Fairness Doctrine?

Question

What is the fairness doctrine? Why do democrats want it back? Why are republicans against it? Why is it such a big deal to those in talk radio? Would it really make that much difference if it were to be reinstated?

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.)" [Ayn Rand 1972]

Answer 2

The fairness doctrine will make it so that if you own a radio station and have a full schedule of successful Conservative talk-show hosts you will have to fire half of them and replace them with liberal hosts. Liberals have never been able to have a successful radio show for what ever reason maybe its cuz liberals don't listen to talk radio or maybe cuz liberals don't have any substance to their points I don't know but the fact of the matter is that if it were to pass it would be a direct violation of the Freedom of Speech

Answer 3

radio stations would be forced to have opposing views for every second one person has..but only if they want to, the opposing view could say.."i don't want to debate the issue" and they will...rush limbaugh would be forced off the air because of lack of any arguments against, (even though his opposition is very much against him) but by remaining silent, my local station here that carries rush would be forced to put on the farm report or church services, sporting events, etc. (like they used to..) because the fairness doctrine would ban that form of un-challenged free speech..even if other did want and take equal time, it would be to big of a hassle for the stations to syndicate anyone since it would require stations to line up all this opposition..they would just stop carrying political talk radio...that's all..there would still be cable tv, that can't be controlled by the fairness doctrine....YET!

Answer 4

the fairness doctrine basically allowed the government to dictated to private radio station what to do! and what kind of programing to have. in my opinion there is no need for the fairness doctrine since the TV and news papers basically give more coverage to those in the left that in the conservative arena. as it is right now listeners that tune to talk radio basically tune in because they like the views which are consistent with their own. the fairness doctrine seek to mandate the same coverage to those in the left which is already given to them if they chose to participate in the shows. however the news papers and basically the msnbc, CBS and NBC along with several news papers give more coverage and at times censure those that are no consistent with their views.

Answer 5

The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends. The Fairness Doctrine could really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?

For a more on this read on.

For instance, Fox "News" ranted on, as did Rush and Ken doll Sean, about WMDs in Iraq, as well as every other lie put forth by the Bush administration, reaching millions of listeners and viewers, while also slandering the U.N. weapons inspectors, who just happened to be right. If you add political Christian broadcasting to this toxic mix, you get a monopoly that is dangerous. Progressives didn't get on Armed Forces radio until late in 2005, but even then Ed Schultz was threatened with cancellation before he even debuted, because he criticized someone in the Bush administration. This isn't championing free speech. It is patently unfair practice. It also illustrates the tilted news our military is getting. That, too, is dangerous.

Right-wing radio offers propaganda, not facts, with the intent to play on the listeners emotions, without offering content that is based in reality. The ratings prove that FNC, Fox "News" channel is losing out in the ratings. In addition, the ignorance of conservatives about media and radio is further shown when they say the Fairness Doctrine is about "...demanding that the government implement further control or regulation over an entire industry, it might be simpler to look in the mirror, at the rating points & ad revenues & realize that the market for the “progressive” or liberal slant isn’t as popular or pervasive as you assume it to be. ... Again, they miss the point. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, as well as the leader in progressive talk, Randi Rhodes, are making it in the commercial market. They are not only popular, but growing. The issue is to allow more progressive hosts on local am/fm radio to see if we can also make it. Unless you've been in the battle for radio you don't know what it's like, with conservative corporations not even giving progressives a chance to get on air, or cancelling good hosts before they have the time to prove themselves. You have to give progressive hosts a chance to build an audience, which takes time. But conservatives do not want fairness, which can be seen through their trade policy, as well as their anti-union rhetoric, which has decimated the middle class, by selling out workers for outsourcing all in the name of profit. They want a one-way talking machine on radio, paid by and benefiting only their political partners in business, as well.
Right-wing is on the air and getting advertisers because they're the only game in town, except for a few progressive hosts like Schultz, Miller and Rhodes. The Fairness Doctrine will not keep a bad show on, but it will allow entry to good hosts who are now being shut out by conservative conglomerates.

Answer 6

The Fairness doctrine is only for the benefit of liberals who cannot keep a profitable show on the air and want to horn in, in between the conservative shows to give their point of view. Now what this will do is bore the people to death and will get them to change the channel. This way very few will go back to listening to the conservatives talking again or will just stop listening all together. In other words it is state controlled media.

Answer 7

The doctrine was federal law (FCC regulations) from 1949, with most of it going way in 1987 and some in 2000.

Essentially, it required any broadcast station (radio or non-cable TV) to provde equal access and equal air time to all points of view on a topic.

The idea, 40~60 years ago, was that it was too easy for broadcast media to control all news and debate on a topic, because there was no other way for people to get real-time information -- so to prevent that, stations were required to provide equal air time to all sides in a debate.

Nowadays, it's obsolete and intrusive, because there are plenty of other opportunities and outlets for a message -- it's no longer necessary to force a single station to provide access to all sides in a debate, because there are many other alternative outlets for opposing viewpoints.

Most Democrats don't want it back -- just a very few. And in their case, it's their way of attacking conservative media stations in an attempt to drive them out of business.

Answer 8

It states that if someone buys time on a broadcast station, the station has to DONATE an equal amount of time to the opposing view.

They want stations who SELL Rush Limbaugh time, to GIVE libs equal time. It's intended to bankrupt conservative talk show stations. It's to deny conservatives the right to free speech, so you can't hear the truth, nothing more, nothing less. Socialism in action. Heil Hillary.
__________________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯