Does the "fairness" doctrine work both ways?

Question

If this crazy idea gets reimplemented. Will Hannity, Rush, Boortz, Medved, Crager, Savage, Ingram, Drudge, Beck, Levin and all the other conservative talk show hosts get equal time on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN?

Savage said he would get the best first amendment lawyer he could and get to speak his mind every night on ABC news. Is that what these "We want all sides to be heard" people want?

Answer 1

If government wants to impose a fairness doctrine it can start with publicly funded broadcasting on NPR and PBS.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Who the **** is government to decide what free speech is fair and what is not?

What speech is conservative and what speech is liberal?

If you oppose illegal immigration are you conservative (law and order) or liberal (illegals take the jobs of our poorest / least educated Americans)?

Government should not be involved in dictating speech period.

Answer 2

The fairness doctrine is a tricky issue. I don't think the media should be required to show both the "liberal" and "conservative" sides of an issue, because it's kind of ridiculous to imagine they'd do a good job of presenting both. However, I don't think they should act like they're unbiased when it's clear they aren't. I also believe the left and right should have equal opportunity to show things as they see them. These days the media, except for talk radio, is pretty decidedly dominated by the left; I do believe that needs to change because the conservative opinion is never heard except by those that actively seek it out. Whereas you see liberals' ideas everywhere, from TV to magazines to newspapers to movies and any other form of media you can imagine.

Answer 3

I think its only about radio- not TV news

yes it works both ways- no company can refuse to hire a liberal or a conservative for their views. its more of a monoploy and selective hiring issue.
free radio isn't balanced, private radio is but most only use public. people shouldn't have to pay to hear both sides or their side speak.
most of the public radio stations are own by cons or lean in that direction. many libs can't get jobs there and are censored more often than their con co-workers

if a liberal owned company was refusing to hire cons, under the FD they would have to stop doing so.

Answer 4

i don't understand this Fairness Doctrine, after I read the history of it, and thinking of all the access to media and sources we have these days, the Fairness Doctrine is pointless. national talk radio has more Conservative than liberal programming. so what? it's the natural progression of the market in my opinion. it comes down to local broadcasters as well. i live in a "liberal" city and there's enough balance and competition in media and radio because the audience wants it. this doctrine should stay out of commission, i stand with those who want to protect free speech.

Answer 5

no, who needs the fairness doctrine. i am grown and i can sort the facts from the liberal whinning. cnn ratings go up with the insertion of the glenn beck show. oreilley is tops in his time slots. handily beating some shows combined ratings. air america was a flop. when will the libs get it. America did not vote for them and never has, America only vote against the republicans. so when one gets in office it is because Americans are mad. for the love of GOD, they are just one step from socialism(liberals). i refuse to, although i do not have much of a choice, to give my money to some skank who decided to have four or five kids, INTENTIONALLY IF SHE DID NOT USE PROTECTION, so she could live on my dollar in the in the government housing,on foodstamps or every other "entitlement" program she and her third generation welfare family can qualify for. yet we have 12 million ilegals working american farms. there is work but being a vampire on the rest of society is quite alright with them. i DO NOT mind and insist on helping people who NEED a hand gwtting their life back in order for almost any reason, but to have some family living for 30,40 or 50 years in public housing is a slap in the face to all the hard work i have to do and get nothing in return except a new highway or update housing projects. most of those people are sad, lost souls who will amount to nothing because the libs keep, not only giving, but heaping on more reasons for them not to work. if anybody is to blame for poor ameicans, it may very well be the liberlas/dems.

Answer 6

The "fairness doctrine" is simply an abrogation of our 1st amendment rights as is the "McCain - Feingold" bill is. Thank God we still have our 2nd Amendment rights. To quote the great Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be from time to time replenished with the blood of patriots & tyrants" & from Charles Heston "From my cold, dead hands!!!"

Answer 7

Would you like to know what this question does? It illustrates how horribly BACKWARDS this country has become in the area of knowledge, information, education, awareness of global occurrences.

Let me try to make it very, very simple.

THE NEWS REPORTS FACTS.

TALK SHOWS TALK. Inflame. Get people to call in angry, spewing spittle. It really sells stuff, the advertisers love it.

See the difference?

For you to not even GET that your question is "off" is so scary to me.

THE NEWS REPORTS NEWS. You know: "Who, What, When, Where."

Jesus help us all, the citizens don't even know what "news" is anymore.

Answer 8

In theory.

In reality, I think Liberals think they are a "protected" class.

I don't believe the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is Constitutional, no matter how you slice it.

And frankly, I think many could benefit from simply turning off the dang television and reading a book.

Answer 9

Can't say that I blame him. What about the liberal blogs all over the Internet? Will those too be included as they far outnumber the conservative blogs. In all "fairness", I think they should be, don't you?

Gosh, the fun we could have to create "fairness".. :)

Answer 10

No,it violates the 1st amendment by trying to control what you can and can't hear.
Liberal dictatorship of the media.