I was totally amazed at the flat out lies that were circulating during the presidential campaign. Both sides did it, and for some reason in this cycle there seemed to be so much floating around that was so far from the truth it bordered on farce, yet most of the electorate repeated it ad-nauseam. That included the main stream media with their use of the "it is being reported by <insert partisan/FOS website here>". It seemed that both sides, campaigns included, threw around any lie they could with impunity. This was, as Bill Maher put it plainly, a fact free election. With all that BS floating around during the election by both sides, would you support an updated version of the fairness doctrine ?
Under the "Fairness Doctrine", the liberal media went unchecked. They had a monopoly to spread their lies and half-truths through ABC, NBC, CBS, The NY Times, etc. It wasn't very ... fair. Now we have Fox News and conservative talk radio. We're not going to put the genie back in the bottle.
Do you understand what the fairness doctrine was ? An updated fairness doctrine would check BOTH sides
I prefer no government guidelines or restrictions on political speech in the media. If there's any place that needs some equity it's in our colleges where conservative political thought is nearly non-existent. Even there, I'm hesitant to support any government meddling.
So you don't support truth in advertising ? An uninformed electorate is not as bad as on that is filled with lies. So without rules around an election, how do you propose that the electorate be properly informed ?
what a "fairness doctrine" actually does is place checks on opposition to whoever has the most power at any given moment. it assures that the most popular lies will be given free rein, while dissenting opinion, regardless of its merit, is shouted down by any authority with the power to "regulate" information. we've already seen the way it works and were unimpressed.
Depending on who's judging the fairness. In the past (i.e. when the fairness doctrine was in place pre 1980s), pretty much anything right wing wasn't allowed. The left wing news media was viewed as "neutral." I'd rather have the marketplace determine what is allowed to go on the air. It's an idea called liberty. It's what this country was founded on. You need to read about it some time.
Let the people be the judge of what is true. I don't think we need government monitors, who would probably be liberal and go in the same direction as the IRS.
Obscenity and pornography are different than having a government monitor shut down conservative speech about low taxes because that's "racist".
I remember a few years back there was a fairness doctrine floating around. It stipulated a certain amount of anchors or pundits had to be from the opposing side on the news channels and radio stations. Many people pointed out they didn't want to hear the opposing view on their favorite station. I'm not sure what is the end game, but it seems it would help one side and hurt the other.
Liberty is not a right to lie. An electorate built on a false premise is a false electorate. The fact that we don't have any right to "facts" in the current reporting is amazing to me. I agree that there are parts of the original Fairness Doctrine that I didn't agree with, which was why i said an "updated version". There were parts of the original fairness doctrine that were ruled by the FEC which required that in basic form meant (paraphrase) "their needs to be verifiable truth in what a politician says". There is not liberty in todays marketplace. Citizens United very much guaranteed that. You will hear what those with money want you to hear. Hell, the right says it every day when they complain about the "left wing media".
I really got what I thought I would from this thread. 1. Those on the right believe everyone in the media is against them 2. Nobody wants to hear what the other side has to say So we all ridicule the millenails because they are spoiled, they don't listen to anybody else. Then we have this thread that basically says "I don't want to listen to anyone but who I WANT TO LISTEN TO......" Not much of a difference huh I weep for this country
How are they different? Both are legal. Is it because there are people who don't agree with one or both?
Not only does he not support truth in advertising he wants to insert his propaganda into our university system
Pornography has its place, but there must be limits. You can't post billboards of people having sex across the street from an elementary school. But I find it seriously offensive if a liberal government speech monitor were to prevent a conservative talk radio host from going on the air. Likewise, I would find it offensive if a conservative government speech monitor were to shut down MSNBC for being too liberal.
You have convinced me. We should have porn on the radio. Right between Limbaugh and Hartmann. In fact, I think all Americans should be required by law to listen.
Roughly 90% of the media is liberal (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. Just 10% is conservative (Fox, talk radio, and possibly the WSJ). The average consumer of news is buried up to their neck in liberal views. Conservative opinions are more difficult to find, but they're also available. We don't need government monitors (with their own biases) to dictate what we can see and hear. That's anti-American.
