Do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstituted?

CW5 Jim Steddum — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:02:03 -0500

In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was emplaced requiring broadcasters to use some of their air time for topics of importance to the public and that in the air, the broadcast be honest, equitable, and balanced. The US Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could enforce the rule in limited ways but was not obligated to do so. Later, in 1987, the rule was removed citing with the proliferation of cable news and the Internet, opinions of differing views could easily and cheaply be aired.

Today, there are thousands of websites and a few owners of broadcast companies and they all have their own agenda. Would it be better if major broadcasters, those with FCC licenses, apply the fairness doctrine again so that critical thinking is once again applied to all item of interest to the general public?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 8:16 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:16:26 -0500

I find it creepy that government would filter speech. This is a very dangerous idea.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 8:22 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:22:07 -0500

Yes, I think the Fairness Doctrine should be re-instituted. Absolutely.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 17 at 2015 8:23 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:23:42 -0500

There is no way I want the government to dictate to news media what is "fair" and what is not "fair."

I understand the whole idea is that certain news media have an agenda, but what, the government doesn't? That is the error in all government intervention... people assume the government will act as some sort of benevolent arbitrator that would bring forward nothing but virtue and fairness, when in reality, all governments are just made up of people, and all people have an agenda. At least with free media, people have the option to choose what they want to watch and what they want to believe. It is one of the bedrocks of our society.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Jan 17 at 2015 8:39 PM

PO1 Michael G. — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:39:26 -0500

CW5 Jim Steddum Sir, the Fairness Doctrine was important to have when there were limited sources of broadcast news in order to ensure that the networks didn't (accidentally or otherwise) collude to shut out unpoular opinions. How many channels were there in 1949? Versus how many today? Individuals have the ability to retrieve their news from a wide variety of sources at little or no cost*. While one may make the argument that critical thinking skills are practically nil, and that people are now unable to decide that a news source may be biased at all, much less actually seek a different source, it is unlikely that the culture would respond at all to Fairness Doctrine programming, other than to change the channel. To be honest, most people who don't already have an opinion about news fairness also don't actually watch the news.

*sure, we pay for our internet and TV service, but I mean that there is no additional cost associated from choosing one news source versus another.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 17 at 2015 8:43 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:43:47 -0500

Really cool thread -- thanks for posting!

Response by SMSgt Vincent Watson made Jan 17 at 2015 8:51 PM

SMSgt Vincent Watson — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:51:39 -0500

the choices are just like the question All the choices assume something thus the results are unverifiable

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 17 at 2015 8:53 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:53:01 -0500

I chose the second option "...not needed" inasmuch as it represents somewhat my response, though it is inadequate. None of the others come close...

Fundamentally, the Fairness Doctrine requires that someone decide what is "fair". That someone would, of course, be the government. Obviously, the government has an agenda that is not "fair". Thus, there is no way the Fairness Doctrine could be applied fairly. The effect would be to muzzle "fair" (free) speech.

Everyone has a point of view. During the golden age of journalism, every town had multiple newspapers that served as propaganda machines for opposing political parties. Journalist rose from the ranks equally on all sides of the ideological spectrum and the public had a "fair" choice of champions.

Today's journalists are products of American colleges and universities where indoctrination is far more important than education and the vast majority of graduates sally forth wielding the sword of the left. Inasmuch as the majority of Americans are right-leaning, newspapers have found themselves losing their audiences and many are folding. Few cities have more than one and many have none.

Television broadcast journalism has followed the lead of the newspapers, which is why they also skew to the left.

Radio is a more democratic medium. Talent is more organic. Radio broadcasters can obtain employment based more on ability than on academic credentials which is why talk radio skews to the right. Again, since the majority of Americans are right leaning, they favor talk radio that provides right-leaning points of view. Every attempt to build an audience for left-oriented talk radio has been a commercial failure except, of course, NPR which is government funded and only has to satisfy the left-leaning politicians in the District of Calamity.

Bloggers, likewise, rise through the ranks democratically. People either follow them or they don't. Obviously, the majority prefer those who lean to the right and those succeed.

Obviously, the left isn't happy about this. They are intolerant of different points of view and have tried repeatedly to restrict the distribution of opposing points of view on talk radio and the Internet.

This is not a matter of opinion. Everything I have related is demonstrable fact...