Is the Fairness Doctrine fair?
 

Well, is it?

Discuss.

D'oh! Wrong forum. Mods, please move to OT...

What is the 'Fairness Doctrine'?

This is a politcally loaded discussion that doesn't belong in the sweet serenity that is the 924/944/968 forum.

Quote: "...the public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue."

Dont recall who wrote the above, but I think that covers it.

Listen to both sides and make a decision ... how novel an idea!

Yes, but should the news and all other broadcast media be "forced" to cover "both sides of an issue"?

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is a huge misnomer. Why should broadcasters be forced to carry material that cannot attract advertisers? It's bad enough that we have taxpayer-funded, yet slanted, stations like PBS and NPR. We shouldn't force broadcasters to run Air America for free because Air America cannot get listeners and hence advertisers, just to balance out the conservative shows that can.

BTW, new talk of the "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with news broadcasts, since the vast majority of them are slanted to the left. Those who want to bring back the "equal time" stuff are targeting talk radio because it's mostly conservative and crushes any liberal talk shows in ratings.

IMO, No.

Lets face facts. We all see that, (depending on the owner(s) of the newspaper/radio station/magazine/blog. etc...etc.) there is going to be an inherent bias.

Can we hold out hope that SOMEDAY (one of the above listed) will hire true "journalists"
that attempt to show the 'TRUTH'. Don't hold your breath waiting.

And recall that one mans truth is the next mans lie (dismissed offhand, if it doesn't follow HIS way of thinking).

Its not fair to a station - they should have the freedom of speech to air what they want. A stastion/show will then be known for whatever bias it develops, and you can tune in to different stations if you want to hear different view points.

Watching the same item on the news from all the stations would be very revealing if you guys have ever done it - everyone I know who did this for some time ended up turning them all off. I can not tthink of any time TV has been unbiased. 1950's, you got the same view of the UN everywhere, TV ahs been used as govermental propaganda since its outset. I don't watch it, nor own a TV, and the few times I do at a friends house, I feel stupider when I'm done.

Perhaps conservative talk shows crush liberal talk shows for the same reasons that wresting and NASCAR "crushes" the science channel. ;)
(I have no interest in either kind of talk show - 'cept Charlie Rose once in a while.)
-Chris

And I don't see anyone clamoring to get more science shows to take away from the airtime NASCAR or pro wrestling get. This has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with using the FCC to browbeat conservative talk radio shows down by forcing stations that carry them to lose money by carrying liberal shows that can't get listeners.

Ok Legion: look what you started.

IMO: There is no fairness when most everything is motivated by money. Let's face it, Rush, Stern, Ann Coulter et all wouldn't exist is it wasn't for ratings and money. Does a tree make noise when it falls in the forest???

The media be it newspapers, cable, radio, TV will always slant to their advantage; because of ratings. The right needs the left and the left needs the right.

Sorry for being cynical. We don't get the truth until a disaster strikes and these same clowns run for cover. Anyone takin' issue with Rush and he was busted for drugs. How about Newt for having an affair while he was ripping Bill Clinton. What about the Congressman diddlin' underage boys while he was on his child porn soapbox. At least Bill got the sex and age right.


I often quote Shakespeare: "Me thinks thou protest too much" Usually the one makin' the most noise has the most to hide or benefit.

What does Rush have to do with news? He's not a journalist and never claimed to be one. Clinton and Newt were also not journalists. What Rush or Al Franken or Sean Hannity do on the radio is no different from how sitcoms are programmed on tv stations. They are for entertainment and don't even claim to be news. They are there because of ratings, not despite them.

I'll back the so-called Fairness Doctrine when it applies to the Universities and the Networks as they would have it applied to talk radio.

If this remark were made tongue-in-cheek, it would be funny. But considering that it's author probably cannot even see the irony, it's probably more sad than funny.

now THIS is funny.

I don't know if it's sad, funny or anything else but true. I have no problem that their broadcasts are left leaning. I am very conservative yet I still watch and listen to both of these broadcasts. My problem is that they are taxpayer funded.

I concur. They can go as far left as their audience will bear. But they should not receive a penny from the gubmint. Ditto for Nat. Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. I want to be a rock star too, but can't get a record deal or sell enough tickets to rent a concert hall. Can the gov't. sponsor me?

I might agree that NPR is not conservative enough for your tastes. But then, the spending of public money is a group decision. In my humble view, Fox News is more than slanted. It is inconscionable pandering to commercial interest and it should be regarded as treacherous in the way it stirs up peoples' sense of indignation by reporting that portion of the facts that is expected to make viewers the most angry. It drives a wedge into my country's political discussions and deliberately misleads its viewers through misinformation and sensationalized reporting of part-truths.

As I say, NPR may be too conservative for your tastes. And it may also, at the same time, be right in the "center" between left and right. Your tastes, my friend, would conclude that 95% of the publications in the Western Hemisphere are wildly liberal. And of course, factually, if 95% of publications are liberal to you, then you are on the right. And "balanced" to you is not, factually, "balanced" in the sense of also seeming "balanced" to someone whose views are more conservative than 50% of people and more liberal than 50% of people.

I would be comfortable if NPR were SUBSTANTIALLY more liberal than it is. You were prefer it be substantially more conservative. It seems then, that it may be appropriately balanced.

Really, it all depends on what you have been told lately. The opinions of people who get their political news from typical sources......is quite different from the opinions of people who are actually involved in the public policy-making process. There is an alarming gap between the way people think stuff happens......and the way stuff actually happens. The "center" is not where you think it is.