Is a New Fairness Doctrine Necessary?

Reader Comments
Back to article

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.

Pat Lowe of WA 7:32PM April 22, 2009

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 .

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ of FL 5:33AM April 18, 2009

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?

RK of MN 3:36PM April 15, 2009

The only source of information other than what the major newspapers and television channels give us comes from the internet and talk radio. I'm glad I can obtain information and perspectives from those sources that differ from the major newpapers and tv. In this way, I can make up my mind after I weigh the information from different perspectives.
Contrary to the opinion of many liberals, we independents and conservatives can read and evaluate information. We think just as deeply as they about situations. The only difference is we arrive at conclusions which differ from theirs. For some reason, when that happens, we frequently hear that we are ignorant, dumb, hateful, bigoted, prejudiced--shall I go on? Gee, I didn't realize I was all those things; I just figured I disagreed with liberal opinions and perspectives.
When I was younger and on into my 40s, I agreed with practically everything the left believes is good, virtuous, right and enlightened. Now, I know longer hold these beliefs. Did I suddenly become ignorant, or did I just change my mind? Are we allowed to weigh evidence from left and right and make up our minds? I feel I already have many choices for obtaining information, and I don't need the government deciding what amount of information I need and from whom. Paul, is it possible we just disagree, and your particular political perspective is not a standard or reliable measurement of intelligence?

Paddy of MO 2:52PM April 14, 2009

I think we could use a Fairness Doctrine for everything from Controlling Left Wing Professors on college campuses where they get govt funding to Morning TV where Liberals have a virtual monopoly from all MSM morning shows with the exception of Elizabeth on THE VIEW. Hollywood produced how many Anti Bush movies? 6 at least. Newspapers? Bill Press is free to Host a Talk Radio Show and present his views. The fact that few want to listen to him is not my problem.

Dennis D of NJ 11:14AM April 14, 2009

"The true counterparts with opposing views to our right wing rabble are nowhere to be found"
Where are YOU looking Paul? If the network anchors aren't pulling far enough to the left for you, what about Olbermann, Maddow, Cafferty, Matthews et al.? Or you can tune into the great brains from out Hollywood way - you know, folks like Sean P and Barbra S., not to mention fine musicians such as Eminem and old pop idols like Springsteen and Bono, Madonna or the lovely ladies of Heart. Then of course, there's the gentile Rosie O'Donnell and the always classy Rosanne. Oh, and don't forget that erudite "comedian" slash senator Al Franken.
Besides that, old raggedy radicals like Billie Ayers have wormed their way into high level positions in the "Education" departments of most of our universities and are making sure the Progressive viewpoint is being hammered deeply into the brains of America's young people via the Social Justice curriculum. Our Constitution is but musty history and the values upon which our country was founded are ever-more-distant memory. So have no fear, Paul. Our One Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice For All is on her death bed.

KayElle of WA 1:34AM April 13, 2009

Sorry KayElle,
Don't think you can turn freedom of the press into one of your commie kibbutz with the Fairness Doctrine. Where do you get off the boat undermining capitalism and its paid spokesmen. Who are you to steal the hard earned domination of the media and conglomerate control of the message. Corporate media can regulate itself thank you, just like Wall St has.
Control of public opinion doesn't come cheap nor does purchasing populism that enforces the agenda of conservative ideological purity. Rupert and others are spending good money on hiring the most right wing conservatives and whack jobs money can buy just short of bumping up against hate crimes. Why bring up fairness to risk exposing their intellectual shallowness and mock populism to rigorous debate.
Your narrow spectrum of political persuasion, from radically extreme conservative to moderate conservative, is proof enough that it would be foolhardy to expose the public to a broader range of opinion. The true counterparts with opposing views to our right wing rabble are nowhere to be found - all but banned anyway from the airwaves already. You aren't finding the opposite extremist positions on our MSM airwaves anytime soon, except maybe some intellectuals, commies or pinko socialists lucky enough to get on public tv, some obscure free access cable stations or micro pirate signals. These folks will be vilified if by chance they raise their voices. We aren't letting the Dixie Chicks near country radio anytime soon.
The public airwaves have already been bought off with the new digital death certificate to free tv - free radio is probably next. There are factions who can't kill off 'ink on paper' journalism quick enough - to think any neighborhood hobo can express opinions so cheaply by printing it on paper. So things are well on the way to bankrupting any remaining left leaning publications with any sizable distribution, and all papers are falling fast.
You would be deceived to think fairness means some kind of two way street - no one is about to give any ground to more liberal points of view, if anything fairness to some means letting even more conservatives get on the air unchallenged. Look for more churches to be buying up media to promote their values-oriented programming. Maybe even resurrect the 'Christian Front' with their Bund to publicly support fascism again, letting out of the closet all those good ole' revisionist anti-FDR conservatives who absolutely know WWII was unnecessary for us to have fought in - that we should have just backed the fascists to duke it out with the communists anyway.
Fairness is just the best propaganda money can buy. Why ruin a good thing, by regulating ownership of media again and leveling the playing field. If public opinion is dumb it isn't the paid media responsibility to educate it except to focus on their narrow agendas and to sell their voice to the highest bidder.

Paul of WA 9:33PM April 12, 2009

Yes, we need the “fairness doctrine” back. It is to easy for either side to quote and miss quote the other. It is to easy to for one side to throw flames at the other and it is far to easy now to own an entire cities media. I consider myself conservative, but the voices from the party are not like mine anymore...

Barclay Reynolds of PA 8:15PM April 12, 2009

Well Paul, if we're gonna have "fairness", I suggest we go all the way:
* Every news organization will be required to have an equal number of liberals and conservatives on staff. They'll be required to sign a loyalty oath to one party or the other and subject to prosecution if their words and deeds don't conform.
* The networks' nightly newscasts will be expanded to include rebuttal of any questionable aspects of major stories. Watchdog groups will monitor all broadcasts to detect and report on unchallenged slant and spin.
* All bylines will include a designation of L or C; every reporter will be required to state their political perspective at the beginning and end of every story they do.
* Every commentary on any subject that can be construed as remotely political must be presented from both sides. For example, if Maureen Dowd writes about an issue, it can't be published without perspective on the same issue from Michelle Malkin and vice versa.
Every talk show host, both radio and TV, will share their airtime with a partner of the opposite viewpoint. ie: Hannity and Colmes (together again), Olbermann and O'Reilly, Maddow and Coulter, Matthews and Beck.
"Fair" enough for you?

KayElle of WA 6:56PM April 10, 2009

Whoa, Hold your horses, Brainiacs - fairness, smairness - who needs it.
Just quit square dancing around what's important, forget fairness - all the bankers and financiers on Wall St don't need it, neither do we. Fairness is just a liberal commie thing anyway. Dump fairness, we just need the narrow propaganda of our righteous wing leaders. Fairness is something Joe Stalin may have wanted, but no way he'd tolerate that stuff and create a superpower country.
Promoting ignorance does not need the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of fact it would be very contrary to the beloved Dumbing-Down agenda of conservatives, and as we all know what's good for conservatives is good for America (of course unless you wanted a good economy, informed voters and a competitive workforce). Why this country could probably balance its budget by just eliminating education all together; its just a luxury for rich folk who can pay for it themselves. For that matter we might just as well eliminate all media too, except FOX news and CBN where you'd get all the information you'll ever need.
The collapsing of newspapers and print publications is just a testament that fairness is unnecessary - these news organizations have been presenting way too much information and are inciting headaches and dissidents who actually care about the future of the country. Of course this very publication might as well just fold its tent because its just giving a platform to radicals to offer up smarty pants discussion of real issues - sorry we just can't have that now.

Paul of WA 4:48PM April 10, 2009