Is the "Fairness doctrine" fair

[Quicksilver]

Washington (CNSNews.com) - At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday some attendees compared Democrats to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, claiming that the political right is being silenced by the political left.

"I am hear to warn you of what is going to happen to the First Amendment if the Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress and if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama become president," said Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily, a popular Web site among conservatives. The First Amendment would be threatened, he said.

Speaking at the conference, which is sponsored by the American Conservative Union, Farah said, "Come January 2009, if Hillary Clinton is in the White House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate and Nancy Pelosi is still cleaning the House, they are going to pass a law bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It won't make a bit of difference if Barack Obama is president."

The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation from 1949 to 1987 that required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be "honest, equitable and balanced."

Congressional Democrats fought last year to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but failed to gain a substantial number of votes.

Farah said Democrats would "use the coercive power of the state to stifle all dissenting views."

"These people are ruthless, and they are determined to consolidate their power when they get it," he said. "They would do it under the rubric of hate speech legislation. They would do it with the rationalization of fairness and accuracy. They would do it - and have done it - in the name of campaign finance reform. In fact, they would do it without any excuse whatsoever.

"They don't want debate, they don't want a multitude of voices ... they want control," Farah said. "That's what they think they will get if they get back the Fairness Doctrine.

"We are dealing with a neo-fascist mentality here," he said.

[Wagner]

It is in no way "fair", it is nothing more the government controlled media. That is all. If that were established again, you may as well kiss any semblance of accurate media depiction (what little there is left) right out the window. And we can stop saying things like "China's government sponsored news outlet" because we'll need to start saying "USA's government sponsored news outlet".

Unbelievable that this is even possible...this isn't a Conservative policy this is whether or not US Citizens care at all about their rights. If not, then forget the BoR in its entirety, burn the 200+ year old Constitution and lets start over.

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Wagner

If that were established again, you may as well kiss any semblance of accurate media depiction (what little there is left) right out the window.

Fair...accurate... today?

I've neve felt so compelled to check and recheck "facts" reported on in the media as I do today. Never have I seen so many retractions and corrections made in the news. Gone are the days of Cronkite.

[Eric5273]

What you have in this country is a corporate owned media that expresses the views of the large corporations who own them and who advertise on them. We have plenty of outlets for views that favor the interests of the wealthy, but few outlets that express views that favor the interests of the poor. What we need is not a "fairness doctrine", but more funding for public stations that are not controlled by money. Instead, we have seen PBS funding get cut over the years.

And as for "fact checking", the only difference today is that you have the internet and so anyone can do fact checking, where as 40 years ago you had no choice but to trust the network television stations. There was just as much propoganda being served back then as now -- perhaps even more. If you have any doubt, do me a favor and find me an old broadcast or newspaper article from 1964 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident -- but here's the twist....find me one which told the truth about what happened.

Today the truth about such events comes out sooner because most people have access to international news outlets and other information which they did not decades ago. It is more difficult for the "mainstream media" to control thought in this country the way they once did. Most people are at least aware of alternate viewpoints.