Fairness Doctrine

[Shelby]

Do you agree with John Kerry?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

You goof, Shelby. Kerry is always right.

 

[HazelGod]

What exactly is it that Kerry is advocating here in terms of policy?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

What exactly is it that Kerry is advocating here in terms of policy?

FROM WIKIPEDIA: The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.[1]

Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and some Dems would like to see it reinstated in some form.

 

[HazelGod]

FROM WIKIPEDIA: The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.[1]

Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and some Dems would like to see it reinstated in some form.

Thanks, Rubi...I'm familiar with the definition. It's Kerry's specific idea of how to reintroduce it that I was asking about.

 

[B_Hickboy]

Fairness is an ugly word. Highly emotional, highly subjective. The universe is inherently unfair. Transcend it or wallow in it.

 

[Shelby]

Hot potato, eh?
​

 

[Freddie53]

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was to see that when there was only one television station or radio station that the other side of a public issue got a fair shake and was presented. Since print media is so easy, especially with websites, there is no need for a fairness doctrine.

Back then there were three networks if you lived close enough to three TV stations and could get all three of the then three big networks.

Today, there is cable, satellite etc, so the need is not as great. Broadcasts media were allowed to give editorials as much as they wanted to. The idea was that both sides were to be given an opportunity to present their case over broadcast media. Equal time was not always part of that law.

I believe there is a need for some fairness doctrine in broadcast media though not as much as we needed then.

Then the rule was and I hope stil is that when a radio or tv station was giveing an editorial, they were required to broadcast it as such so to differentiate from the evening news which is news not an editorial.

In print media, the words editorial or something marks it as an editorial.

I would think that most people would know that talk shows are editorials and not just unbiased news stories. Sadly some do not.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Hot potato, eh?
​

You're juggling two potatos here. One is John Kerry. That one's not so hot, as I suspect most people would agree about him (excepting my fellow Taxachusetts inmates who keep re-electing the putz). The other is the Fairness Doctrine itself, which even the FCC is none too wild about. So maybe that one's not very hot either. It's not easy to argue that dictating to the press what it can say and when it can say it is really a legitimate function of government.

 

[Shelby]

No, you're right. Neither is hot in and of itself.

What I meant by hot potato was the deafening silence of all the repubaphobes on the board.

I'm not entrenched in any doctrine. But at my current stage of life I tend to find the conservative viewpoint generally less stupid than its alternative.

 

[Ethyl]

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was to see that when there was only one television station or radio station that the other side of a public issue got a fair shake and was presented. Since print media is so easy, especially with websites, there is no need for a fairness doctrine.

Back then there were three networks if you lived close enough to three TV stations and could get all three of the then three big networks.

Today, there is cable, satellite etc, so the need is not as great. Broadcasts media were allowed to give editorials as much as they wanted to. The idea was that both sides were to be given an opportunity to present their case over broadcast media. Equal time was not always part of that law.

I believe there is a need for some fairness doctrine in broadcast media though not as much as we needed then.

Then the rule was and I hope stil is that when a radio or tv station was giveing an editorial, they were required to broadcast it as such so to differentiate from the evening news which is news not an editorial.

In print media, the words editorial or something marks it as an editorial.

I would think that most people would know that talk shows are editorials and not just unbiased news stories. Sadly some do not.

I don't think most people understand the difference, Freddie, at least that's the impression I get when talking to them about politics/current events.

 

[Ethyl]

I'm not entrenched in any doctrine. But at my current stage of life I tend to find the conservative viewpoint generally less stupid than its alternative.

I know most people here assume you're a conservative, but is that what you consider yourself to be? Or are you a closet libertarian? C'mon, don't be shy if you are. I'll admit to being one.

 

[B_big dirigible]

In print media, the words editorial or something marks it as an editorial.

Or a prominently displayed nameplate, such as The New York Times, should alert all readers that everything following is editorial (or ads). The word "editorial" itself would be superfluous.

 

[Shelby]

I generally consider myself to be a conservative in the manner of Barry Goldwater RIP.

However after reading your question and wikipediaing up libertarian I reckon that's not too far off the mark.

By the way and not on topic, I know I probably irk you sometimes with my troglodyte ideas. That's just the way I am. It doesn't mean I don't respect other opinions. Especially when they come from such a pretty lady. (whoops, there I go again):wink:
​

 

[B_All4show]

Anyone who is for the fairness doctrine is trying to use unfair means to silence their adversary
.

 

[Ethyl]

I generally consider myself to be a conservative in the manner of Barry Goldwater RIP.​

However after reading your question and wikipediaing up libertarian I reckon that's not too far off the mark.​

By the way and not on topic, I know I probably irk you sometimes with my troglodyte ideas. That's just the way I am. It doesn't mean I don't respect other opinions. Especially when they come from such a pretty lady. (whoops, there I go again):wink:​

Shel, you've written posts that make me think "WTF? He's just stirring up shit". But more often than not you offer a point of view or a question that i'll chew on for a while. Thinking for yourself always wins points with me, conservative or not, and that's more important than spouting political rhetoric.

That's why I laugh when others label me as liberal when I say, in general, Bush sucks. People would probably be surprised at who i'd vote for in an election, given the choices.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

There really wouldn't be much need for so-called fairness rules if so much media power wasn't being concentrated in the hands (or pocketbooks, should I say?) of an ever smaller number of influential tycoons.

We have anti-trust laws for good reason.

 

[Shelby]

There really wouldn't be much need for so-called fairness rules if so much media power wasn't being concentrated in the hands (or pocketbooks, should I say?) of an ever smaller number of influential tycoons.

We have anti-trust laws for good reason.

You think? You may be right. But I tend to think it's market driven.

 

[HazelGod]

Or are you a closet libertarian? C'mon, don't be shy if you are. I'll admit to being one.

Not me...I'm came out a long time ago.

You think? You may be right. But I tend to think it's market driven.

No argument there...hell, show me something that isn't market driven in our society.

 

[stretcher74]

Fairness doctrine, huh ? What's fair ? Who decides ?

I suppose if you had a local market that was dominated by a single media outlet or company with a very slanted or skewed view then you'd have a some argument for a small mandated time allowance for alternate views on what are , after all, facilities that use leased public airwaves.

But if the public doesn't want to hear Kerry, I don't see why the population should be sentenced to listen to "equal" portions of him forever.

As mentioned here, network and media aggregation aside, information outlets and option for people are as a whole far MORE diverse than they were 25 years ago.