Reply #28: First, you wouldn't need "liberal" radio, and second [View All]

[Eloriel]

much of "liberal radio" already is balanced.

One of the key elements of balance is not skewing the facts. If anything, liberal radio (and other media) present far more of the facts than are found in mainstream outlets.

We've gotten to a place where the mainstream media treats opposing sides' pronouncements as if they are equal, even when one side is patently lying. I think that would stop with the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine -- as long as it had some teeth in it, of course (like potential loss of license, as in the good ole days).

Finally, don't imagine "balance" requires equal time. You didn't say that, but I don't want anyone thinking that's what it requires. It doesn't. As I've had to post nearly every time I've seen this subject posted, the FD only required stations to give "responsible parties" an opportunity to present opposing viewpoints if those were not covered in the original broadcast. There was nothing requiring any specific amount of time. Typically, those "responsible parties" would get 30 - 60 seconds, often aired well before dawn or well after midnight. In large measure, the FD was effective mostly for its nuisance factor (as well as that potential loss of license thingie), because it was a pain in the nect for broadcasters to comply, so they pre-emptively (for the most part), did the right and responsible thing.

So, to comply with the FD, if it were to be implemented along the lines of the old one, a broadcaster would only need to make sure a sentence or two outlining the opposing viewpoint were included in the coverage.