Speakeasy forum

General discussion

FCC and Fairness Doctrine

by TONI H / June 23, 2006 8:51 PM PDT

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?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: FCC and Fairness Doctrine
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 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.
Collapse -
Pretty much ended in 1987
by duckman / June 23, 2006 9:03 PM PDT

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 ...
by Evie / June 24, 2006 1:32 AM PDT

... 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
by WOODS-HICK / June 24, 2006 2:01 AM PDT

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:


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The downside is who gets to choose what's fair
by Evie / June 24, 2006 2:05 AM PDT
Collapse -
I just heard another example
by WOODS-HICK / June 24, 2006 2:19 AM PDT


Collapse -
The death of the Unfairness Doctrine in 1987...
by Paul C / June 24, 2006 10:12 AM PDT

...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?
by hillhopper / April 18, 2007 12:47 PM PDT

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.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?