tmyers09
(706 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 09:33 AM
Original message |
Can somebody give me some information about the "Fairness Doctrine"? |
|
My dad (right winger, but considerably less crazy) said something yesterday about the Fairness Doctrine going against free speech. Since it was repealed before I was born, and it's not widely discussed, I figured you guys could maybe give me some possible counter arguments?
|
PSPS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message |
1. It simply required giving time to an opposing viewpoint |
|
It is frequently misrepresented as requiring "equal time," but that's not the case. It only required "offering time for an opposing viewpoint." This "time" could be anywhere in the broadcast schedule and never had to be an equal amount.
Its detractors, virtually everyone both left and right in the political spectrum who make money in the talk show business, oppose it (or its reinstatement) merely for selfish reasons -- it threatens their livelihood. But the loss of the fairness doctrine is what's responsible for the 24/7 non-stop hate radio industry.
|
michreject
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. And only on public (free) airways |
|
Pay services were not included.
|
Ozymanithrax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 10:58 AM
Response to Original message |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_DoctrineIf you don't like Wikipedia, go to the bottom of the article and click on their sources.
|
paulsby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 12:22 PM
Response to Original message |
4. a classic example of prejudice |
|
you are asking for counter arguments and admitting you don't know much about it.
iow, you are prejudging that you MUST be for it, (maybe because your rightwing dad is against it) WITHOUT knowing the facts.
you are asking ONLY for counterarguments. iow, you don't want to make up your mind about it after dealing with data, you just want arguments to use against somebody on something you admit you don't understand.
this is all too common on both the left and the right.
if you don't understand the issue, you should want to understand it BEFORE deciding if you are for or against it, instead of just deciding to kneejerk and darnit if the left is for it and the right is against it, it must be good.
that is CLASSIC example of prejudice.
can't get any more blatant.
|
tmyers09
(706 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Dude, I knew the basic tenets. |
|
Edited on Sat Mar-27-10 12:43 PM by tmyers09
I was asking how to refute his argument that it violated free speech. Maybe I didn't make that clear in the original post.
|
Kingofalldems
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Disruptors call it censorship |
Lars39
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-27-10 01:08 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Might be something in these links I had bookmarked: |
|
I believe Bork and Scalia were the two U.S. Appeals Court judges who helped kill the Fairness Doctrine. http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=fairnessdocthttp://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:44 AM
Response to Original message |