The Fairness Doctrine

Recently, I've heard some talk that it may be coming back.
Many right-wing talk show hosts seem to oppose it, claiming that right-wing talk radio is a counterbalance to the left-leaning mainstream media.
What do we think about it?

 

The right-wingers' rationale is lousy, but their general stance is correct. We shouldn't regulate free speech, and we certainly shouldn't make ass clowns like Limbaugh and Hannity into martyrs by restricting what they say. Talk about playing right into their hands.

 

People just need to stop paying any attention to them. If they have no audience, they have no jobs. Let them argue amongst themselves.

 

I'm all for it.

 

All I know is that talk radio used to be a lot better before the Doctrine went away. We didn't have as much syndicated programming or corporate ownership and programs actually seemed geared toward bringing out a consensus or at least a fair airing of all points of view. Dumb ass conspiracies, speculation and intellectual dishonesty weren't as prevalent. Now it seems the goal of talk radio is to get people pissed off and nothing else.

 

In fairness to Clever username, all talk radio should be eliminated.

 

For whatever reason - and this is by no means scientific - it seems that the left likes to get its news via newspapers, news mags, etc., etc., while the right prefers the broadcast medium. The editorial content of the two source types reflects this, generally.

Diane Feinstein and Trent Lott were discussing this yesterday on Fox's version of "Meet the Press," whatever its called. Of course, she was in favor of it. That comes off horribly, I think. The left is supposed to be the champion of civil rights, free speech, etc., etc., yet the first time they get criticized a disproportionate amount, they want to restrict the first amendment?

Also - the "fairness doctrine" advances two fallacies:

1. That there are two sides to each story. There are many, even though we have a two-party system.

2. That every topic deserves equal treatment. So for every global warming story written, there has to be equal gravity given to the corporate whores who still deny it exists? Where does it stop? On some topics, there is a reason that a consensus opinion emerges.

 

I lived for 30 years of my life under the Fairness Doctrine -- including the Vietnam and Civil Rights eras -- and I can tell you that it did nothing to stifle debate and, even if it came back now, the Internet is a failsafe in that regard.
Also, it should be remembered that the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Provision are not the same thing.

 

Correct, plus a WHOLE lot more. I could go on forever, but I am busy today.

Many in the left cannot take ANY criticism or any alternative viewpoints being aired. The left STILL has a stranglehold on the bulk of media today (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NYT, LAT, Wash Post. Boston Globe, SF Chron, etc., etc.). If a "fairness doctrine" were applied it would ostensibly harm the left more than the right, but we know that isn't how it would work would it?

Free speech is free speech this is garbage & the Supreme Court is unlikely to let it stand.

You either defend the Constitution & the Bill or Rights or you don't!

Speaking of exactly that how is McCain/Feingold looking today after the SC struck down parts of it?

If you need thought police, you probably have no facts/ability to win your arguments.

 

Oh yeah that left wing faction of the media.

All of which is owned by old white Republican men.

Yup. Left-leaning media.

 

I'll second that! The only way to eliminate it is to not listen. Not enough advertisers, the shows will get pulled off the air.