The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC program in the 70s and 80s that stated that if a radio station talked about a controversial issue, the station had to give equal time to the opposing side if someone requested it. That sounds like a dandy idea on paper, but in practice all it did was stifle the free exchange of information. It was such a hassle for the stations to schedule the opposing views that they just didn't talk about anything that was at all controversial.
There has been a movement in congress, lead by democrats, to revive the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats do not actually want "fairness" on the airwaves; but rather want to silence conservative talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Despite the grand-sounding name, reinstituting Fairness Doctrine would reduce fairness in the media. The current problem with the media is the bias on every level of broadcasting. Every TV news channel except for Fox News and CNBC are blatantly liberal. FNC and CNBC are probably the closest to the center of all news outlets, but both do shade to the right. On the radio, Conservatives dominate. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity are blatantly conservative (and proud of it). Bill O'Reilly and Neal Boortz are the most popular centrists on the radio.
When looking at the biases of the media, it becomes abundantly clear why the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair. If Talk Radio is eliminated as a news medium, there will be no voice for Conservatives over the airwaves. If liberally tainted news is all that America hears, that is likely what they will believe. In an optimal world, all news and information would be provided in an unbiased manner. But due to human nature, that is impossible. The best bet for America to get all sides of an issue is the current system where every side presents their beliefs and then letting the people decide. It should be the market, not the government, that decides how to disseminate information.
- LovableLoser
9 comments:
The Media today is really focusing on one side or the other! I completely agree with your stance here. But, when you think about it, the presence of mostly conservative projection on the radio "balances out" the liberal-ness of the television. I wish the emementary idea of the fairness doctine, being the equality of the view points, could be achieved, but in the end, the only thing that matters would be what the people choose to believe in.
Ha. Like the percentage of people who listen to the radio, political talk radio no less, is even a valid comparison to that of those who view television. Sorry Charlie the Unicorn...not so much.
I agree with LovableLoser, well said! Every political ideology should be represented and not just the liberals. If the Democrats don't like what's being said, then they can just change the station.
You seem to be missing the fact that Fox news is also blatently conservative. Not only that, but they also attack any libral topic they can find, even using misspellings to subconciously pull people towards the conservative side.
As far as the fairness doctrine goes, I don't entirely believe that would work. As much as I'd love to hear both sides of a topic without switching channels, due to the nature of reporters in general, the information will still be biased. Thats just bound to happen. Yet, I'm not entirely sure why you think that there is a lack of a conservative voice on the television/radio. Just flip through the channels and I can promise you that eight out of ten of those channels will have something conservative on them, especially in local stations.
Yes. How about instead of focusing attention on what is wrong with the country, the media focuses on what is going good about the country? All we here is the recession. How about we here about the incredibly low gas prices?
If a side doesn't like how a station is leaning towards the other, they should just change the station because there are other stations that support their ideas as well.
You say every news channel but Fox and CNBC are liberal, so you obviously most have forgotten the graphs that Mr. Keller showed us in class. It showed that CNN was the most balanced of cable stations while covering the 2008 elections. CNN didn't spend all their time just talking about one candidate, they showed the positive and negatives of the candidates.
While the Fairness Doctrine may be a good idea, I don't think it'll work well. It's too difficult to COMPLETELY eliminate bias, especially if the person(s) have a strong opinion about the subject being discussed.
Isn't neal Boortz a Libertarian? Maybe I am thinking of someone else. But anyway, it's really unfortunate that a majority of news sources aren't balanced, and I understand how and why that is hard. Too bad the Fairness Doctrine wasn't so successful.
Post a Comment