Will the Fairness Doctrine help or hurt the conservative radio pundits?

Question

The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine is a must have regulation because today's media needs to be regulated more than ever.

Speaking as a former broadcaster and News Director, the Fairness Doctrine serves an important purpose, it safeguards free speech. It does not deter it.

Every news story mandates an opportunity for the other side to have their side of the story told. It is the same with radio pundits. They, too, must allow anyone they attack the right to defend themselves.

I ran for public office and had to get off the air during the campaign so I would not have an unfair advantage over my opponents. They certainly could not afford to buy the air time I got every night at 6 and 11. I didn't like it but it was the fair thing to do.

If Fred Thompson runs for President, all the Law and Order shows will go off the air until the election is over. His co-stars will lose residuals from syndication.

Imagine media without a Fairness Doctrine. Editors/Owners could eliminate any chance for all sides of a story from being told. Does China ring a bell? Is what Putin is doing in Russia ring a bell?

Jim DeSantis

Answer 2

Depending on how it's implemented, the fairness doctrine could stiffle political expression in broadcast media. The key point is that it takes air time away from broadcasters for the purposes of expressing 'differing' view points. So, anytime you let someone express a PoV on your airwaves, you have to devote an equal amount of airtime to the oppossing view (possibly even more than one 'differing' view). Thus, allowing a political view - any political view - on the air costs you double.

The Fairness doctrine isn't a new idea, it was in force for some time, and I clearly remember what TV was like when it was. Broadcasts were meticulously cleansed of any reference to actual poltical figures or issues. Public service anouncements were 20 second spots wedged into the cheapest airtime the station could get away with.

Answer 3

Ahhh... the "Fairness Doctrine"... Is this going to be our new 'wedge issue'? You know, one of those issues that each party gets to parade out for fundraisers and election time to remind us how 'fortunate' we are to have this or that party representing 'our interests'.

I'm a Libertarian (1/2 Liberal) and I think it's very bad! It comes nowhere near addressing the true unfairness of the public airwaves. The real unfairness is the way that everyone, FCC especially, was 'asleep at the wheel' while a handful of conglomerates bought up the mass media. The whole idea there was that it would bring 'fair and balanced' viewpoints, what we got is 'homogenized' viewpoints instead. The government needs to stay out, not jump in and mess with the public doman airwaves... what's left of 'public doman' anyway!

Does right-wing talk radio and left-wing NPR stand out from that? Do FOX news and Democracy Now! news stand out from that? Yes they do, and good for us that they do!! Please, do not let the "fairness doctrine" unfairly stifle and homogenize us then. Don't buy into the politically charged arguments because they'll just divide and conquer us. If that happens, we ALL lose. That's my liberal opinion!

Answer 4

"In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so."

In other words, if no one cares enough about something enough to actually pay for it, we'll subsidize it and shove it down your throat. Not that any of this really matters, the Fairness Doctrine will never pass. Freedom of speech means the freedom to speak out, or you can choose not to. If no one cares about these issues enough to pay for their own air time, that's not our fault. Conservative radio never had a funding problem, and none of that came from the government.

Answer 5

It would hurt conservative talkers by limiting the number of talk-radio formats.
The Fairness Doctrine doesn't take into account any degree of flexibility in business plans. Businesses alter their business plans all the time. Radio stations are no different, in that they sometimes change their formats.
Rather than deal with clearing portions of their airtime for "opposing viewpoints," station managers may simply opt not to air any talk at all.

Simply put, it's a federal mandate on what private businesses can air, placing federal oversight on what has since 1987 been a free-market exercise. It gives listeners what the government thinks is fair, rather than what individual listeners indicate they want to hear.

Answer 6

It would hurt. But then again, that is the point, isn't it? The other side's views (liberal foolishness) is represented in most media outlets(t.v., newspaper, and radio) without any said "affirmative responsibilities" being met by them. Let's just call a spade a spade. Liberal ideas fail miserably when they are presented in the open market place, thus liberals feel the need to "impose" their ideology on the listening public. No thanks. I can judge for myself where to get my information and to whom I want to listen.

Answer 7

So you are saying that your favorite Jazz radio station should have to play equal amounts of time of Rock and Hip Hop? That fairness Doctrine is only a way to censor right wing talk radio. In other words it is State Sponsored radio and a direct attack on the first amendment.

Answer 8

Maybe that liberal media will finally be FAIR AND BALANCED!

Someone mentioned NPR and PBS... That made me laugh. Those are the last two networks who need it! Both have an even amount of liberal vs. conservative pundits on each of their panels. You should really try watching/listening to them sometime!

Answer 9

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is anything but. It is the liberal left crying in their cheerios because nobody is interested in their babble. The talk show market is driven by consumer demand. This is why the conservatives continue to prevail and Air America has gone bankrupt and exists no longer. Hey Al Franken, you weren't good ,or smart enough, and dog gonnit, people didn't like you.

Answer 10

the law established in 1969 may have had some validity then but with the explosion of the media sources today, it is not needed..the only thing they want to accomplish is to stop the conservative voice....and now the free market dictates who is more successful...or not.

we have choice now so this is a waste of time for the liberal to try to have this enforced...more helpful if they would enforce our existing immigration laws.