Are people completely nuts? (Unfairness Doctrine)?

Question

A recent poll showed that 41% of people surveyed would support government censorship on the radio and 34% would support government censorship on the internet.

I guess it goes to show that some folks believe in liberty, just so long as it is only afforded to them and those who agree with them. It's a shame. Once we sell out over our First Amendment rights in order to 'get at' people on the radio we might disagree with, all bets are off. The government is then free to bury our free expression under whatever propaganda they see fit.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_divided_on_fairness_doctrine

Wake up gang. If you aren't outraged by the 'fairness doctrine', you should be.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Pain

With regard to supposed censorship by 'evil corporations', this is a ridiculous argument. The FCC already controls licenses to broadcast. Air America had no problem getting on the air (I certainly had access to it). Their trouble was that nobody listened. That was not corporate interference. That was free people making free choices.

If corporate villains controlled the airwaves to suit them, how would NPR, Ed Schultz and others be on the air every day?

Radio and internet are free and open to any idea. It is not the government's business to dictate which political message people should be required to hear on every station.

Utilize your radio dial and keep your rights.

Answer 1

Talk radio does not have a monopoly on "conservative" opinion.

Television does not have a monopoly on "liberal" opinion.

The "Fairness Doctrine", in fact, does not promote "censorship" - many of you are correct on this point. What it does do is squelch opinion entirely. It becomes immediately impractical to produce and air an opinion program.

Just so you know (espcially you, Patriotwww) - local radio stations air nationally syndicated shows because it's cheaper for them to do so. It's not as if the owners of (for example) the EIB network ... Rush Limbaugh's show ... strongarm stations around the country to broadcast his program. Airing syndicated programming means that a station owner does not have to pay a host, a board operator, a phone screener, and a producer. It's a further benefit to a station owner to take the program's national advertising as it provides a platform upon which to approach other potential nationally-aired advertisers AND if the show is very popular, a station can sell the contractually-allowed local ad spots for a higher rate because more people listen during that particular show than a local show.

The marketplace works for opinion as well as for revenue.

Besides, if you don't agree with a stated position or opinion, the "remedy" is either to present your own opinion and persuade others to join you, or to find other opinions with which you DO agree - change the station / channel.
AND, if you think you can do it - start up your own opinion show and find out how the market really works.

Rocco R - Rupert Murdock recognized there was a "need" for what would become Fox News and put his resources into it to make it happen. If it turned out that there wasn't an audience for that network it would have sank beneath the waves, to be replaced by something else. CNN started off the same way - Ted Turner recognized the potential for an "all news" network and made it happen. CNN's non-covert positioning helped create the "need" / opportunity for the creation of Fox News - - - an ANSWER to CNN, not a squelching of CNN; Murdock did not pursue legislation to force CNN to air opposing positioning or force CNN's reporters into "repairing" how they presented a story.

Air America attempted to "answer" the Rush Limbaugh show and others, but found that the market for talk radio has a preference for conservative opinion. (The theory for that preference is a "head vs. heart" argument.) Air America found it self teetering on the brink of financial ruin - in fact they had difficulty PAYING their hosts and hosts decided not to present their shows for free - - Hmmm... the market working again, go figure. Of course, now Air Am. is being floated along through contributions by George Soros and others who have money to blow and who don't expect to get a large return on the investment - if any.

By no means are you "locked in" to exposure to only one side of the political spectrum of opinion. There are vastly more sources than in the "hey-days" of "The Fairness Doctrine" (may it rest in pieces). Government has no place in mandating the type and content of speach, least of all, political speach - the most protected catagory of speach in our society.

A more accurate moniker for "The Fairness Doctrine", as it would necessarily require some government official to review the content and manner of broadcast speach to determine if it was "Fair", would be The Fascist Doctrine.

You can even see it in action, though not put into legislative form, in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez would be a big fan of this proposed "Doctrine".

Does it REALLY seem like the proper thing to do???


The "Fairness Doctrine" should not govern the airwaves just like it should not be applied to Yahoo! Answer's forums. There are opinions being expressed here - if you think you're right, tell us / persuade us / convert us all to your way of thinking. Don't tell me that I can't put my opinion out here.

Answer 2

The original reason for the Fairness Doctrine was so that not only one side of an issue would be aired, and people could be more informed as to ALL sides of an issue.

If one leaves the media owners to be the only people who can voice their views on any given type of media, we get a rather one sided view.

The Fairness Doctrine is not censorship, on the other hand, it prevents censorship. Censorship from owners of a media outlet, who do not want views opposing their own aired. Do you really think that you can fairly "use your radio dial" to hear ALL sides of an issue, if there are only a few people who can afford to lease these frequencies.

The airwaves are far from 'free.' One has to invest huge amounts of resources, and money into setting up a radio or television station. The Internet, in its infancy does provide an outlet to those who choose to use it, but what of the vast number of people who have no access to the Internet, or choose not to use it?

Do you really think that Fox News would allow opinions on their air that disagree with Rupert Murdock? We need the NEW Fairness Doctrine, The Media Ownership Reform Act, put in place, so that one company does not 'own' the People's resource of the airwaves. We need to have more outlets for information, not fewer. We need more voices heard, not fewer. Without government regulation, these companies would air their own propaganda, as they currently do, and we might NEVER hear ALL sides of an issue.

Those of you who believe that this limited resource of the airwaves should be for sale to the highest bidder, are sadly ill advised. The airwaves belong to ALL of us, and ALL of us should have our opinions aired, not just those who can afford to "buy" these airwaves. The "free market" model doesn't work here, because once the biggest fish, have eaten all the smaller fish, one is left with ONE big fish, who will only voice ONE side of an issue. Democracy can only flourish if ALL views are heard, and understood by the public.

Answer 3

There is always two sides to every coin. When small owners had radio, there was much more localization and fairness in radio. With deregulation, just like the airlines by the way, came large corporate ownership, way less localization and extreem bias in the news. Now if you are happy with crappy airline service and stearing of what you here on radio, then lets just leave it unregualted and these CEO can continue to make 100 million a yr., while we the consumer get terrible service! Otherwise get the whole story instead of a single opinion in the corporate news media.

Answer 4

As we proved after 9/11, Americans are happy to sign away thier freemdoms in this day and age. History will look back on this period in our country much like we see the fall of the Roman Empire. We are so used to having 'Big Brother' take care of us that we no longer care about anything but our comfort and security.

Answer 5

Democrat here, outraged at any such doctrine. Let the free market and free speech decide.

Answer 6

As a liberal I would like to shake my head at the liberals who supposedly support this bill...it's appalling!

Answer 7

Yes. Some people are nuts.