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.
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.
Last edited by biggunsmallbrains; 03-27-2017 at 04:52 PM..
It probably wouldn't do as much as you think. When this existed, TV and radio came from airwaves. Now, not as much. Most TV is cable. To my knowledge, cable is not viewed as public property. The reason this worked for the airwaves is because it was assumed that it was impossible to really own it. There's also the internet, which it could work for, but it would be hard to regulate as the internet itself may be public property, domains are purchased and even if they were viewed as being rented from the public, it would be hard to determine standards for this. An example, Breitbart could just stop calling itself news and say it's a blog or something to get away with their absurd ****.
That's not to say I'm opposed to this. It would have value in some places, but I don't think this quite the solution unfortunately as the scope of the fairness doctrine just isn't large enough. The scope could be expanded I guess, but let's be real, getting the old law reinstated will be an uphill battle as is (can you imagine? "Big government wants to take over the news!") so expanding it would be a nightmare. And it would be unlikely to have an effect on CNN or Fox or the numerous internet news organizations/blogs in it's original framework. The impact would unfortunately not be big enough to address the problems.
People should decide what they want to read and hear not the government.
This is not censorship. The doctrine allows you to say what you want it just allows a small amount of time to give an opposing view. I assume you are in this forum partially to read opposing views. This doctrine basically does that.
Who ultimately decided if a station was being "fair"?
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.
It was a rhetorical question. The FCC, government, would make that decision which essentially gives them the power to decide who is being fair and the ability to penalize those with whom they disagree.
How would you feel if the FD was put back in, and then Trump loaded the FCC with his guys who declared the fake news was not fair and punished those stations?
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.
And if Trump's guys put in the FCC said the Russia coverage wasn't being presented in a balanced manner?
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.
