Is the "Fairness Doctrine"fair?

Answer 1

No. Should a mall be forced to have a Sears and a JCPenny even if more people shop Sears? A TV or radio station should not be forced to put up equal amount of time for opposing viewpoints.

A TV or radio station should be allowed to put on whatever will make them the most money. If more people will listen to Al Franken than Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken would have been on all of Rush Limbaughs stations(untile Al Franken retired of course). Why was David Lee Roth fired last year and replaced with Opie & Anthony, Adam Corrola and other personalities? Because his ratings stunk and he wasn't making CBS money. Same think with say, Hannity, if he starts losing listeners, and Randi Rhodes on Air America starts gaining listeners, she may be on instead of Hannity. It people want one type of political programming more than the other, let them. The free market will sort it out. We don't need a law to force McDonalds to sell some restaurants to Wendy's so there is equal opportunity.

Answer 2

Gunslinger really hit home with some excellent points. But I think what the fairness doctrine tries to do is prevent people from only considering one thing. Consider Microsoft, huge corporation. It would be a massive undertaking to try and directly compete with them, only a handful of sources have the resources to actually attempt to do so. So, until someone dethrones them we are stuck with what they provide us. They do great work, but if there were more competition, who knows what could exist out there in the market today?

Imagine if a certain viewpoint were expressed over a period of 20 years. The population accepts this viewpoint, and would never consider anything else. This type of thinking is akin to brainwashing, and is what the fairness doctrine attempts to prevent. Imagine if a media outlet was broadcasting that racism was acceptable, and over a period of 20 years everyone accepted it. At that point, people might be unwilling to consider media that was racially tolerant.

Answer 3

Absolutely! The airwaves (due to limited availability) are held as a public trust. And as a public trust, should not be subject (with regards to access) to commercial influence any more than the National Park system should limit access on the basis of commercial interest.

All the Fairness Doctrine does is insure a level playing field (a truly Conservative concept) when it comes to the exchange of political views, regardless of their origin. It does not "censor" anyone in any way, shape or form. In fact, it's effect is the exact opposite.

As far as its implementation in the past, contrary to what has been posted previously, it worked quite well, particularly for those expressing Conservative views at the time. It did not limit speech and had no bearing on the presentation of news or commentary other than to allow time for opposing views. In short, it promoted a true example of "fair and balanced."

.

Answer 4

It might be fair to the parties involved, but it's unfair to the viewer.

You have to realize that it hasn't been gone all that long. I remember TV under the fairness doctrine, and it was pablum. Almost everything was carefuly cleansed of all reference to anything real, or to any important issue.

The reason was that the doctrine forced stations to give away airtime - and airtime is thier commodity. To avoid doing that, they purged thier offerings of all political content. That's not a good thing.

Answer 5

I certainly tend to lean left, yet I completely agree. we don't choose a doctrine or regulations saying what radio courses can or will not be able to exist. If liberal people choose a radio software then they could attempt to make one or petition the radio businesses. If conservatives choose the newspapers to be greater conservative then do the comparable. people choose to ***** and ***** approximately issues and choose the government to restoration it. some issues in a unfastened industry will restoration themselves if their is adequate call for. i think like there are a number of greater significant issues for the lawmakers to rigidity approximately than communicate radio shows.