Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Skar on February 19, 2009, 12:30:07 AM
-
Fairness Doctrine (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/)
I was afraid that President Obama would cave to the other Dems on this issue, but apparently he's standing firm. Good for him. What really blows me away is that it gets debated at all.
What part of "Use the government to dictate what the people and the press can and cannot say." sounds like a good idea to these people?
Is there a reasonable argument for the fairness doctrine that I'm missing?
-
About a month ago I heard some commentator on NPR say no reasonable person would ever seriously consider the fairness doctrine a good idea. I wish I knew when it was so I could see if he has eaten his words or declared a lot of high up Democrats unreasonable.
-
What part of "Use the government to dictate what the people and the press can and cannot say." sounds like a good idea to these people?
Well, the site you link describes it as a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
which is a rather different thing.
Was it the fairness doctrine that allowed for McCarthy's famous ranting response to the Edward R. Murrow report?
Providing opposing viewpoints on controversial issues sounds like a good thing to me—but I'm doubtful it's at all necessary to make it a legal requirement. Don't news sources already do it? Shows like Crossfire and whatnot, and the opposite-party response to the State of the Union addresses. Those already get airtime. And newspapers often publish conflicting editorials.
Also, how do you define "controversial"? If just one person disagrees, does that make it controversial? Seems like a can of worms.
Opposing viewpoints on issues are already widely and freely available, just not necessarily in the exact same news sources (though they often are).
-
Basically, my understanding of the Fairness doctrine is that, to give an example, if a radio station broadcasts 1 hour of liberal-leaning commentary, they must also broadcast 1 hour of conservative-leaning commentary.
Which is not provided for in the Constitution. And in fact goes against free speech. In short it is dictating what must be said.
It also goes against the principle of capitalism. If my product is based on conservative commentary, forcing me to give liberal commentary is interfering with my product, potentially causing it to be less attractive to my listeners.
-
which is a rather different thing
I concede that on the face of it, it looks like a different thing. But I would like to suggest that when it falls to a single organ, the government, to decide what is and is not 'controversial' as well as what is and is not an 'opposing' viewpoint, it's not different at all. Imagine the FCC declaring abortion a 'controversial' issue (it is) and that the 'opposing' viewpoints consist entirely of whether a fetus should or should not be aborted as late as the third trimester. It's an abuse of power that was directly foreseen by the founding fathers and guarded against.
Opposing viewpoints on issues are already widely and freely available, just not necessarily in the exact same news sources (though they often are).
Which is why any pushing of the 'Fairness Doctrine' looks to me like nothing more than an attempt to squash opposing viewpoints while striving to give the opposite impression to the gullible.
-
I was reading up on it a bit today, and Wikipedia says the fairness doctrine never required equal time, just the presence of the opposing viewpoint, time not specified.
-
Go Obama! This thing is dumb. Requiring opposition is exactly the opposite of "free" press. If I only get it under a set of circumstances, then it is no longer free.
-
I was reading up on it a bit today, and Wikipedia says the fairness doctrine never required equal time, just the presence of the opposing viewpoint, time not specified.
I stand corrected :(
And yeah this is really making me like Obama.
-
It'll take more than a common-sense no brainer like saying no to the "fairness doctrine" to make up for the other things President Obama is doing in my book.
But it is a hopeful indicator that he won't go whole hog left like he promised in his campaign.
-
The same commentary I heard said it was a bad idea because it had been used to do exactly this.
Which is why any pushing of the 'Fairness Doctrine' looks to me like nothing more than an attempt to squash opposing viewpoints while striving to give the opposite impression to the gullible.
And each party got burned back in the 60s and 70s as each took a turn to be the one running the game.