Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25049

    Personally, I think this is a great idea! It also means National Public Radio, Pacifica, CNN, etc., will now have to give equal time to conservative commentators. I wonder if those in Congress who want to bring it back have thought of this?

    It's a shame, though, that it can't be applied to college/university classrooms as well, to ensure equal time for conservative professors to present their views. But maybe the Fairness Doctrine can be expanded to include college/universities as well. Or at least those who receive at least one cent in state or federal tax funds.

  2. #2
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    Ah - but which "conservative" commentators?

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    I'm certainly not going to comment ...

  4. #4
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    Ah - but which "conservative" commentators?
    Well you know, the ones who make conservatives look like bigots. Fox News presents its token liberals (Alan Colmes, Geraldo) in much the same fashion.

    Oh, and can Libertarians get in on this fairness thing because they ought to be bitching the loudest about their viewpoints being omitted from discussions, (well except to be held up for ridicule by liberals and conservatives alike).
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  5. #5
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    The Fairness Doctrine died because it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The public wants a wide variety of news sources; some people like to keep up with different ones for the different viewpoints, and others like news that's slanted in their own direction. This is understood in the rest of the world. In Britain there is a left-wing newspaper and a right-wing newspaper and you read whichever you want, or both. Only in America do we have this ridiculous expectation of "objectivity," which is of course impossible because human beings are not objective.

    The government has no legitimate right to censor political programming or require certain viewpoints to be addressed. I'm shocked that anyone would actually consider giving them this power, especially considering that it would be unconstitutional.

  6. #6
    Featured Member evan_essence's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    1,613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    The Fairness Doctrine died because it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
    That's incorrect. The Fairness Doctrine, which dated back to the 1930s, was repealed in the 1980s by regulators and politicians. The entirety of it was never struck down as being unconstitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court held the FCC had the authority to impose the rules on over-the-air broadcasters as part of their license obligations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lio...ing_Co._v._FCC

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    The public wants a wide variety of news sources; some people like to keep up with different ones for the different viewpoints, and others like news that's slanted in their own direction.
    That's a good argument in favor of the variety the Fairness Doctrine is meant to encourage. Note, however, that the doctrine wouldn't apply to news programs, only commentary. Of course, when news is slanted, that's not news, it IS commentary, so there's an issue over where the line is drawn. But, unlike its rules about obscenity, the FCC actually had some very specific criteria used to judge what circumstances required giving time for an opposing viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    This is understood in the rest of the world. In Britain there is a left-wing newspaper and a right-wing newspaper and you read whichever you want, or both.
    The Fairness Doctrine wasn't applied to newspapers nor closed circuit transmissions like cable TV (and by extension, it wouldn't apply to the Internet); it only applied to broadcast outlets that were licensed to use the public airwaves as a condition of using those public airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    Only in America do we have this ridiculous expectation of "objectivity," which is of course impossible because human beings are not objective.
    You wouldn't be required to be objective; you'd be required to offer balance, similar to this debate right here. You go with your position, then I go with a counter position. What's good for SW is good for Bill O'Reilly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    The government has no legitimate right to censor political programming or require certain viewpoints to be addressed. I'm shocked that anyone would actually consider giving them this power, especially considering that it would be unconstitutional.
    Nothing would be censored. You could still say anything on the air under the Fairness Doctrine that you could have said before. You'd simply have to offer time to an opposing viewpoint. That's not censorship. Or if it is, you could make a similarly valid argument that the current situation, in which the government awards a license to speak (broadcast) to Yekhefah without letting Evan have access to speak (broadcast) her opposing view is also government censorship. How is it compliant with the First Amendment to license one to the exclusion of all others? I suppose the government could license many people to take turns broadcasting on one available frequency, but it's probably infinitely more practical to license one broadcaster as a steward of the public airwaves and require that broadcaster as a condition of his license to fulfill a public obligation to make time available for contrasting views.

    -Ev

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    28
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting to return?

    fairness doctrine coming back?

    yay - back to good old fashioned boring news with that dorky guy that comes on with his 15 second counterpoint.

    i miss those days.

Similar Threads

  1. MyFreeCams, MFC HD Broadcasting
    By PrincessJenny in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-30-2011, 03:27 AM
  2. Broadcasting on members only site
    By goreantx in forum Other Work
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-07-2011, 02:54 AM
  3. Fairness in hiring/firing
    By sexy_celeste in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-13-2006, 10:17 PM
  4. Will they Drop the Bush Doctrine ?
    By Tigerlilly in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2005, 12:50 AM
  5. In the interest of fairness, ladies...
    By MojoJojo in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-20-2004, 08:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •