Should the U.S. have a fairness doctrine to assure a balance in the media?

Answer 1

We do...It's called the channel changer. Also, if people actually educated themselves, instead of goofy links and non-news stations, Americans would be a whole lot smarter.

Answer 2

If you're referring to media as a legitimate news source, and not an opinionated talk radio show or obscure underground leftist or neocon publication -- I say no, there should not be a FAIRNESS doctrine -- there should be a FACT doctrine. Pure journalism is supposed to be completely objective and unbiased. I find little evidence to believe in this theory of the "liberal media" -- I don't think the media particularly leans in one direction or the other (though it may vary slightly from one source to the next). However, I still do not believe that the media sources out there have done an adequate job of accurately reporting on everything that could be considered to be important and "newsworthy". Partly because it could compromise the integrity of their sponsors, partly because they could lose ratings, and partly because they fear government backlashes for exposing potentially sensitive information. I don't believe that the current existing media sources are doing their jobs; however, I also don't buy into the whole theory that "the neocons only look bad because the liberal media makes them look bad". They LOOK bad because they ARE bad. NBC, CNN, CBS, etc., have not skewered the facts to make the current administration look like a bunch of criminals. They look like a bunch of criminals because they ARE a bunch of criminals. The media is allowed to report this because it is a FACT. I don't believe that rogue media groups should have the right to report invalid or untrue information simply because it advances their political causes. For example, schools should NOT teach "intelligent design" as being scientific fact, because it is NOT. There are NO facts to support such a theory and therefore it can be regarded as only that -- a theory -- and a poorly constructed one, at that. News media should focus on FACTS, and leave the political debates to the editorials and political commentary shows. When a politician lies or does something illegal, we have a right to know about it, regardless of whether that politician is a democrat or a republican.

Answer 3

No, if I say child rape is wrong why should there be a law saying someone else has the right to argue for child rape. The fairness doctrine might sound nice when you look at imposing your views on others but when you realize the views that can be and will have to be imposed on you then you see the fairness doctrine is just plain stupid. There are issues that do not deserve fair time.

Answer 4

i say no as do most liberal talk show hosts (stephanie miller has stated that she is totally against this idea).

but there is a problem out there - the airwaves are the property of the people, technically, but corporations are not really trying to give people even what they want.

there was an air america station in boston that got ok ratings, and without any prior announcement, that station switched to a rumba format.

since then their ratings have been zero (i'm not making this up). they have not worked on their web site and aren't even trying to get ratings or advertising.

they are holding that frequency as a sort of defensive position - while at the same time at least three other stations run limbaugh, savage, bennett and hannity.

this is in boston.

you can't tell me that in boston that people would rather listen to right wing radio than left wing radio - c'mon, get real.

air america is off the air, and literally NOTHING has taken it's place.

that's not fair and that station should not be allowed to keep their license.

Answer 5

No. Imposing balance can be as much of a problem as having little to no balance at all. If a particular political party, as an example, were wrong about ninety percent of the points they make, and the opposing political party were right about ninety percent of the points they make and you have a news station that balances things out fifty fifty then you're not getting the truth.

News stations in short should not focus on being fair and balanced; they should focus on being accurate.

Answer 6

NO - you can change the station to listin to your liking. Why do people want to have government dictate our lives? We are not here for the government (as the liberals believe). The government is here for us. Mostly to protect us from outside threats and civil criminals (local government)...people have forgotten that. We are supposed to take care of ourselves with the rest of it.

It's interesting to see people see CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. as unbiased and reporting truths. Anyone who believes this do not do their homework on matters. Talk radio is not always right either, but most people that listin know that. If you want to know facts and news, start at sources then find your own.

Don't be lazy!

Someone once said,"We should not multiply ignorant opinion, expecting to produce wisdom." Every news organization and radio show has done this at some time or another. At least people in talk radio admit it is their opinions!!!

Answer 7

We heard the first rumblings from Senator Feinstein as she discussed bringing back the inappropriately named Fairness Doctrine and now Democrats are stepping up one after the other to jump on the bandwagon. The latest are John Kerry (he served in Vietnam) and Dick Durbin who both believe we need the Fairness Doctrine to bring back balance to talk radio.

To Democrats, it is just unimaginable that Conservatives fill the airwaves with their talk shows while those shows featuring Liberals flounder and fade away. The Democrats believe that their message is not getting out because Conservative radio is distorting the truth. What Democrats are really saying is that they do not want you to have a choice in what you listen to and they will force people in the private sector to give opposing views the chance to air.

The Democrats believe this is fair but what it really is is an extension of their Socialist ways. They are, in essence, redistributing the opinions expressed on radio. They are not really any different than Hugo Chavez who seized control of radio stations in his Socialist “paradise.” Democrats love to redistribute things, especially things they do not own or do not like. They take our money from us in the form of taxes and they spread it around to the “have nots” in society. B. Hussein Obama has nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks requested and this is just from ONE person. He wants to take 400 million of your hard earned dollars and use them on things you will probably never see or use. The Democrats also want to take away air time from Conservatives and spread it among the Liberals so they can go on the air and whine for a while about the injustice of it all.

This week the Senate voted to move the immigration amnesty bill along and the Democrats used a few maneuvers to limit Republican debate on the bill. The Democrats are also requiring votes on amendments to the bill without them being read thus denying Republicans the chance to oppose amendments. The Democrats are not being very fair about giving Republicans equal time with regard to this legislation. Perhaps we need a fairness doctrine for Congress that says they have to allow the other side the opportunity to express an opposing view. That won’t happen because Democrats do not care about fairness. All they care about is remaining in power and redistributing our wealth.

What Democrats want is unfair and it is not American. They want to stymie free speech in violation of the First Amendment. They want to force people to listen to things that they do not want to listen to. They are using the airwaves to force their propaganda on us and they expect us to love it because, after all, who does not like “fairness.”

If Democrats really gave a damn about fairness they would also require this of television and the print media. They do not require it for these media because those entities are favorable to Democrats. Therein lies the rub; the idea of fairness only applies when the Democrats want a better break. When the odds are in their favor, all is peachy keen.

With this BS to look forward to and the possibility of Congress giving away our country, we might need another revolution. We fought for freedom from a tyrannical government and that government was great compared to the one we have now. The next revolution though, will come at the ballot box.

The Democrats hope to silence Conservative talk radio. What most of America wants is for the politicians to be quiet for a change…

Answer 8

If the fairness doctrine is put into effect, I'm sure there would be alternatives found to get around it. Just like the campaign donation fiasco.

Answer 9

It's obsolete.

It had use back 40~60 years ago when it was created, because of the limited access and tight control over media outlets.

Nowadays, with a huge spectrum of independent news and information sources, there is no risk of a small number of people controlling all sides of a story.

Hence, no need for govt regulation of content.

Answer 10

Yes we should but it would never work. The media is controlled by big money and right now it is liberals like George Soro's and a few others running it. Money talks and everything else walks!