The Fairness Doctrine?

[Reason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]"

If there was a vote, would you vote to bring it back?

[Mosheh Thezion]

HELL NO...

it will ruin talk radio... fairness indeed... there is nothing fair about it.

I say let people talk... and say what they please..

if the people dont like it... they wont listen.

but to force a radio show... to give air time to people who disagree.. is like controlling the airtime...

call in shows... allow people to disagree... most talk shows.. survive.. with call ins... to stir it up.....

the Fairness doctrine.. is simply... not fair.

I know the Democrats hate Rush Limbaugh... and he is wrong often..

But.. he should be allowed to speak his mind... anything less.. and we loose free speach.

-MEMAT

[TastyWheat]

WTF are you on about? I have no problem with someone playing Devil's Advocate but what kind of response were you expecting? This is one of the worst ideas in the history of the US and it shows total disrespect for private business.

[Objectivist]

Giving one side an advantage is not fair, they should learn how to compete in the arena of ideas. Too bad they're crippled in that realm.

[TurtleBurger]

I wonder how they are going to word the clause that prevents libertarians from taking advantage of the fairness doctrine.

[mediahasyou]

The Fairness Doctrine forces the media to produce opinions that represent the population proportionally. Since libertarians make up .3% of the population, libertarianism would be killed.

It's really a tool to help the ruling class stay in power.

[stag15]

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington

[Mosheh Thezion]

Giving one side an advantage is not fair, they should learn how to compete in the arena of ideas. Too bad they're crippled in that realm.


EACH SIDE... has all the same freedom, to finance a radio or tv show.. and express their opinion.

I listen here in California...to both,.. progressive democrat radio... and to conservative radio..

I listen to both.. because i am free to.. and I like having a choice and being able to hear un-abridged, and fully exressive views on both sides.

I can change the channel any time I want, and i dont need the the government to deside what opinions I should be listenning to.

to force a demographic on the public.. is a sham.

Because there is no way to say that demographic is correct.

3% for libertarians... is bull.

freedom of speech and opinion must ''''not'''' be intefered with.. period.

if the other side... wants to put forward a conflicting view, let them call in, or pay for a show on another radio station... there are plenty.

the fact IS... conservative radio... is more popular... and if socialists and progressives dont like... sorry... to bad... make your own shows more interesting.

FREEDOM WORKS BOTH WAYS... and we should not force bias..

because in that case... should we give equal time to NAMBLA?????


-MEMAT

[Objectivist]

EACH SIDE... has all the same freedom, to finance a radio or tv show.. and express their opinion.

I listen here in California...to both,.. progressive democrat radio... and to conservative radio..

I listen to both.. because i am free to.. and I like having a choice and being able to hear un-abridged, and fully exressive views on both sides.

I can change the channel any time I want, and i dont need the the government to deside what opinions I should be listenning to.

to force a demographic on the public.. is a sham.

Because there is no way to say that demographic is correct.

3% for libertarians... is bull.

freedom of speech and opinion must ''''not'''' be intefered with.. period.

if the other side... wants to put forward a conflicting view, let them call in, or pay for a show on another radio station... there are plenty.

the fact IS... conservative radio... is more popular... and if socialists and progressives dont like... sorry... to bad... make your own shows more interesting.

FREEDOM WORKS BOTH WAYS... and we should not force bias..

because in that case... should we give equal time to NAMBLA?????


-MEMAT

The implementation of the Fairness Doctrine as law would force an unfair bias. Not sure why you responded to my post.

[Mosheh Thezion]

The implementation of the Fairness Doctrine as law would force an unfair bias. Not sure why you responded to my post.


sorry... the wording of it... made me think.. you favored it.

if not... then i am sorry.

-MEMAT

[Objectivist]

sorry... the wording of it... made me think.. you favored it.

if not... then i am sorry.

-MEMAT

Maybe you're not familiar with my avatar or screen name?

Against it.

[Mosheh Thezion]

THAT... is good to know... but your post.. was not very clear... please forgive my ignorance of your views.

-MEMAT