It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pexx421
There is no such thing as fair and balanced in a land where those with money have more power to manipulate legislation than those without. Money is not just ability to transfer ownership of things in our society, its power, and above a certain amount it becomes disruptive to the democratic system.
The middle and lower class have few protections against the wealthy elite, and it IS the governments duty to give them those protections.
Originally posted by sos37
How is the Fairness Doctrine any different? Isn't radio and television a form of publication, like a book? Isn't determining what lineup is and is not available for public viewing and listening the same as censorship of books from a library?
Originally posted by pexx421
And again i believe you misrepresent it. Its not about stating what news media can and cannot show. Its saying if your talking about an issue its your responsibility to show all sides of the issue, not just the one you support.
The thing is one group likes seeing the other group slammed. Patriot Act, oh, slam. Half the people applaud. Fairness Doctrine, slam. The other half applauds. Guns? I dont think so. Half applaud. Free market? Hells no. Half applaud. Each side stripping liberty from the other for jollies and the only person who wins is tyranny.
Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.
The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.
Originally posted by GamerGal
Fox News has Republicans on every show, no democrats, no moderates, just right wingers.