Comments on: TV News And The Fairness Doctrine

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:43:38 +0000

It's censorship, though also possible desire for lefty propaganda. The public rejected the liberal media's bias and others filled a deliberately neglected (when not actively suppressed) market. The Left has always resented this. Given how the Dems in Washington this year have been rushing (looking like the Keystone Cops, but more sinister if thought about) to overreach in all kinds of ways, it's no surprise they'd try reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” [sic].

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:43:00 +0000

The whole point of the Fairness Doctrine, when it passed, was that there were very limited choices for Americans to get their news and commentary, so there had to be enforced balance. That obviously is not the case now, so the only reason to bring it back is a desire of the government to control the message.

And that indeed is censorship, and very unlikely to withstand SCOTUS review.

By: lurxst

lurxst — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:31 +0000

The notion of fair use of the “public's airwaves” has faded with the advent of cable news, internets, and other new media. No longer is it really about a network caretaking the public's precious limited broadcast channels and the need for a range of voices and opinions to come over those airwaves. I think the author is longing for that sense of fairness, even though it was likely still skewed and biased, just at a level unperceptable to the viewer.

Contrast that with today when a broadcaster like Fox News routinely outright lies, speculates and makes up facts to suit the agenda of its owner. It has been an all out assault on reason and truth and in that sense Fox News has won because they actually get people to question widely accepted facts under the masquerade of “opinion”.

By: TV News And The Fairness Doctrine

TV News And The Fairness Doctrine — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:25:51 +0000

[...] News Sources wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTV News and the Fairness Doctrine by Martha Randolph Carr Let’s bring back the Fairness Doctrine that required television journalists to at least attempt to be fair. That’s right, there was a magic time in America when the suits at the three main networks, ABC, NBC and CBS had to set aside a certain amount of air time devoted to controversial topics or current affairs and all sides of an issue had to be presented. The regulation worked so well that Congress made it a law in 1959 and it last [...]

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:02:34 +0000

Sorry, Martha. It's not coming back.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:30:41 +0000

Sounds like the government wants to control speech, again. This is political maneuvering at the expense of the Constitution. The Dems know that conservative talk shows are a major part of the conservative movement. This is an attempt to silence those voice…or at least cut their talk time in half.

It is nice to see the Dems acting just like Bush. Maybe both parties should get together and have a Constitution burning party.

By: tidbits

tidbits — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:23:47 +0000

The Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally a form of censorship and an abridgment of constitutionally guaranteed free speech. In a nation founded on liberty, it has no place.

Historically, media outlets were not subjected to a requirement of "fairness" during the first 135 years, or so, of the Republic. Media outlets during that first century and a third were almost exclusively of the print variety. Review of those newspapers and magazines will disclose that they were every bit as slanted as any electronic media outlet today. So, the first question is why we would advocate regulating (censoring) some media outlets, specifically radio and television, but not others, specifically print media. People select news sources in print media for their slant (do you prefer The Nation or National Review?), just as they do in electronic media.

The second question that jumps to mind is where the internet fits into the Fairness Doctrine. As more and more Americans get their news online, should we not regulate (censor) internet news sources under the "Fairness Doctrine" in keeping with the author's theory? And next we would have to examine "citizen journalism". How is that regulated into somebody's idea of fairness?

The author also seems to believe that reintroducing the "Fairness Doctrine" would force electronic news media away from its current entertainment format. It is just as likely that the exact opposite would occur. Afraid of running afoul of a "Fairness Doctrine", electronic media outlets might be inclined to run as much fluff as possible and avoid difficult topics for fear of a fairness complaint.

Finally, the ultimate problem with the "Fairness Doctrine" is always who decides what's fair? Is it politically correct liberals or is it the theologically rigid right? How do we know that the arbiters of fairness, government appointees, will themselves be fair and not shift with the political winds?

The days of the "Fairness Doctrine", married couples not being portrayed as sleeping in the same bed, navels not being shown, not a curse word as mild as "damn" being spoken were not the "Good Old Days", They were the days of censorship, sometimes self imposed, sometimes government imposed like the "Fairness Doctrine", and sometimes a combination of self imposition and FCC coercion. To those days I say good riddance, and may they never return.

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:02:57 +0000

Yes I remember it clearly. It was excellent. When you got political commentary, you got one side and then equal time devoted to the rebuttal from the other side.

I'm all for bringing it back. I'm sure it would send Rupert Mudoch packing.