DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Fairness Doctrine - Why NOT the internet also?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/15/2008 04:01:15 PM · #1
Take a look at this poll.

It shows that 47% support the Fairness Doctrine for television and radio. Meaning all political topics in the mainstream media as well as talk radio has to be balanced with the "other" opinion.

For example; if NBC did a 10 minute favorable story on McCain, then they would have to do a 10 minute favorable story on Obama.

Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage would surely have to have an opposing view also. These shows would pretty much become the "Hannity and Colmes" show.

But look at the part that says most people don't want it for the internet. WHY NOT the internet. I know it's not tv or radio but it is how countless millions get their info on political happenings.

Why should TV and Radio be fair if the same networks and Rush can post ONLY their views on their web page?

08/15/2008 04:17:38 PM · #2
An impossibility for much of media today as people become so polarized in their viewpoints and crave people that "agree" with them.

Two howevers:

1) If they claim to be "NEWS", I would agree that it should be a pretty objective POV.

2) if they claim to be "fair and balanced", perhaps that should be enforced somehow.

FoxNews falls into both of these howevers - and I think most people that have ever watched would agree - certainly not balanced ...and not really "news".

08/15/2008 04:27:02 PM · #3
Originally posted by metatate:

FoxNews falls into both of these howevers - and I think most people that have ever watched would agree - certainly not balanced ...and not really "news".


I was thinking the same thing about MSNBC.
 08/15/2008 04:29:01 PM · #4
Sorry, I'm talkative today.

But this falls into the hands of capitalism once again. So-called "news" channels are a business. So they do what they do to make money in a given market. Sure stations will make money by truly being "fair" but in a "free" market, no one is going to let big bro step in and balance the news.

Same issue with the medical field. It is a business. They find ways to make more money and people become more like cattle that are capable of answering questions. I have yet to spend more that 7 minutes in front of a doctor ... he has to go to other patients because he's part of a business. More patients equals more business.

Ok, as usual I've said too much.
 08/15/2008 04:31:08 PM · #5
Doesn't that stand for Microsoft National Broadcasting System ??
Need we say more?

Originally posted by sher:

I was thinking the same thing about MSNBC.
08/15/2008 04:34:38 PM · #6
Originally posted by kenskid:
Take a look at this poll.But look at the part that says most people don't want it for the internet. WHY NOT the internet. I know it's not tv or radio but it is how countless millions get their info on political happenings.


I think most people intuitively realize the impossibility of overseeing such a policy in regard to the Internet. Also I think that the Internet would be just about the easiest forum around for finding opposing viewpoints - they are just a Google search away, after all.

I honestly don't know what to think about the Fairness Doctrine - I support the idea of the doctrine in theory, but my legal background says that this would be a mess in practice. When there were only two or three networks and a handful of local radio stations, something like this made sense - it served as a prevention of owner-interests monopolizing the viewpoints presented to what amounted to an essentially captive audience. Also - since there were only a handful of stations around - it wasn't that difficult to oversee and regulate.

I don't think it's difficult in today's world to find counter-viewpoints, the problem is that people just don't go search them out even when available. For the most part, people like to hear news and viewpoints that agree with what they already believe - that's why CNN sounds "biased" to right-wing conservatives, and FOX sounds "biased" to left-wing liberals. (Although I think it has pretty much been shown that FOX truly is simply a Republican mouthpiece - but I'm a left-leaning liberal, so what do I know.)
 08/15/2008 04:44:00 PM · #7
Originally posted by metatate:
An impossibility for much of media today as people become so polarized in their viewpoints and crave people that "agree" with them.

Two howevers:

1) If they claim to be "NEWS", I would agree that it should be a pretty objective POV.

2) if they claim to be "fair and balanced", perhaps that should be enforced somehow.

FoxNews falls into both of these howevers - and I think most people that have ever watched would agree - certainly not balanced ...and not really "news".


I agree with your view, but who is going to decide what is "fair and balanced" and what is not. I know a few conservatives that would argue with you to no end that Fox News presents "the real story" and that people who disagree are just "bleeding heart liberals" (I've actually been told this BTW).

*****Rant to follow*****
I also think anything that calls itself "News" needs to can the witty banter between news readers, weather people, sports casters and who ever else. I would happily be the enforcer of this rule (so long as the punishment is a baseball bat to the knees). I can't even stand to watch the local news anymore. The little quips to each other between the stories are almost enough to make my ears bleed.
********Rant over********

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:44:44.
 08/15/2008 04:49:32 PM · #8
Check with Nancy Pelosi. She WILL put this up next year. It has a very good chance of passing no matter which candidate wins.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Take a look at this poll.But look at the part that says most people don't want it for the internet. WHY NOT the internet. I know it's not tv or radio but it is how countless millions get their info on political happenings.


I think most people intuitively realize the impossibility of overseeing such a policy in regard to the Internet. Also I think that the Internet would be just about the easiest forum around for finding opposing viewpoints - they are just a Google search away, after all.

I honestly don't know what to think about the Fairness Doctrine - I support the idea of the doctrine in theory, but my legal background says that this would be a mess in practice. When there were only two or three networks and a handful of local radio stations, something like this made sense - it served as a prevention of owner-interests monopolizing the viewpoints presented to what amounted to an essentially captive audience. Also - since there were only a handful of stations around - it wasn't that difficult to oversee and regulate.

I don't think it's difficult in today's world to find counter-viewpoints, the problem is that people just don't go search them out even when available. For the most part, people like to hear news and viewpoints that agree with what they already believe - that's why CNN sounds "biased" to right-wing conservatives, and FOX sounds "biased" to left-wing liberals. (Although I think it has pretty much been shown that FOX truly is simply a Republican mouthpiece - but I'm a left-leaning liberal, so what do I know.)
08/15/2008 05:03:09 PM · #9
If this were a law, it would be a farce in many cases. Look at Hannity and Colmes as the example. Hannity runs that show and beats up Colmes (the "opposing" viewpoint).
HC stuff

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 17:03:26.
 08/15/2008 05:22:58 PM · #10
I think maybe because TV is broadcast media & you have to "buy time" on it, the rules are different from internet where you can google up as many different opinions as you have time for. JMO but there are never only 2 sides to any issue.
 08/15/2008 05:28:29 PM · #11
But...the same thing can be said with TV or talk radio. You can turn the station (google), if you don't like what you are hearing/seeing.

I'm not sure about the "buy time" thing. Many, many webpages accept ads...as you know!

Originally posted by pixelpig:
I think maybe because TV is broadcast media & you have to "buy time" on it, the rules are different from internet where you can google up as many different opinions as you have time for. JMO but there are never only 2 sides to any issue.


Message edited by author 2008-08-15 17:29:21.
 08/15/2008 05:30:20 PM · #12
This is attempted government control of your constitutional right to free speech. They are basically trying to stifle any view that isn't in sync with their own. The libs are threatened by the alternative media (talk radio primarily) and are attempting to shut it down. Disgraceful.
 08/15/2008 05:49:46 PM · #13
Originally posted by metatate:
Sorry, I'm talkative today.

But this falls into the hands of capitalism once again. So-called "news" channels are a business. So they do what they do to make money in a given market. Sure stations will make money by truly being "fair" but in a "free" market, no one is going to let big bro step in and balance the news.

Same issue with the medical field. It is a business. They find ways to make more money and people become more like cattle that are capable of answering questions. I have yet to spend more that 7 minutes in front of a doctor ... he has to go to other patients because he's part of a business. More patients equals more business.

Ok, as usual I've said too much.


I really don't see a way to find a single source of fair and balanced news... If the government runs it, then the government controls the content, and the content tends to be what the government wants. Russia, China, Mynamar, Cuba, anyone? If business runs it, then business controls the content. Do you think ABC will ever utter a discouraging word about Disney?

When I was growing up, our town had two newspapers. The Sacramento Bee, unabashedly liberal, and the Sacramento Union, unabashedly conservative. Out home subscribed to both. By reading both, I think we had a clearer picture of the events than did people who only read one or the other.

More than the bias of the media, is the bias of the recipiants. Our country (USA) is becoming a collection of polarized groups. If it comes from outside the group, and it is contrary to the group think, it is rejected as false.

I'm the last one to defend fox "news", but as already expressed here, there are many who would not believe a true statement if it came from fox.

In the end, does it matter so much that the media is biased? We are as biased as they, so even if they became fair, it wouldn't be "fair" unitl it agreed with our vision of "fair".

As for the Internet, how do you get equal time on the Internet? Anyone can put up a web site. So they can put one up, and if we are interested we will show up.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 05:11:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 05:11:13 AM EDT.