For example, FOX "news" labels themselves as a "fair and balanced" news organization. However, they spend 24 hours a day, consistently lying to their viewers, and spreading false rumors about the President of the United States. Unfortunately, there are a small fraction of citizens in this country who believe the lies on this network. I believe some of what they have done on television requires jail time. They even do, at times, promote hatred and violence in the country.
When the Fairness Doctrine became law in 1949, its purpose was to ensure that broadcasters presented both sides of controversial issues. Interestingly, they were not required to provide equal time, but simply to provide balanced views on important issues and avoid one-sided reporting, especially since access to programs and airways was limited. Because of the proliferation of news channels, the law was eliminated in 1987. However, this did not lead to a better-informed public. Many people still do not have access to cable networks, and those that do get caught up in the tirades of specific individuals who present their points of view without the need to defend their views from counterattacks. Some version of the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.
Ever since it has been lifted, misinformation and personal attacks have been increasing, especially on right wing shows and radio. This has led to mass misinformation and even deaths of individuals for whom these hosts have constantly attacked and suggested action against. The right wing poison has been going on for far too long.
The Federal Communications Commission should reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine in America, because it ensured that the license holders broadcast both sides of controversial issues in a balanced manner. This ensures that viewers and listeners are not influenced by a biased representation of the argument. In order to decide, the public must be given both sides of an argument.
Need you ask????? Simply look at history. Including what is now history in Arizona. Our forefathers would be ashamed of what we have become and the civilized Countries of the world are shocked at our violent politics and lifestyle. Vitriolic retoric has consumed the airwaves. And all for money. Rush is one of the wealtheist people in this country. There is really something wrong with that picture.
Expect violence when people with influence use terms like reload, target, etc... Was the President in Sara P-Aliens crosshairs to? "The use of rhetoric designed to provoke violently emotional reactions, hatred and political division, is a gross disservice to our nation." What is wrong with civility and fairness??? Fairness does not violate the intent of the first amendment... rhetoric that incites violence violates my First Amendment rights and the rights of my children. Shouldn't even be a question about it??? Amazing.
The Fairness Doctrine was based on the concept of “spectrum scarcity”. This refers to the physical limitation of airwaves, which creates a restriction on the number of stations available for use. Limited airwaves are maintained to guarantee the public’s interest.
The Fairness Doctrines underscores an important fact, the airwaves are a public resource, not private property.
The doctrine reaffirmed the congressional mandate that radio and television be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general public rather than as an outlet for the personal or private interests of the licensee. It read,” A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” IT ACTUALLY ENFORCES 1st amendment rights. As trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves.
Radio stations like FOX are polarizing. They make unsubstantiated claims based on emotions rather than facts. And people listen. I think, in the interest of giving people all the FACTS, they should present both sides of the issues in a way that is fair. It would cut down on racism and anger, and our country needs that.
The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated because it is, by definition, about fairness. Although we now have many more news outlets available to us than at any other time, information is tailored to specific audiences and one can't tell if one is being told unbiased information or being pandered to.
Yes, the U.S. should reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, because it ensures balanced broadcasts. The Federal Communications Commission should reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine in America, because it ensured that the license holders broadcast both sides of controversial issues in a balanced manner. This ensures that viewers and listeners are not influenced by a biased representation of the argument. In order to decide, the public must be given both sides of an argument.
According to recently declassified info, Murdoch brokered deals with Reagan to spread propaganda, including heightening fears of Soviet missiles and pushing Reagan's aggressive policies in Central America. Reagan then killed the Fairness Doctrine. I have no doubt Murdoch has a deal with Trump to spread propaganda that favors his administration. We definitely need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine, at the time it was introduced, was very important to making sure all media outlets provided quality content. However, at the time it was introduced, the television channel selection was generally limited to less then 10 stations. In today's current society, where there are channels dedicated to animals, science, history, music and cartoons, it would not be conceptually relevant to require them to break with their niche and have a news program.
There is no reason why we should force private enterprise to support multiple viewpoints. If a particular company wants to express a certain view the only thing they should be required to do is disclaim their position. Making every radio station, television station, and newspaper play equal time on opposing viewpoints would kill the freedom of expression of this nation. If you don't want to listen to something then don't, but don't make everyone else listen to what you want to listen or jeopardize the livelihood of certain industries so that you can feel like everyone is 'well informed'.
I believe this is one of the more heinous ideas currently being batted around. This is against everything our country was founded upon. I know that it has become increasingly popular to shred our Constitutional rights, but this is a big one. Our Constitution reads: "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." What happens when a law like this is in play. Brainwashing. You will only hear what the establishment wants you to hear. Our freedoms are what has made America so great and we are tearing our country apart internally.
Radio and television stations should be allowed to promote a specific side of the political spectrum without interference by the government. Ultimately consumers/ listeners can choose to listen or watch if they want. Another problem with the fairness doctrine is deciding who gets to decide what "fairness" is. It ends up allowing one political side or the other to choose, depending on who is in office. Ultimately the consumer loses, because they have no choice in what they listen to, everything will be the same.
Consumers should be allowed to determine ultimately which programs are broadcast. Popular programs that are representative of the publics views and interests will prosper while those that are not will be axed. If there is a need to be filled you can be sure that the executives in broadcasting will develop a suitable program without the intervention of the government.
I believe strongly in the first amendment. Our forefathers understood that our creator gave us the right to speak freely. Our leaders today, Republican and Democrat alike have forgotten that. They only want to hear speech that supports their argument. There is nothing fair about limiting an individuals right to free speech. That is exactly what the fairness doctrine will do. Silence the opposition.
The Fairness Doctrine is based upon the idea that the government can and should dictate fair and equal time on subjects. It has been used to manage talk radio, micromanaging air time on subjects. Yet its application was unfair. Fairness Doctrine was never applied to television, despite a known left wing bias in all major networks except Fox News. Fairness Doctrine is never applied to newspapers, books, magazines - all of which are free to their own bias. Fairness Doctrine is not even applied to non-political topics. No one seriously screams lack of fairness during a gay marriage debate when the polygamist is not allowed an equal seat. The Fairness Doctrine by its narrowness is unfair in only applying to radio. And by applying it to all media, it stifles free speech. After all, one could silence a critic by finding as many sides as possible to the debate and mandating "fair share of time" to all kooks and quacks, silencing the real and serious discussion.
Although the Fairness Doctrine seems like a good idea in principle; in fact it is a violation of a broadcaster's right to free speech. Journalistic bias is a fact of life, given journalists and editors are only human. It is the responsibility of individuals to understand it.
With the growth of the internet, it is possible for an educated and open-minded individual to obtain all possible views on any given event, including those of writers from outside the United States. The Fairness Doctrine is, therefore, rendered obsolete by technology.
It is important in a free society that the people decide who they want to comment on TV or radio. The government is naturally biased toward a party and platform. This may not be popular with the majority of the people. Requiring that an equal number of people from opposing viewpoints have to have equal time defeats free speech which includes choosing who you want to listen to.
I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated because their are many channels and stations and websites out there for everyone to state their opinions without over-regulation. I also believe that free speech is a very important right for every American citizen and don't want some bureaucrat making decisions on what is fair and what isn't. If you don't like a certain opinion, change the channel.