Christian Radio Gets Nervous About the Fairness Doctrine

Reader Comments
Back to article

If there were a viable market for stations with opposing views there would be stations airing those views. Apparently what the public wants the public is paying for by supporting the advertisers on the conservative talk shows.
I think that the government should just keep their noses out of it. All we really need right now is another government agency to fund.
It is time to cut the size of our federal payroll, not increase it.

John W of CT 10:00AM March 05, 2009

The fairness doctrine, supported by radical left democrats is completely unnecessary. With all of the network and cable channels, and radio stations available throughout the country, a person can tune in to just about any point of view they wish.
The fairness doctrine, essentially, is censorship, in that it would force broadcast stations to either eliminate all political and religious viewpoints, or spend an inordinate amount of time airing all of the other varying views. I believe most stations would choose to eliminate in order to preserve their programming time and their costs of operating.
I believe that instituting the fairness doctrine, whether on a federal or a local level, would be a serious infringment of our right to free speech under the first amendment.

William Erfurth of CA 5:36PM March 01, 2009

“It works both ways---if a liberal goes on TV to voice their opinion, that means there has to be equal air time for a conservative to have a chance to give THEIR opinion, and so on.”
There is no honest shortage of opposing viewpoints in America. With broadcast TV, cable TV, radio, newspapers, internet, schools, libraries, town hall meetings, etc. we have access to more opinions than a sane person could possibly handle.
No, this is just an obvious attempt to get back to “the good old days” when fear of arbitrary power being levied by a regulatory agency is enough to stifle unpopular counter-collectivist commentary. The congressional Democrats barking about the FD are dreaming of crushing Fox News, the WSJ opinion page and Rush et. al. Anyone who thinks one iota of pressure would ever be put on left or center-left media is either disingenuous or naïve.

Titus Quinn of CA 10:47PM February 27, 2009

All it is is equal air time for opposing points of view so people in TV or Radio Land can have more choices to make their minds up and news can be presented responsibly with no bias in any direction---IF IT HAS A BIAS, IT IS *NOT* NEWS. It works both ways---if a liberal goes on TV to voice their opinion, that means there has to be equal air time for a conservative to have a chance to give THEIR opinion, and so on.
This is a chance for NeoCons to finally see the so-called "liberal bias" in the media they keep crying about (as they dominate talk radio and get all of FOX News to themselves) finally erode and balance be struck in the media. You'd think they'd be FOR something like this.
The Fairness Doctrine would improve freedom of speech, because it would guarantee that you'd get to hear the other side of things.
Are NeoCons and the like freaking out about it because it happens to be Democrats who are pushing for it?
Are they freaking out because they think the presentation of other points of view would weaken them somehow?
What are they so afraid of?

Brocktoon of MI 7:12PM February 27, 2009

Anything that anyone says on the airways will be fair game to be challenged that it is unfair, and as such this will have a chilling effect on our freedom of speech.
When you can no longer discuss politics, religion or science without being concerned about whether you will be judged to have been "fair" to an opposing viewpoint, you will rapidly transition from having lost your freedom of speech to self-censorship, and thus to having lost your freedom of thought.
That so many would eagerly agree to hurry down the path toward becoming thought-prisoners under a banner entitled "fairness" speaks a great deal about how dumbed-down we have already become.

M of TX 1:29PM February 27, 2009

I strongly agree with Potted Dee of NY--so he's saved me from writing a longer response...

Ken Erickson 12:50PM February 27, 2009

Why anyone would think this is a good idea blows my mind. I couldn't imagine having to watch "opposing viewpoints" for science shows. Who wants to have our childrens' minds polluted with "creationism" and "faith healing" and "sky boogymen" every time there is legitimate knowledge being presented. Just because someone believes something is true doesn't make it so.
Can you imagine the indignity of being a doctor credited for saving a child's life having your interview with some loony pastor saying how it was "all gods work"
I'm a proud left wing, atheist, scientist and I reject this proposal.

Potted Dee of NY 11:37AM February 27, 2009

The popularity of right-wing opinion media is a direct reaction against the Left’s stranglehold on the education system and news media. There is simply no market for Leftist opinion media as it already saturates the population. The extent to which the Left desires to censor their opposition is a measure of their deep-seeded totalitarian desires.

Titus Quinn of CA 10:41AM February 27, 2009

Rather than getting nervous, what is needed is some wholesome talks about MORAL BUSINESS(ISBN 0-8028-0626-0), and Biblical studies on Moral Business Sentiments, on the truth "that sets us free". The question on conservative bible talk shows should be about how dishonesty destroys a nation, financial TRUST, and religion itself. What do the Old Testament and the New Testament say about truthfulness, beginning with Genesis? There must be some Republicans and Democrats that are Christian and can come together on some basic business ethics and how to put them into practice. What does the bible say about JUSTICE and what does this mean today? If the BIBLE is THE BOOK in Christian America, what is its use in the world of BUSINESS? What are they teaching today at the Harvard business school? What exactly were young students discussing while studying for their MBA? Was the Bush Administration biblically truthful?

AD of CA 10:14AM February 27, 2009

The democratic plan has been the same for the last 40 yrs. What you cannot win through elections (gay marriage, abortion)or through the free marketplace of ideas (talk radio), legislate your way to victory.
For those "so called" Christians who voted for Obama, its worth noting the first thing he did in office was to repeal a ban on all US funding overseas for abortion. Its not enough we have to pay for the murder of our own citizens, but the rest of the worlds as well.
The good news is by the time he is finished bankrupting us there won't be any money left for taxpayer funded abortion.

ask Bob of TX 9:39AM February 27, 2009