1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: − One effect of its demise was to open the doors to today's political "talk radio," previously inhibited by stations' concerns that they would be required to give time to opposing views. [[Michelle Malkin]] notes several instances where [[liberal]]s are trying to resurrect the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and use it to censor [[conservative]] [[free speech]]. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-progressive-attack-on-talk-radio/ Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio].</ref> Paul Nowak has a great cartoon that satirizes Liberal paranoia of talk radio. <ref> [http://newsbusters.org/node/13855 Paul Nowak Satirizes Liberal Paranoia of Talk Radio] </ref>+ − With the rise of alternatives like cable TV, the networks lost their monopoly on news and public affairs programming. President Ronald Reagan helped introduce competition into the marketplace of ideas by deregulating the broadcast industry and had the FCC drop the "fairness doctrine". Reagan's idea was that broadcasters could endorse whatever views it chose (see [[free speech]] and [[freedom of press]]).+ − <ref>[http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm The Fairness Doctrine], Museum of Broadcast Communication</ref> − Representative [[Mike Pence]], a [[Republican]] from [[Indiana]] says “There’s nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine” <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286972,00.html Lawmaker Aims to Block Any Change to Talk Radio Rules]</ref>+
→Opposition to mandated fairness
Under [[FCC]] regulations, however, the media could avoid the problem of furnishing additional air-time for opposing views if they included opposing views on the issues in their regular news programming. The courts tended to side with radio and television media if they can bring forth reasonably good evidence of "fairness" in the coverage.
Under [[FCC]] regulations, however, the media could avoid the problem of furnishing additional air-time for opposing views if they included opposing views on the issues in their regular news programming. The courts tended to side with radio and television media if they can bring forth reasonably good evidence of "fairness" in the coverage.
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS A BILL THAT CONSERVATIVES ARGUE AGAINST THE RE-INSTITUTION OF. THEIR COMPLAINTS ARE IRONIC WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT IT WOULD SUPPRESS THE SO CALLED "LIBERAL MEDIA". OR RATHER, MAYBE IT'S NOT SO IRONIC WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THERE IS A LIBERALLY BIASED MEDIA, BUT RATHER A LIBERALLY BIASED REALITY.
IT'S ALSO SOMEWHAT IRONIC WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THEY'RE CONSTANTLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE (SUPPOSED) POLITICAL INDOCTRINATION GOING ON AT PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES.
ALL IN ALL, THEIR VIEWS AREN'T TOO OUT OF PLACE. CONSERVATIVES HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BASING BELIEFS OFF INTUITION, AND THEN DENYING THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE OR CONFLICT ONE ANOTHER.
[[Philip Terzian]] at the [[Weekly Standard]] says "Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio." <ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/926hhctd.asp Radio Free America</ref>
[[Philip Terzian]] at the [[Weekly Standard]] says "Revival of the Fairness Doctrine is not intended to facilitate "both sides of the story" but to shut down conservative talk radio." <ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/926hhctd.asp Radio Free America</ref>