. Let it alone, Dems.

Answer 6

The Fairness Doctrine is BS!

Answer 7

simple .. Conservative talk radio is soaring while Liberal radio is a failure.

They dont want that in demo congress land..

Answer 8

liberals insist people listen to them if they want to or not.