Is a New Fairness Doctrine Necessary?
The Rush Limbaugh controversy has stoked the debate about talk radio. Some argue that it is too conservative and that government must enforce balance on the airwaves. Others say the market should set programming. Is a new fairness doctrine needed?
Edited by Robert Schlesinger
Yes
With a Democrat in the White House, radio station owners around the country are rushing to
By Bill Press
Emmy Award-winning host of the Bill Press Show, syndicated columnist, and former cohost of CNN’S Crossfire
reflect the new direction of American politics by adding more liberal talk show hosts to their daily lineup. Right?
Wrong. On March 16, Cumulus Broadcasting flipped WLBY AM 1290 in Ann Arbor, Mich., from progressive talk to canned financial advice. Next month, Clear Channel is expected to drop progressive talk on giant 940 WINZ-AM in Miami...
No
The history of the fairness doctrine—and of the industry it once regulated—is all the evidence
By Jim DeMint
U.S. senator from South Carolina and chairman of the Republican Senate Steering Committee
needed to discard it and similar federal policies forever.
When it was imposed in 1949, there were 51 television stations and about 1,500 radio stations in the United States. Because relatively few broadcast hours were devoted to public affairs, the doctrine aimed to ensure that “equal time” was devoted to both sides of controversial...
What do you think?
Reader Comments
fairness law
What ever happened to free speach? Are we living in China or the Soviet Union? Fox news is the ONLY fair news we recieve, and our Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks. I already am totally fed up with this new administration. This will put me over the top. I love my country and we need these people to keep us informed, and sain in these troubled times.
THE "UNFAIRNESS" DOCTRINE
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WANT THIS RULE BROUGHT BACK ARE LEFT-WING "EXTREMISTS" IN THE BIG MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT WHO WISH TO SILENCE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS.
THIS IS NOTHING NEW ,MARXISTS AND OTHER "REDS" AND "ANARCHISTS" HAVE ALWAYS BEHAVED THE SAME WAY , EVER SINCE THEIR BEGININGS IN THE 19TH CENTURY THEY HAVE ALWAYS DEMONSTRATED A CURIOUS PROPENSITY TO CLAMOR FOR "RIGHTS" AND "EQUALITY" WHILE IN PRACTICE THEY HAVE BECOME THE BIGGESTS DICTATORS AND MARTINETS EVER SEEN .
THE NOVEL 1984 WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THEM, THE "RED" PARIS COMMUNE OF 1871 BROUGHT ABOUT "CITIZEN COMMITTES", TO INFORM ON PEOPLE NOT "TOWING THE LINE" , IN THE SOVIET UNION "SECRET POLICE" BARBARITY WAS TAKEN TO A LEVEL OF BESTIALITY . IN CUBA AND OTHER "THIRD-WORLD" PARADISES NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTIES WERE FORMED TO INFORM ON YOU NEIGHBORS.
IN ALL, COMPETING INFORMATION SOURCES WERE ATTACKED AS BEING BOURGEOISE "PROPAGANDA" OR NEWS FROM THE EVIL "CAPITALISTS".
THE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR , THEIR DECADENT,"DEGENERATE" SYSTEM CANNOT EXIST IN FREEDOM , IT MUST EXISTS IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS.
THAT IS WHY KERRY , (BARRY SOETORO) AKA OBAMA , NANCY PELOSI, THE KENNEDYS. GEORGE SOROS AND THE BIG MEDIA MUST TRY TO SILENCE CRITICS .
Where's the "C" word?
How do we get this far into the debate without anyone mentioning the big "C"--censorship. That's what we're talking about here, censoring political views we don't like.
Consider, dear annoyed Frankenphiles: there WILL BE a backlash against the insane fiscal policies of this administration. You will be in the minority again. Do you really want an FCC "Fairness" law in place with a 'Gingrich' administration in charge of enforcement?
advertisement
