Is the fairness doctrine fair??

Question

The Fairness Doctrine, despite its name, gives Americans a raw deal. The Federal Communications Commission created it in 1949 to require broadcasters to present both sides of any controversial issue that they touched on. Sounds … well, fair, right? Except for two major problems. One is practical -- it makes for boring radio and TV. Why? Because broadcasters responded to the Fairness Doctrine predictably: Realizing that it would be extraordinarily difficult to ensure that each issue was treated in perfect balance, they opted in large measure to steer clear of controversial topics. After all, there’s only one way to guarantee that no one is offended by what you say … and that’s to say nothingThe other problem is a little something known as the First Amendment. Where, pray tell, is it written in the Constitution that we must exercise our free speech in a “balanced” way? Sorry, but the kind of robust debate that our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RebeccaHagelin/2007/11/29/the_unfairness_doctrine

Bill H...no, YOU"RE way behind...they have been trying to bring it back....

pachl...I could just hear the libs cheering as they read your answer.....lol.....

Answer 1

All right, Mr. know-it-all Conservative... let this life-long Liberal set you straight!

The Fairness Doctrine is not a raw deal. What IS a raw deal is that life is unfair. For some inexplicable reason, even though we Liberals are SMARTER than you boring, stodgy old Conservative stick-in-the-muds, you guys just seem smarter. Your talk show hosts and tv commentators just seem to be born with a silver tongue.

Well, eloquence should not be a substitute for good, solid Liberal thinking. Unfortunately, a lot of our ideas sound a bit half-baked when they are actually spoken out loud.

That's the problem in a nutshell ! Our ideas merely SOUND nutty, when in fact they are brilliant. Liberal thinking is thinking with your heart, rather than just your brain. Thinking without compassion just leads to more injustice, don't you see?

Your problem, and that of your overly cerebral Conservative ilk is that you think everything to death. In your myopic little world, everything has to be "feasible", and has to some "cohesive, logical plan". I ask you bluntly, what's wrong with just doing things because they make you feel good? Are the negative consequences really so bad?
For example, a book was published recently by a former leader of the Viet Cong who admits his side was all ready to surrender. However, they held out because of the Left wing media, protesters, and Congress saying it would deny funds to the Armed Forces. OK, so essentially he is saying we Liberals unnecessarily lost the Vietnam war. Well, so what? A lot of us felt pride and renewed national honor by pulling out of that embattled country.

It's also true we protested against the development of nuclear energy. Now our detractors disparigingly refer to us as "nutty hippies", and stick it in our faces that we'd be energy sufficient right now if no one had listened to us. For the sake of argument, let's say we were energy sufficient. Then what real motive would we have to fight global warming? You see how our actions always have a silver lining?

So, stop being selfish. Give us our rightful share of the airwaves and the tv screens in America. Our voice has a right to be heard. People just don't want to hear us; they think it's as boring as C-SPAN. Hence, we need a gentle boost. The Fairness Doctrine will level the playing field.

Answer 2

The fairness doctrine could never be enforced equally right down the middle. I do think that its something that means well but is really hard to enforce. But I think that the reason it was brought more recently during the immigration debate was that many in government really wanted to silence those speaking out against amnesty. But that really would violate free speech. I think the solution should be that if a network has a pundit like Rush Limbaugh who speaks out against illegal alien amnesty etc.. then he should be required to give some time to proponents of amnesty to allow them to give their own take on the situation to the public as opposed to having Rush tell the public what they are saying, and putting words in their mouth.

This should apply to all issues. If Rush is going to go on the air and talk politics and try to steer public opinion to a ideology, then he should be required to daily invite at least one guest that gives a different take on things that disagrees with Rush. So that the public can have both sides and make up their on minds.

This is important, because if the ideologica struggle is between those with money and power and those who are barely making ends meet, then it follows that those with money and power will have more money to influence owning radio and TV stations and networks, or pay for massive ad campaigns or sponsor and finance books that pertpetuate their propaganda, while the poor are left to only rely on their gut feeling that they are being screwed, but unable to spread the word about it to the masses.

Answer 3

The Fairness Doctrine is a great way to stifle political debate that you don't like, and while it's dormant right now Bill H, Henry Waxman has threatened to violate the Constitution and bring back the Doctrine to use the government to silence speech that he doesn't like. Of course he wouldn't use it to destroy TV talk. Heavens no. Just talk radio. If I were a third world totalitarian dictator I'd be using Waxman as a role model right now.

Answer 4

If they really want fairness, HOW BOUT START BY APPLYING IT TO POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (That was screamed)

Why arent politicians like Hillary Clinton held in contempt by her own party for LYING everytime she opens her mouth concerning the Iraq War. First shes for it and Saddam couldnt be dealt with in any other way, she researched it herself and got opinions from her own people. The next minute, George Bush and Dick Cheney misled her and the nation. It all depends on who shes talking to and trying to sway. What a liar.

How about we have a truth doctrine for politicians and if theyre found contradicting themselves and flat out lying like the Clintons have for decades, they need to go before a court.

Answer 5

As the Supreme Court has stated, “There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

The media has become extremely concentrated under the control of a very few conglomerates, so the Fairness Doctrine is needed now more than ever . The limitations that they impose on broadcast journalism and what they want the public to know is all that will be broadcast.

Answer 6

As long as there are libs in the government whether in the judiciary, legislature or administration, there will always be
problems with fairness. The libs are not interested in fairness.
They just want us to be wacko like the USSR, or N. Korea or Cuba, etc.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 7

Is the fairness doctrine fair? The fairness doctrine is now a myth.

Answer 8

You're way behind on this one. The Fairness Doctrine was rescinded in the 1980's.

Answer 9

No its just a way to shut down talk radio that all

Answer 10

There is a difference between a journalist and a commentator.