Over the past three years, we have seen the constitution trampled on by every liberal in DC yet the media barely covers these miscreants, in their ivory towers. When will the media begin to report on these issues that effect all of the world…
Are we looking at yet another attempt to censor the free speech of the internet?
Is this yet another fairness doctrine attempt, this time in the name of protecting consumers online?
When we have blatantly deceptive commercial advertising on network TV Cable and Radio, that are deceptive yet are not enforced, what should the consuming public think of this?
What will happen in the future?
So what is the Fairness doctrine?
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine imposed two rules for broadcasters: First it required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, and it required broadcasters to provide reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting view points. The second rule required contingent access obligations on broadcasters to provide reply time to issue oriented citizens and editorialized on public issues. Broadcasters could trigger fairness Doctrine complaints without editorializing. Spectrum scarcity was the doctrines reason for being made. Because more people wanted to broadcast than available frequencies could accommodate, broadcasters’ public trustee obligations required regulatory clarification, the FCC reasoned. The commission required neither of the Fairness Doctrine’s obligations before 1949. Until then broadcasters had to satisfy only general “public interest” standards of the Communications Act.
When will we learn as a people as a race of people that there are things in this world that are not fair.
That life is not fair, that sometimes, the lives of soldiers are required to insure the freedom of people.
Sometimes we see the things in this world and we want to do something to make it fair, but the fact is there is no fairness to life, there is not a guarantee, that people will be treated the same way the same time every time.
When a man tried to equalize the world what happens is that eventually the scale balance’s itself.
The fairness doctrine was a failure, back in 1949 and it was a failure in the 60s when they tried it, and it was a failure in the 1970s when they once again tried, it.
The fact is that the fairness doctrine will not work and it will not work for this case either.
The only way to be fair is to require it of everyone, if you require disclosure of one group you must require it of all groups.
It is time for politicians to tend to their own business and let us deal with ours.