Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As one of the other posters already said, I don't need a bureaucrat telling me what is fair and what is not.
The information is all out there, it's just a matter of doing your own research if you are inclined to do so.
True...but it seems many, if not most, would rather be spoon fed their own views..factually accurate or not.
I'll bite..how, exactly, did the Fairness Doctrine affect free speech?
The FD did not mandate what could be talked about..or not talked about..it just mandated equal time on the public airways for differing points of view.
You see this as a free speech issue and a 'bad' thing?
Once upon a time, not too long ago, we use to have in this country something called the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC, introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. So, in a sense, it was something like our own little poltics and other controversies forum here, with less trolls of course.
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
In today's hyper-partisan world wouldn't such a policy help to give people intelligent, opposing arguments that may help combat such political polarization? We all have bubbles that need to be challenged and even popped. Only if an argument can hold up to scrutiny is it truly strong. So, reinstateing such a policy might just help. After all, post WW II America did pretty well for itself all those years the policy was in place.
The left loves censorship and restrictions of free speech. It is what fascists do.
Once upon a time, not too long ago, we use to have in this country something called the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC, introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. So, in a sense, it was something like our own little poltics and other controversies forum here, with less trolls of course.
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
In today's hyper-partisan world wouldn't such a policy help to give people intelligent, opposing arguments that may help combat such political polarization? We all have bubbles that need to be challenged and even popped. Only if an argument can hold up to scrutiny is it truly strong. So, reinstateing such a policy might just help. After all, post WW II America did pretty well for itself all those years the policy was in place.
The destruction of the Fairness Doctrine was one of the key elements in the rise to power of the Radical Right. That plus the Citizens United decision pretty much put the nail in the coffin of a people's democracy in this country. You will never see that return in your lifetime, we've taken the country much too far to the right to ever consider it. The glory days of this country are long gone, we turned the corner in the 70's and we have headed toward the ditch ever since. At least from the point of view of those that value liberty.
True...but it seems many, if not most, would rather be spoon fed their own views..factually accurate or not.
That should be obvious by reading the responses to this thread. No matter how many times it is explained to them. These Cons are just that stupid. Just don't complain about the liberal media, we tried to offer a solution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
