"Fairness Doctrine" Equals Censorship »

RSS Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 1 (view all)

- Display No Filter Fair Comments - 25% and above Good Comments - 50% and above Excellent Comments - 75% and above

• Neutral

  djn3nunez310 months, 1 week ago

  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

  "Supporters of the "fairness doctrine" are actually evading the only way to achieve true "fairness" in a free society: To come up with a better product."
  
  I think it has more to do with who owns the radio stations not the actual product.
  
  The left-wing politicians who, up to now, cannot sell their ideas
  
  Except there is that 8 million vote victory they had a few months ago.
  
  so they call for laws and regulations to require broadcasters to do the impossible: To sell what doesn't sell. In practice, this means either broadcasting what nobody will listen to (at a loss, since there will be no advertisers)
  
  More mis-truths
  
  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.
  
  There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.
  
  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053
  
  What about cable and satellite broadcasts
  
  I think any network that claims to be a news network should have some resonsibility to air contrasting view on matters of politics.
  
  I'd like to hear these politicians defend why it's constitutional to stifle one area of broadcast, but not another.
  
  A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
  
  — U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)

  Reply

  0 Replies

  loading ...

View All 1 Comments

More News