If the left gets its fairness doctrine, can subsidies for MSNBC be far behind?

Question

That would logically be the next move. The "unfairness" of the marketplace has put poor MSNBC at a competitive disadvantage, so government must provide subsidies to make it all "fair".

Answer 1

Reintroducing the "Fairness Doctrine" will stymie political opinion rather than aid it. This is because when faced with the challenges posed by the doctrine, broadcasters will just reduce political content. My question is if it is re-instituted how long will it be before they try to redefine what is acceptable and then institute exemptions for certain entities, while imposing sanctions on others? We do not need the "Fairness Doctrine". In this day and age you can get political opinion tailored to almost any viewpoint you choose to hold. If you don't like the content on one station then just change the channel.

Answer 2

I think the subsidies are already their. so MSNBC is ahead not behind. In my opinion the free market supplies a lot of "fairness" without government interferance. Probably just another reason to vote "R" the next time.

Answer 3

The left has no desire to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. If you actually watched some real news instead of pseudo news programs like FOX you would understand. Many progressive talk show hosts are claiming it is not an issue of the Fairness Doctrine, it is an issue of the TeleCom Reform Act of 1996 that lifted the restrictions on companies for multiple ownership of radio stations within geographic confines. Right wing conservative companies like Cumulus, for instance, own all of the major radio stations in many large metro areas and they flat out refuse to air any progressive talk shows. Personally I think they are missing out on huge advertising gains. The last 2 presidential elections were really almost a 50-50 split. So that 50% that voted Dem doesn't own or listen to radio? Hardly. I think a station that offered a blend of conservative and progressive talk radio would result in huge markets shares.

Answer 4

I think the media has an obligation to report the TRUTH. Not some twisted story with key details left out to push their agenda.

Watch Fox News and see how they leave out key facts which otherwise would sway the opinions of the viewer. What's stopping media outlets from making up news out of thin air to push their agenda?

Why is it that only the right is against it? Do you have something to hide? The left has ZERO problem with this measure because they have nothing to hide. The truth is the truth, plain and simple. The right on the other hand would be in some trouble if they were required to report the actual truth.

Answer 5

The Left's idea of fair is too shut up those they disagree with. They won't do anything to prop up the neo-Lib Olbermann, but if given the chance they would shut down Bill O'Reilly in a heartbeat.

Answer 6

What a stupid notion. This will never go through. The Democrats are kicking their own asses out of the 08 election. They are getting more and more panicky.

Answer 7

Unlike cable broadcasting, the public airwaves are owned by the public. Broadcasters making use of the public airwaves--signals that pass through the air--must obtain a license. In a free society it is patently wrong to make use of the public airwaves to promote only certain points of view. I believe the fairness doctrine to be good policy, for the reason that I would not want to be subjected to slanted points of view by broadcasters with political leanings, no matter whether conservative or liberal. I want ALL the information.

Answer 8

The fairness doctrine is limiting of freedom of speech, plain and simple.

Answer 9

It would be the New PBS