It's not free and unfettered speech if it has any fairness requirements.

(source:What Is The Fairness Doctrine? : FCC Repeals Fairness Doctrine)


The portions I bolded imply that "controversial issues" could very well, and likely do come under the umbrella of talk radio. This is a format which undoubtedly discusses controversial issues all the time.

Also from the link:

On the contrary, it is my contention that when we are talking of freedom of speech, fairness is of utmost importance to keep us from the mercies of an agenda based corporate run (filtered) news source meant only to deflect and reflect according to company standards.

the last quote you gave is what Regan's point man on this issue drummed up. Until the eighties the ruling was not much questioned and when it was was affirmed to be a protection of constitutional rights ...

__________________
...

So, if The Christian Broadcast Network wanted to air a show that was anti-abortion, would they be forced to allow a pro-abortion segment to be aired?
After all, that is a controversial matter of public interest.

no since it is a user specific network and people who tune in know that they are in for. neither would Disney radio be asked to give opposing lyrics for Minnie and Donald.

__________________
...

So, are you saying that NPR is the only radio station that would be affected?

So it takes the govt to regulate speech to have freedom of speech?

I'm kind of confused...

__________________
"The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs."
-- F.A. Hayek

Those of us who seek to hear opposing viewpoints will find a media outlet to fulfill this need. Finding the truth takes a little extra work and even then the information is often subjective. Fairness itself can be subjective,when an opposing viewpoint is heard and it doesn't (fit) the listeners ideology, it's simply ignored as a propaganda piece by the right and the left.

People embrace the media outlet that supports their viewpoint. Knowing this,I still like hearing multiple points of view and that's why I enjoy political forums like this one!

Broadcasters hate the Fairness Doctrine,it's costly and they are forced to foot the bill to present the other side when there are no advertising dollars to support the other side's viewpoint. On the surface the FD makes sense,in practice there are many problems with this doctrine.

What we really need is a TC - Truth Channel...everything aired must be vetted for accuracy and no (opinions) permitted! Severe fines would be levied anytime an inaccuracy is aired!!! I think millions of viewers would be attracted to TCTV. Remember the old axiom "all the news that's fit to print" I would change that to "Can you handle the truth today?" I think my idea has some merit but do people really want the truth even if it violates what they prefer to believe and have come to accept over the years? Who would (sponsor) the show when it could backfire on the sponsor?

Moral of story..don't get your news where you get opinions to spin it unless you go there to get support for your ideology and want to be entertained at the same time! Finding the truth without an ideological slant can be a real challenge. One has to have many sources available and more importantly..An Open Mind to take it all in.



-0-

From what I understand of the rationale for the original Fairness Doctrine, it no longer applies today.
We have so many media sources available today that a wide variety of opinions and bias' are out there for the picking. I really don't think the "Fairness Doctrine" would fly, I think it's bitched about by a handful of liberals, and inflated into a bogeyman by some on the right.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

The "truth" has become subjective in these days and times.

I'm not sure if any of us would recognize the "truth" if it knocked us on the noggin.

We make choices to believe the "truth" that agrees with what we already believe. We don't want to be told that we are wrong, so, we search for a media source that mirrors what we believe - then we strain shoulder muscles trying to pat ourselves on the back for being right in our thoughts and feelings.

There are people that are exceptions to my theory, certainly...but my theory comes from reading about study after study and opinions of expert after expert regarding controversial subjects in which both sides (right/left) site studies or expert opinions that are completely divergent of each other as the "truth".

Our collective heads spin these days trying to find out what is really true, so we tend to gravitate to the "truth" that most closely matches our own "truth".

JMHO.

__________________




"Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace." ~Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

1.) Absolutely........We need to leave it alone. More regulations is just insane....

2.) I'm on the left and think the FD is the boogie-man. Don't want anything to do with that equal regulations BS........