Would the Fairness Doctrine put Fox News out of business?

Question

Thanks Heavens I pull the plug on television it has been zen experience not to have repetitive news organization pumping lies 24 seven. I watch mostly rentals and new releases. Faux News is not the only culprit CNN is pretty much turn into a lobbyist these days.

Answer 1

Because of the constitution, new media can publish pretty much whatever they want, as long as it isn't libelous or slanderous.



The media have NEVER been in the TRUTH industry (I would classify it in the entertainment industry). More fool to those who believe it is.

Answer 2

Every answer so far has been against the Fairness Doctrine. And it appears to me that most of these people, all they know about it is what they hear from right wing talk radio, so naturally they're against it. The whole purpose of the fairness doctrine was to guarantee that people would hear more than just one side of an issue--as most of the previous answerers apparently haven't. 8^) The idea was that the airwaves are public property, so in return for their use of the public airwaves to make a profit, radio and TV stations were required to perform some public service. This included 'public affairs' programming, to discuss current issues, local and national. It included giving time to candidates, and that had to be fair, i.e. equal time to all legitimate candidates. And it required that in discussion of public issues a range of views must be presented. The idea was that people need information to vote wisely. that's the whole reason for a Free Press in the first place. The info people need to run a democracy comes from newspapers and broadcast stations, or it did then. The fairness doctrine was put in effect in the 1930s by the law that created the FCC. It was ended during the Reagan administration, when broadcast stations were no longer required to perform a public service. It is the end of the fairness doctrine that allowed programs like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. where everyone on the show has the same viewpoint. Naturally, these are the people who don't want to see it come back. A few congressmen and senators have said they'd like to see it reinstated, but there's not a major movement for it at this point. There -is- a good reason to not bring the fairness doctrine back. Less and less of our news today comes to us from over-the-air radio and TV stations. The fairness doctrine never applied to cable stations (like FOX News) or to newspapers, or the Internet, or any of those sources. Today, those are the major sources. In the 30s-50s, when broadcast news was the major source, then the fairness doctrine did a good job. And the use of 'public' airwaves for broadcasting is going to be a lot less in a few months when digital TV takes over. Digital TV is in a different frequency spectrum, and broadcasters were able to 'buy' their channels on the air, so they -own- them. And under the new arrangement, they don't owe the public -anything-. I think it's kind of sad, but that's how things are going. Nobody would ever have imagined, back in the 1950s, that the US would simply sell off public property like that.

Answer 3

Another idea that didn't work, despite good intentions. However, IF -- IF -- it were ever to be re-instituted, it might correct the unfair-unbalanced dreck that's out there now. However, applying it would necessitate a bureaucracy bigger than the Pentagon's. As liberal/progressive as I consider myself, the Fairness Doctrine is bogus.



After all, that's why radios have dials on them and why TVs come with remotes and offer more than 1 channel. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can change the station or channel. They can also read newspapers, news magazines and visit a library occasionally.



I will disagree with you about CNN and the other cable news channels: have you ever watched Lou Dobbs? Have you ever seen Shep Smith and Geraldo Rivera on FOX? They are the 3 best reasons that people should watch those 2 channels. And even the folks on MSNBC are NOT giving Obama, the Dems or anyone else a 'free ride.' Rachel Maddow has a "talk me down" segment almost nightly, and Obama does NOTget off scot-free.



And that's as it should be. Hell, I even watched a replay of Hannity's interview with Limbaugh a few minutes ago. Hannity was drooling, but Rush almost made sense. I don't like or believe either of them, but I listened. People, in my opinion, should ALWAYS watch "the other side" occasionally just to get a different viewpoint, even just to re-affirm their own convictions... or maybe even soften their stance. Bottom line: we're all Americans, let's act like it.

.

Answer 4

Fox actually always has a right and left on their different segments to debate. This is in line with the original "so called" fairness doctrine. CNN does their version, by not being as extreme left as they were, and they once had a segment by Glenn Beck before he quit, and is now at Fox.

Air America is extreme left. I've listened to it. No wonder the ratings are in the toilet. I understand that AA is broke and may not be on much longer. I'm sure Nancy, and Harry will want to subsidize them and exclude them from the fairness doctrine, because they're subsidized by the Fed.

Answer 5

No-most people don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is. And it applies to everyone with a broadcast license, not just radio.



The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that is honest, equitable, and balanced.



* This is different from the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance and has no specific equal-time requirement. The Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. In American political discourse, these two policies are sometimes falsely conflated.

Answer 6

You didn't have to pull the plug on TV, just stop watching 24/7 news entertainment networks. You can watch the 30 minute national news and get what information you need without once hearing some loud mouth scream 'libs' or 'cons'. Those awful channels all need to go.

Answer 7

No. They would just have to devote equal amounts of times to all viewpoints, not just the right.

Honestly, I don't see the Fairness Doctrine being an issue. It wasn't brought up during the past 2 years with a Democratic congress and hasn't been mentioned by our Congress members as an actual goal since 2005. The ONLY people who are talking about this are Limbaugh and Fox. They seem to think it is imminent.

Answer 8

The Fairness Doctrine applies to radio mostly.

Answer 9

It would turn every news network into the exact same one. Then we really wouldn't have any fun at all.

Answer 10

We don't need the Unfairness Doctrine, we just need to teach people how to change the station or channel, problem solved.

Answer 11

No, that will never happen. Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly will live in infamy. You can't silence people, for telling the truth. Obama will be silenced, long before they will.

Answer 12

Just dont watch it...thats your freedom of choice...just keep watching your Msnbc crap.....you Libs are such Idiots!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 13

Fairness Doctrine doesn't apply to TV. TV news outlets are 99% liberally biased so Obama and Dems. wouldn't want it to be fair. Radio talk shows are probably 75% Republican. He wants to shut them down.

Answer 14

Im hoping it gets passed and playboy has to give equal time to fat ugly chicks, then i could always fulfill my dream of being a playboy model

Answer 15

Question: How do the blind watch TV?

I think you are only pretending to be blind to get a government check!

Answer 16

It would put liberal philosophers in business. And quite frankly, if I want to listen to that psycho-babble, I'd invites some of my liberal friends over and get them drunk. What a fantastic buzz kill that is.

Answer 17

no,it would be a liberal nightmare.then the media would be split 50/50.they couldn't handle more than one station.much like radio.

Answer 18

Why would you want to silence the opposing voice?

Answer 19

Fox News are the biggest joke in America, only they can't see it

Answer 20

Yes





Luckily there's family guy!



Giggity, giggity, giggity, alright!