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.
The leftist fanatics pretty much control all the mainstream media. Yet they are not satisfied with that. They must force the remaining channels (cable, etc.) to carry them too, when those outlets know their programs are losers that almost no one listens to.
Leftists cannot tolerate even the slightest amount of competition. And they don't care how much damage they do or how much government force they impose on people, to get rid of it.
Isn't most mainstream media cable? This is why I said you clearly don't understand the issue.
Also, the Fairness Doctrine, assuming it would be applied unchanged from what it was when it was originally instated, would not affect cable. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC continue being the **** shows they are.
And the fairness doctrine would actually prevent leftist news station from only providing left wing viewpoints. Again, you don't understand and I should really just save myself the headache and place you on my block list but we'll see. Maybe you'll turn this around.
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.
Big Brother... No thank you. I can think for myself.
People should decide what they want to read and hear not the government.
The problem that the aptly-named biggunssmalbrains has, is that normal Americans like to listen to and support conservative viewpoints; while they are annoyed and repelled by big-govt-leftist viewpoints. So the latter rarely gets any audience to speak of, and soon the program (or the station) dies of neglect, while conservative stations prosper.
The misnamed Fairness Doctrine forces stations to broadcast leftist viewpoints, to people who think they are silly and infantile, and don't want to have to listen to such tripe. This merely results in nearly everyone changing the channel away from the whining liberals, and that station's ratings plummeting to near zero.
Liberals can only exist by forcing their viewpoints upon others who don't want them. Different from conservatives (i.e. normal Americans), who volunteer to listen to an discuss conservative viewpoints by the millions.
Big Brother... No thank you. I can think for myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
The problem that the aptly-named biggunssmalbrains has, is that normal Americans like to listen to and support conservative viewpoints; while they are annoyed and repelled by big-govt-leftist viewpoints. So the latter rarely gets any audience to speak of, and soon the program (or the station) dies of neglect, while conservative stations prosper.
The misnamed Fairness Doctrine forces stations to broadcast leftist viewpoints, to people who think they are silly and infantile, and don't want to have to listen to such tripe. This merely results in nearly everyone changing the channel away from the whining liberals, and that station's ratings plummeting to near zero.
Liberals can only exist by forcing their viewpoints upon others who don't want them. Different from conservatives (i.e. normal Americans), who volunteer to listen to an discuss conservative viewpoints by the millions.
The Fairness Doctrine was never about telling people what to think. It was simply about ensuring that all viewpoints got at least some exposure. People were, and always have been, free to decide which of those viewpoints to embrace.
The Fairness Doctrine was never about telling people what to think. It was simply about ensuring that all viewpoints got at least some exposure. People were, and always have been, free to decide which of those viewpoints to embrace.
Yeah, like Commies, Socialists, whack jobs and subversives. We all need to consider what they bring to the table.
There are two sides to every story everyone knows that, the fairness doctrine just made it clear that the public has a right to hear both sides. It has nothing to do with censorship. The Reagan administration saw the benefits in presenting only one side of a story and the AM radio exploded with right wing radio thereafter.What's good for the goose is good for the gander and it took the left too long, IMO to get with the program. No one used the term fake news when, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Rush and the like dominated the airwaves. It was a boon for advertisers because the kind of people who believed that crap could also be duped into buying crap.
For those who are unaware of this, and not interested in reading about it, part of the reason, indeed, the main reason, the Fairness Doctrine was created was because of a limited number of broadcast outlets. The idea was that, while a person or a company could own a radio station or TV channel, said stations and channels used the airwaves to reach people, and the airwaves cannot be owned, and must be used to give all sides at least some voice (not necessarily equal time, as many believe.) The Wikipedia article explains in a lot more depth, but I remember this because I graduated with a degree in journalism in 1986, the year before the Doctrine was eliminated.
One of the arguments for doing away with the Doctrine was that, with a growing number of cable outlets, ways of reaching the public were not so limited, and that it was no longer needed. Unfortunately, as a result, we now have a situation where people on both sides of the aisle can completely avoid *ever* being exposed to information that challenges their existing beliefs.
Catgirl, my husband has said something very similar to what you posted here. I think the Fairness Doctrine is still relevant, but as others have said I wonder how much of an impact it would have in today's internet world.
The FCC. But the Fairness Doctrine was far less about what the specific content was and more just an issue of the content being reasonably balanced and relevant. A hypothetical: let's say Fox is required to abide by the Fairness Doctrine and they're covering a new abortion law being considered by congress. They're coverage would likely have to just include what the Bill is (in the modern age, they'd like simply post the full bill on their website, and read certain highlights from it on air, reminding people to look up the bill on their website for full detail) and some input from non-journalists, most likely politicians. One in favor, one opposed -- which would likely end up being a Republican and a Democrat. The journalist would ask them both questions to understand their point of view on the bill.
This is how news used to be, by the way.
News and commentary are not one in the same.
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.
