Fairness Doctrine

Desh said:
Boy are you confused!

McCain does not own any airwaves. Maybe his wife does but we may never know about that because she wont release her finances.

Again NO ONE WOULD STOP ANYONE FROM SAYING SOMETHING!

If someone felt they had been lied about they could request equal airtime to correct the record on air.

Quit arguing things that are not in the law.
Click to expand...

But if Rush mentioned it, then the Fairness Doctrine would require an opposing opinion. While the Fairness Doctrine does not prevent anyone from saying something, it requires the network to have someone to say something to counter it.
 
Desh said:
Again IT DOES NOT FORCE THEM TO SUPPORT ANY VIEW!

What it does in force them to face the truth. Instead of taking years of court time in slander cases it forces the liar to allow a person to correct the record in a weeks time.

How you can be against something that thwarts the lies on both sides is just unbelievable.

The airwaves will always be regulated to some extend because they are like rivers and air. No one can own them outright without effecting everyone in the country.
Click to expand...
And what if the show is telling the truth? What happens to "fairness doctrine" then?

The instance of Hamas' statement about Obama is a good example. It is FACT that Hamas issued a statement saying they support Obama becoming our president. Since that is a statement of fact, does fairness doctrine give the democrats the right to address the statement? If so, WHY? If not, why not?

Or let's take McCains age as an issue, which I have seen brought up several times. A democratic commentator (notice my "fairness in calling the republican a pundit, and the democrat a commentator?) makes a factual note that no one over the age of 70 has ever been elected president. Would the republicans, under "fairness" have the right to address that factual statement? If so WHY? In not, Why not?

This is not an issue of "truth" when "truth" is in the eyes of the beholder. When even provable facts can be points of contention, how does the fairness doctrine distinguish between truth and opinion? I seriously doubt Hannity and the rest are telling outright lies, or they WOULD be defending slander suit after slander suit. But a fact or two mixed in with several opinions and conjecture can sure as heck SOUND like a lie when one disagrees with the opinions.

Nor is it an issue of forcing someone to "support" the other side of an issue. It IS about forcing people to make broadcast time THEY ARE PAYING FOR and give it to someone else to express an opinion they do not support.

You still have not answered: how is that different than forcing a protest marcher to go out the next day with a sign for the opposite side? They don't have to "support" the other side, they just have to use their medium of influence in a fair and balanced way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top