The Fairness Doctrine--what do you think?

If you truly listen to talk radio you would know that these hosts don't always have guests or callers who agree with them. So to the people who you know who argue that there are only conservatives on talk radio - tell them just that. You can also say that radio is a business - and one business which is not getting bailed out by the government - yet. So in private business (except for NPR and PBS) you must show a profit in order to survive. If these hosts weren't bringing money into the station, they wouldn't be on the radio. I think the Fairness Doctrine would stifle opinion and am completely against it.

Hello Dragon54u, If I may, I'd like to answer your question with a question. How many tenets of the United States Constitution will a "Fairness Doctrine" violate? OK, I'll get this going with the most obvious violation, the First Amendment on grounds of violation of freedom of speech and perhaps peaceful assembly. The less obvious disregard of the laws of our land pertain to the violations of the 4th, the 9th, the 10th and the 14th amendments. The latest is that the imposition of a Soviet styled "blanket of thought control" may perhaps also include control over the internet. I'm unable to cite a web source, though we heard this tonight on Brett Baier's hard news on Fox. It wasn't a commentator. And, the provided quote cited a Dem. Representative who went on the record to include the internet under the auspices of a proposed "Fairness" or "Localized" Doctrine. To paraphrase the quote: "We need to make sure that people on the internet read and hear alternative perspectives." Again, it's paraphrased, though pretty accurately according to my own memory and my Husband's. If those words don't scare the crap out of every American citizen, then quite frankly I don't know what will!

You have the concept down the way I know it to be. I think this would be a HUGE hit on our rights to free speech and another hit on capitalism.

While I don't know anything about this... I can understand why they would do it. If someone is allowed to broadcast one side of the story without any opposition... it becomes gospel and everyone is going to believe it. Under that scenario... someone could broadcast some total lies... and people would believe them. These things did happen in Australia several times... when some respected DJ annonced something which was totally wrong and caused panic amongst the population. There was a bushfire in the center of Sydney in the nineties... and someone annonced that the people of the North Shore needed to get ready to evacuate... which was ridiculous. There was another false report about a bank going bankrupt... and people rushed out on the bank to get their money out. The most famous one of all was from Orson Welles when he annonced an alien invasion. lol

I agree that the government does not need to be involved in every aspect of our lives, but to what degree must we tolerate ignorance? Presenting both sides gives balance and encourages understanding and compromise... Presenting one side, encourages an "Us vs. Them" mentality, that applauds unquestioning supporters..... Ignorance is an evident problem in our society. Can we really support a person's right to remain ignorant when ignorance has caused so much already? In the end...the problem has to do with the people that are oblivious to the truth... Some of this talk radio is prejudicial, propaganda that encourages discrimination against other American groups. How is that American?

I think if they bring it out, it's simple due to conservatives on talk radio. It couldn't be because of the television networks or newspapers. Liberal media is all-encompassing. Even from mediums where the news is supposed to be impartial, a biased leaning for the left still shines through. This has the makings of an imperfect storm, in my opinion. Got the White House, Congress, more than half of the nation, the minorities, and now want to lay claim to talk radio... because of Rush and a few other guys who can't land TV shows due to the majority of the networks being left-leaners? There seems to be nothing "fair" about this doctrine whatsoever. Will they implement it in schools and give both sides to the life debate: Evolution/religion? How about abstinence/birth control, the real history of America/fairy tale picture books, Slavery myth/fact, etc. If they're only going after political speakers (they may not be, so I could be wrong) then it's a blatant move by liberals to snuff out the conservative voice.

While I am aware that the AM airways in Houston, Texas, have indeed been hijacked by Republicans, it is still a shame that government have to be brought into every aspect of people's lives! So, the Republicans have taken over the airways! Why not simply compete for your own space? People often listen to what they like! You cannot force people to listen to that which they do not wish to listen to!

The fact that the liberal radio talk shows failed is NOT a good reason to try to hogtie freedom of speech in this manner. I listen to talk radio once in awhile...used to listen more before I got laid off...and it's not hard to figure out which side of the aisle a host leans towards. that doesn't mean that he/she is incapable of presenting a valid argument. I, personally, don't want to listen to nothing but debates on talk radio and, no, I don't see anything "fair" about this.

I think we already have to much government interference. Talk radio is one place you can voice what ever you want within the guidelines. PBS as liberal talk shows.

Well there have been several liberal radio talk shows....they all went bankrupt because no one was listening. Whose fault is that? Not the conservatives. WHile conservative radio shows have had some success. So baiscally liberals want to use their stations and shows to get their ideas out. Well if people wanted to listen they could haven listened when they had liberal radio shows. Or try again with a liberal radio show. Maybe they could actually get people to listen this time. If not than it is simply supply and demand.

I am not to sure about what the Fairness Doctrine asks for (I've never actually heard of it, but I was not even born when it was in place; so its understandable); but from the sound of it it sounds like a good idea in some ways. I would like for there to be no longer "conservative" or "liberal" radio, as it is shows like that that split up our nation. My father only listens to Rush Limbaugh, and that inadvertantly makes a person the most biased in the world. If there was someone always on to debate with him, I would be able to at least be sane listening to the guy. When it is so one sided everyones political view is half-filled. My only problem with this bill would be that, it is an infringement on free speech. I think radio companies should implement it, but the likeliness of that occuring is very slim because the money is found in the bias.