fairness doctrine yes or no?

Question

as some of you may or may not know the fairness doctrine is a big issue going around congress today,

there are many reasons for it, mainly truth is a higher goal then capitalism, and a view point shouldn't be censored bc one group can simply out spend the other.

and there are many reasons against it, mainly to protect freedom of speech, many news providers (both content and station) are produced for a purpose (i.e. religion, political) and no one should be forced to broadcast something that they don’t believe in

personally I’m against it bc if it passes all it will accomplish is insane, low budget, inadequate representation of the counter view point. So they are technically in the letter of the law, but with out any real communication of truth

just bc i have an opinion don't mean i'm not open to other's input, going back to truth being a higher goal

oh and i'm posting this in the R&S board, just to see more different opinion's

i agree w/ bob A i finde myslef listening to viws i dissagree w/ just to hear what the other side is thinking

Answer 1

"...The doctrine is a typical product of the socialist sentimentality that dreams of combining government ownership with intellectual freedom. As applied to television and radio broadcasting, the fairness doctrine demands that equal opportunity be given to all sides of a controversial issue—on the grounds of the notion that "the people owns the airwaves" and, therefore, all factions of "the people" should have equal access to their communal property.

"The trouble with the fairness doctrine is that it cannot be applied fairly. Like any ideological product of the mixed economy, it is a vague, indefinable approximation and, therefore, an instrument of pressure-group warfare. Who determines which issues are controversial? Who chooses the representatives of the different sides in a given controversy? If there are too many conflicting viewpoints, which are to be given a voice and which are to be kept silent? Who is "the people" and who is not?

"It is clear that the individual's views are barred altogether and that the "fairness" is extended only to groups. The formula employed by the television stations in New York declares that they recognize their obligation to provide equal time to "significant opposing viewpoints." Who determines which viewpoint is "significant"? Is the standard qualitative or quantitative? It is obviously this last, as one may observe in practice: whenever an answer is given to a TV editorial, it is given by a representative of some group involved in the debated subject.

"The fairness doctrine (as well as the myth of public ownership) is based on the favorite illusion of the mushy socialists, i.e., those who want to combine force and freedom, as distinguished from the bloody socialists, i.e., the communists and fascists. That illusion is the belief that the people ("the masses") would be essentially unanimous, that dissenting groups would be rare and easily accommodated, that a monolithic majority-will would prevail, and that any injustice done would be done only to recalcitrant individuals, who, in socialist theory, do not count anyway. (For a discussion of why the airwaves should be private property, see "The Property Status of Airwaves" in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)..."

Answer 2

No.

People have rights, not opinions. Low-rated shows get cancelled. High-rated ones survive.

Give the people what they want, not what the government thinks they should have.

The government should not regulate the political content of broadcasts. Period.

Answer 3

Heck no!! I think its a slap to the face of the Freedom, Liberty and the Constitution.

Oh yeah.. I can't stand Rush..but I still find myself listening to his rhetoric every chance I get.. I guess I'm a sucker for punishment.

Answer 4

I am against it because fairness should be in all areas of the media, and if they won't enforce it for the television networks, newspapers and all print media and the internet, then they should not enforce it for radio.

Answer 5

I prefer truth above all else.