1949: The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced
"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"
Interesting George Takei involvement.
Unfortunately, this is one of those things that sounds great on paper, but doesn't really work in practice. The spirit behind it, though, I think is good. We the People own the airwaves, and so all viewpoints should be represented when it comes to the public discourse. But then you have to deal with advertisers. And investors. And political parties. Not to mention alternate viewpoints and deciding at what point you lock them out.
ReplyDeleteThe Fairness Doctrine of the 21st century, though, is going to be Net Neutrality .
Net Neutrality. Word to that.
ReplyDelete"this is one of those things that sounds great on paper, but doesn't really work in practice."
ReplyDeleteYeah, like Communism except without the gulags.
Yeah, like Communism except without the gulags.
ReplyDeleteAhh, another conservative meme this year... "ZOMG! Communisms!!1"
That was a Simpson's reference btw.
ReplyDeleteJimmy, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory. - Homer
Come on man, lighten up!
Jimmy's right, the original idea was that the airwaves are public and so the networks were required to perform public service with them, just as the TV networks are required to cover local elections and such. This is defunct, I believe, because now they actually pay for the airwaves, where as originally they just paid a nominal registration fee.
ReplyDeleteOh, and just to be clear, I think the Fairness Doctrine is a waste of time. Unenforceable and possibly unconstitutional. The libs want it to try and cut into conservative talk radio, which, in leftist circles, is considered rife with half-truths and propaganda (don't argue with me there, I'm just relaying a popular opinion). That's why Michael is the only person who is even hearing about this, because he listens to Rush, who is probably having a coronary over this thing.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty good idea. I hope that Obama will change the unfair radio practices of the Bush Doctrine.
ReplyDeleteI think Jimmy originally brought up the Fairness Doctrine in another post. I made this post so we could have a fair and balanced dialog on it.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in previous post, it is prominent Democrats that have been publicly calling for its reinstatement. Since the Fairness Doctrine applies to the airwaves I would hope people on the air (Rush, Hannity, Savage... Top 1,2,3 largest radio audiences) would devote time talking about this topic.
I think we are all in agreement here on this one. It had a purpose, its outdated, its unenforceable and a more timely issue would be Net Neutrality.
Not only more timely, but more important. Radio is an outdated medium, and really, I'm a whiny liberal, but I could give two shits if there are an equal number of liberal shows to counter the conservative ones.
ReplyDeleteIf someone really considers themselves well-informed strictly by listening to talk radio, then I'm not sure you want them on your side anyway. And yes, that applies to Air America Radio too, Michael.
The purpose of the FD was to ensure that people have access to different view points and that different view points have equal access to the people. I can't imagine anyone not believing we have achieved this in the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteWe should really all be thankful for the amount of info (biased or otherwise) that we have access to, we are all better off for it.