General discussion

FCC and Fairness Doctrine

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

From what I understand, this doctrine was originally brought about for radio stations demanding that both sides of an issue be presented so that opposing views were treated and covered fairly.

Does anybody know if this doctrine was expanded to include television news channels/programs as well as the newspapers? And if so, why isn't it being implemented?

TONI

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: FCC and Fairness Doctrine
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: FCC and Fairness Doctrine
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Pretty much ended in 1987

This is the direct reason we now have so much talk radio. Stations were VERY afraid of putting anyone on the air with an opinion for having to "give" airtime for equal time.

- Collapse -
The Fairness Doctrine ...

... was brought about to be anything but. It was the liberal "mainstream" media establishment's way of trying to stifle alternate opinions expressed in the "new media".

Let the free market work. It's doing so already. There's no need to legislate equal time for differing opinions as there would always have to be someone to decide what qualified for different sides on an issue, etc.

People are looking less and less to embarassingly partisan sources (CBS and the NYT leading the pack) adn increasingly to alternative sources.

- Collapse -
here is a ' fair' explanation

the only downside to me is people that only rely on one pov. after hearing 'one-sided' views they believe they are facts. they do not perceive them as possible opinions. religious denominations are a good example of this position. there is a proverb that there are three sides to every story; my side, your side and the truth. that would be the only fair way imbo. here's wiki:

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

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The downside is who gets to choose what's fair
- Collapse -
I just heard another example

=time=fairness-opinion+experience=belief=fair=dnr

- Collapse -
The death of the Unfairness Doctrine in 1987...

...gave us a chance (albeit a small one) of having both sides fairly represented in the marketplace of ideas. Talk radio and the "alternative media" (bloggers, etc.) did the rest.

The left side of the Republicrat party now would LOVE to reinstate that abomination - and plans to as soon as it gets control of Congress, which is another reason why I'll hold my nose and vote for what passes as "conservatism" in November - maybe.

- Collapse -
Quo Fairness?

Fairness is certainly a hot topic for the proof of free speech. Yet we remain ever clueless as to the vast domain of this concept. The law was not intended to be a course in post doc ethics. The Bible says, "The law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ."
GAL 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
GAL 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Even in this Forum discussion on fairness, there is a small link on every page marked with the yellow triangle containing an (!) titled: "Warn of offensive posts". ???? This is an indication of the problem of defining "fairness" even here or anywhere for that matter.

Fairness can be found in a dictionary. With a definition. The meaning of fairness is found when someone says to themselves or someone else, that's fair. Whether it is or not.

Can we re-invent the scales? Scales and standards were established long ago in an attempt to avoid the results of contention and catastrophe over fairness. Anyone can put a thumb on a scale during a transaction, but not everyone gets caught.

Honesty is a commitment to fairness as a virtue, not as a claim.

CNET Forums

Forum Info