If the Fairness doctrine applied to liberal TV like MSNBC, do you think Republicans would support it?

Would they then realize the fairness doctrine is designed to protect free speech, not supress it? That, buy not forcing stations to present both sides to an argument, you are leaving open the possibility for a juggernaut to buy up all the stations, and broadcast propaganda?





And yes, I think the fairness doctrine should apply to TV as well as all ';finite'; mediums, just not ';infinite'; mediums such as newspapers, pamphlets, etc.





(In other words, you can always print more newspapers, but it is poosible to ';run out'; of radio or TV stations';)If the Fairness doctrine applied to liberal TV like MSNBC, do you think Republicans would support it?
In this day and age we have the ability to get news tailored to any particular slant we hold. In the original days of the Fairness Doctrine choice was very limited and therefore protection of what airways did exist was extremely important. This same scenario does not exist anymore and no one entity could hope to control all media. However, if any one group was able to accomplish this I would expect another statute to protect the people. That would be antitrust laws. You can spin this however you like, but those desiring new application of the Fairness Doctrine have one goal in mind. This is to attempt to silence voices they do not agree with, not to balance content. I will never support this idea regardless of how it is presented. We do not need it and dark applications available under it far outweigh any perceived benefits in modern society.If the Fairness doctrine applied to liberal TV like MSNBC, do you think Republicans would support it?
Some might, but I don't think most actual conservatives would.





The best thing would be for government to stop forcing ';fairness'; (not to be confused with equality). There is a lot of hypocrisy from both sides on this issue. Liberals cry for fairness, but that should not be applied to private entertainment. Even if it is calling itself ';news';, it is there to sell commercial time and that should be taken into account when listening. Same with TV news.


Conservatives bemoan the doctrine as suppression and unnecessary (perhaps rightfully so), but the same standard is not applied across the board. Publicly they are saying ';let things be';, but at the same time Republicans have been dismantling science, altering standards, changing ';peer-review';, etc. in attempt to bring fairness to the scientific arena. This is demonstrated with the hearings on AGW and the push to have ';teach the controversy'; taught in public schools in regards to evolution.





No rebuttals, but many thumbs-down. Darn.
No, the Government can not decide what is appropiate political speech.





We have numerous media outlets, we have numerous opinions, and we have a free market.


It is up to the consumer to decide where they want to get their information.





What happens is that both sides are not represented.


If a station does not show both sides....they get fined.


Now the station is worried about getting fined, so then they WON'T talk about controversial issues.


When this happens, WE THE PEOPLE, are then left in the dark about what is really going on.





Government approved speech, is not free speech.


It's communism, and our Founding Fathers knew this.
';If the Fairness doctrine applied to liberal TV like MSNBC, do you think Republicans would support it?';





No we would not.





';Would they then realize the fairness doctrine is designed to protect free speech, not supress it?';





YOU have it backwards. You need to realize that the fairness doctrine is designed to supress free speech, not protect it.
mikelf77...I cant believe you are a liberal....I totally agree with you! You obviously know why you are liberal and believe enough in it that you are not scared of the right and what they have to say. Some of your Comrades should have the faith you do in your party line instead of being scared sh**less of hannity, rush and other talking heads. The fairness doctrine is a reaction of fear and nothing else. I wouldn't propose muzzling Olberman or Maher any more than I would want those on the right to be muzzled. The more rights we give away the more that will be taken.
I would not support the fairness doctrine no matter what side it ';protected';. It force people to express a POV that is not their own is a form or censorship, which goes against the 1st Amendment.
Republicans don't support anything that would silence liberal television or newspapers. Otherwise, the New York Times would have been banned a long time ago.
It would be applied but it hasn't even been proposed. The closest thing to a fairness doctrine being proposed is a blockage of it.
You don't see an issue in the government mandating ';fair'; anything? And who determines fair by the way?





This is so naive it's insulting. I fear for our future.
I am a A LIB and I think the ';fairness doctrine'; is pure bs. If you are forced to give both sides of your beliefs or politics then its a form of censorship.
That's why the fairness doctrine will never fly, as it will allow conservative opposition a shot at the major media.
NO! MSNBC has like 500 viewers- who cares!
In the 20 years since the fairness doctrine was scrapped we've seen AM radio go from the land of the Carpenters (let's accept Mack's argument for now) to a 24-7 channel for the Republican party, a channel that broadcasts the worst sort of slurs against Democrats with impunity. It provides what must be billions in free advertising for Republicans (has anyone quantified this?) Given that most of the public is not Republican, this state of affairs clearly goes against the idea of broadcast stations being public concerns impressed with the public trust.





And no, ';public trust'; does not equal ';sandbox for demagogic right wing talkers.'; So frankly the I am unimpressed with the cries from conservatives that they would lose half their time on the radio. Why should they have that much time? They certainly don't represent half the people in the country.





Journal Communications, Clear Channel and the rest clearly have demonstrated they're incapable of upholding the public trust through self-regulation. And so we need some sort of fairness doctrine to help ensure this trust is upheld. The restoration of such a regulatory regime may create business challenges for these conglomerates but I don't really care. They had their chance and they blew it.





Don't be stupid: Support the fairness doctrine.
No just radio. You know home of ever popular NRP