Can we get it re-Instated?
or
Something like it....
Fairness Doctrine:
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.
I see nothing wrong with this. In the time of so much media sound bytes and viral stories I think the fairness doctrine is a no brainer.
I am trying to think of Negatives and I can come up with people saying
1. Its a strike against our First Amendment rights...
2. Too much government control over media
3. Too costly for stations to enact
4. Regulation might seep into the internet
My response to that would be
1. It is not against the principle of the first amendment to state opinions as opinions and "facts" as facts. Lies, slander & misdirection can be equivalent to the "falsely yelling fire in a crowded room" argument.
No one is suggesting that anyone should be forced to change their opinion in anyway but there should be clarity in what is opinion and a counterpoint should be included
2. In an age of multiple streams of media the ability to mislead is even greater. Not to mention with all the media conglomerates out there with there special interests it becomes easier to hide or suppress news worth issues. The government stands as a source of protection and regulation for we the people I see this as no different. A well balance piece or regulation serves as a protection for the people and a check on a industry that has the ability to to manipulate the public.
3. Cost for implementing such a doctrine such a policy should not be too costly because if there are reporters then this was suppose to be there job in the first place. They learned to argue issues since Elementary school. I think it may mean more cost for the regulatory board which I think is the FCC.
4. This rule applies to the Broadcast License holders. This does not apply to the net. Some argue that they too become intertwined as technology increases but as it stands right now we are talking about Broadcasting over airwaves so lets deal with that.
We need need a better system. If we continue on this path we will only get people who understand less and misleadings left unchecked will become "fact" in the historical books later.
Truth & Justice for all should be the American way
I know its for from that right now but isn't that what so many great people have fought for.
or
Something like it....
Fairness Doctrine:
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.
I see nothing wrong with this. In the time of so much media sound bytes and viral stories I think the fairness doctrine is a no brainer.
I am trying to think of Negatives and I can come up with people saying
1. Its a strike against our First Amendment rights...
2. Too much government control over media
3. Too costly for stations to enact
4. Regulation might seep into the internet
My response to that would be
1. It is not against the principle of the first amendment to state opinions as opinions and "facts" as facts. Lies, slander & misdirection can be equivalent to the "falsely yelling fire in a crowded room" argument.
No one is suggesting that anyone should be forced to change their opinion in anyway but there should be clarity in what is opinion and a counterpoint should be included
2. In an age of multiple streams of media the ability to mislead is even greater. Not to mention with all the media conglomerates out there with there special interests it becomes easier to hide or suppress news worth issues. The government stands as a source of protection and regulation for we the people I see this as no different. A well balance piece or regulation serves as a protection for the people and a check on a industry that has the ability to to manipulate the public.
3. Cost for implementing such a doctrine such a policy should not be too costly because if there are reporters then this was suppose to be there job in the first place. They learned to argue issues since Elementary school. I think it may mean more cost for the regulatory board which I think is the FCC.
4. This rule applies to the Broadcast License holders. This does not apply to the net. Some argue that they too become intertwined as technology increases but as it stands right now we are talking about Broadcasting over airwaves so lets deal with that.
We need need a better system. If we continue on this path we will only get people who understand less and misleadings left unchecked will become "fact" in the historical books later.
Truth & Justice for all should be the American way
I know its for from that right now but isn't that what so many great people have fought for.
