Why do you think they got rid of the "fairness doctrine"?

[Anarchist420]

I think part of the reason may have been because showing both sides to the story could potentially hurt the government. Why else would the FCC have given up some of its power?

I do realize that some lobbied for its repeal and that the FCC chairman at the time had lobbied for repeal, but generally lobbyists seek to increase the power of the state for their benefit (rather than decreasing it). That said, it seems somewhat odd that it was repealed.

I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, but I don't support any regulations, some of which I'm sure the media cartel does support. After all, the MSM cut Dr. Paul off quite frequently and they've never lobbied for abolition of the FCC and replacement of it with nothing. In addition to that, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 also wasn't total deregulation and it even re-regulated to the advantage of the media cartel.

 

[cybrsage]

Because the fairness doctrine was not actually fair.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Because there are more than two sides of all issues and, therefore, having more than one-perspective is wrong.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Because the fairness doctrine was not actually fair.

This.

 

[Lemon law]

I have a slightly different takes here, there is some wisdom to the fairness doctrine but it somewhat presupposes that there are just two sides to any given issue. And to level the playing field, the fair way, present both view points and let the viewing public decide. But when there are three four five or 112 different ways to look at an any given issue, how do you fairly give equal time to all sides especially when some of those alternative ideas are in fact totally nutty. In short,the fairness doctrine on our public airwaves are in actuality a unworkable regulation.

On the downside, we get people like Rush Limbaugh serially abusing the concept of the fairness doctrine. As he thrills his listeners with only his own views, and the only alternate views Rush permits is his alter ego's whipping boy in Snurdly.

As Rush is a poster child of why we need to bring back the fairness doctrine. But still, if we can't regulate things fairly, we will be stuck having many Rush types on the right, the left and all ends of the lunatic fringes.

 

[Double Trouble]

Because the fairness doctrine was not actually fair.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

 

[Anarchist420]

On the downside, we get people like Rush Limbaugh serially abusing the concept of the fairness doctrine. As he thrills his listeners with only his own views, and the only alternate views Rush permits is his alter ego's whipping boy in Snurdly.

I'm not sure why Rush is even still on the air. He says the same thing over and over again and he's completely illogical. All he and his callers do is pat each other on the back as he blocks anyone who isn't a neocon. I really think the government is keeping him propped up and the fact that he's nothing more than a broken record is part of it.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not sure why Rush is even still on the air.

Because there is a significant audience of people who want to hear what he has to say. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it. As long as people want to listen to him blather on, they should be able to do so.

 

[Anarchist420]

As long as people want to listen to him blather on, they should be able to do so.

I agree, but I suspect part of his success is due to government intervention.

 

[PokerGuy]

I agree, but I suspect part of his success is due to government intervention.

You think the government is somehow either convincing or compelling people to listen to him? Or that the government is rigging the ratings system to make it seem like he has ratings when he doesn't?

 

[CPA]

I have a slightly different takes here, there is some wisdom to the fairness doctrine but it somewhat presupposes that there are just two sides to any given issue. And to level the playing field, the fair way, present both view points and let the viewing public decide. But when there are three four five or 112 different ways to look at an any given issue, how do you fairly give equal time to all sides especially when some of those alternative ideas are in fact totally nutty. In short,the fairness doctrine on our public airwaves are in actuality a unworkable regulation.

On the downside, we get people like Rush Limbaugh serially abusing the concept of the fairness doctrine. As he thrills his listeners with only his own views, and the only alternate views Rush permits is his alter ego's whipping boy in Snurdly.

As Rush is a poster child of why we need to bring back the fairness doctrine. But still, if we can't regulate things fairly, we will be stuck having many Rush types on the right, the left and all ends of the lunatic fringes.

Where is written that you have to get both sides?

Rush is a downside to you because you do not agree with him. Rachel Maddow is a downside to me because I do not agree with her. Neither of us have to listen, we can turn the channel off or to another view. Why do we need a law to tell us otherwise?

The choice is not at the point of getting both sides, the choice is made at turning the radio or tv on. Nobody forces people to listen or watch the shows, but you're going to tell me I should be forced to hear both sides? If I don't want to listen to Michael Savage, I won't turn it on. If I do, then I do so because I enjoy his commentary.

Additionally, I think you give the public too little credit. Most people don't listen to one view, they get their information from many sources. Hell, I come in here just to read what you libs are writing. It reminds me every day that I am making the right decision in standing by my views. I don't need a Fairness Doctrine to do that.

 

[MovingTarget]

Because we assume that in the marketplace of ideas that the best, most valid and supported view wins. In reality, since we nixed the fairness doctrine, its the idea that gets shouted through the biggest bullhorn that wins.

The fairness doctrine should have never been removed.

 

[PokerGuy]

The fairness doctrine should have never been removed.

Fail.

The "fairness" doctrine simply seeks to replace the ability of the audience to determine what they want to hear with the government's opinion of what the audience should want to hear.

 

[Fern]

Why do you think they got rid of the "fairness doctrine"?

Back in the day, before many of you youngsters were even born, most of us had only 1 or 2 channels. Unless you lived in a big city like NY or Chicago there were at most 3 channels (ABC, NBC and CBS). I grew up in Tallahassee, the capital of FL, on normal days (cloudy) we got one channel.

With that kind of limited access to news etc allowing a channel to promote only one view point would amount to propaganda. And it would have been a form of propaganda that people wouldn't recognize as such because there was little-to-no opportunity to even be aware of differing view points.

Now we have a bazillion channels readily available. And we are aware of propaganda because each channel tells us the others are all propaganda.

So we have no need of the Fairness Doctrine anymore. I suppose what we could use is a "Quality Doctrine". But when government starts deciding what is 'quality' it's called censorship and is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I have a slightly different takes here, there is some wisdom to the fairness doctrine but it somewhat presupposes that there are just two sides to any given issue. And to level the playing field, the fair way, present both view points and let the viewing public decide. But when there are three four five or 112 different ways to look at an any given issue, how do you fairly give equal time to all sides especially when some of those alternative ideas are in fact totally nutty. In short,the fairness doctrine on our public airwaves are in actuality a unworkable regulation.

On the downside, we get people like Rush Limbaugh serially abusing the concept of the fairness doctrine. As he thrills his listeners with only his own views, and the only alternate views Rush permits is his alter ego's whipping boy in Snurdly.

As Rush is a poster child of why we need to bring back the fairness doctrine. But still, if we can't regulate things fairly, we will be stuck having many Rush types on the right, the left and all ends of the lunatic fringes.

Hmm. If only there were some mechanism by which we could control our radios, some sort of device by which we could actually tune them to actually pick up other frequencies. Then other people with different viewpoints could broadcast on those frequencies. Eventually - perhaps with only a few hours' work - we could select at will from among two different broadcasts. Maybe, someday, even between several broadcasts! Then we would not have to expect every broadcaster to present every possible viewpoint.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

 

[rudder]

Because there is a significant audience of people who want to hear what he has to say. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it. As long as people want to listen to him blather on, they should be able to do so.

Along with that... the revenue he generates should not have to subsidize any other counter opinion programming.

 

[woolfe9999]

A succinct answer to the question is that in the old days, there was limited access to broadcast bandwidth, and that made it difficult for minority viewpoints to be heard. Such is not the case anymore, particularly with the advent of the internet. The Fairness Doctrine is therefore outdated.

- wolf

 

[FoBoT]

regardless of why is was retired, since it only applied to holders of broadcast licenses , i think that now with so many other non-'broadcast' means of information dispersal, it would be virtually ineffective with today's technology

i get < 5% of my info from 'broadcast' license holders, probably <1% really

 

[WHAMPOM]

I think part of the reason may have been because showing both sides to the story could potentially hurt the government. Why else would the FCC have given up some of its power?

I do realize that some lobbied for its repeal and that the FCC chairman at the time had lobbied for repeal, but generally lobbyists seek to increase the power of the state for their benefit (rather than decreasing it). That said, it seems somewhat odd that it was repealed.

I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, but I don't support any regulations, some of which I'm sure the media cartel does support. After all, the MSM cut Dr. Paul off quite frequently and they've never lobbied for abolition of the FCC and replacement of it with nothing. In addition to that, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 also wasn't total deregulation and it even re-regulated to the advantage of the media cartel.

Because under the Fairness Doctrine you have to air (for free) opposition to your favorite? HA! HA! Who am I kidding? They just make more money forcing everyone to pay for air time.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Fail.

The "fairness" doctrine simply seeks to replace the ability of the audience to determine what they want to hear with the government's opinion of what the audience should want to hear.

The fairness doctrine makes me uncomfortable, but your logic does as well.