Debate:Fairness Doctrine

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by AmesG.

  • I don't think we need the Fairness Doctrine. Sure, conservative talk radio is powerful, but it is arguably filled with nutballs.[1] I think their power is dubious, and even if it is powerful, I think NPR and Comedy Central's (disproportionately?) persuasive news shows more than make up the gap. And I have to hand it to the conservatives, I think the media is slanted a little left: shows like Will & Grace hardly advocate for Sam Brownback's America. But I think that's for the compelling reason that Brownback's vision of America is boring, and doesn't appeal to anyone. So I think the doctrine is wasteful at best, and a poor gambit on the left's behalf at worst. This is the vision of only one editor. Yours truly, αmεσ (tinker) 19:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I concur with my friend here, the republicans filling the air waves are mostly all off their rocker in many ways, and really do not need to receive more attention then they deserve, to pass this or ever to make such a big deal of it will draw more attention and support to these fanatics, and possible cause an overdose on sleeping pills, by some of the more problematic members.The LoraxSlackers! 18:11, 6 November 2007 (EST)
  • My opinion is we shouldn't have opinions within an article. --UnicornTapestry 21:59, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Oh yeah? What kind of frickin' opinion is that? --UnicornTapestry 21:59, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Yeah, well, most talk these days of reviving it is on right wing talk radio, to whip up the dittoheads for the next teabagging. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:06, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I hate the whole, "Let's limit our freedom of speech to not offend anyone" thing. I hope this bill stays dead.
  • "I have a right to my opinion. But if you don't like my opinion, I think you have thre right to kill me. You won't get a fairer deal than that... so the next time some asshole says "I have the right to my opinion", shoot the fucker and walk away"-George Carlin
  • "Heh, our local talk radio morning show wouldn't notice, despite their fear, it has a Republican, and Independent, and a Democrat on it. "--Tyrannis (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is impossible to quantify political fairness. Aphoxema (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, guys from three and a half years ago, who cares if "we" "need" the Fairness Doctrine? It's wrong to force programs to air content that they don't want to represent. Syndrome (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Its a free market of ideas. May the best (and most vocal) win. Ace of Spades 05:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Re: Ace: The most vocal often equates to the one with the most money. This is definitely true of anti-science FUD campaigns historically. However, these campaigns have also used the Fairness Doctrine to their advantage to push cranks and bullshitters into the mainstream. So you're screwed either way. Plus, the basic idea behind it is growing increasingly obsolete with the advent of the internet. So, in the end, I don't think it's worth it anyway. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It is censorship of the worst sort. Talsley (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You know what? Here's a better idea: why don't we just ban bullshit from being propagated anywhere? We could castrate conservative wingnuttery/coporate shilling, end populism and emotionalism, stop pseudoscience propagation and make the world a better place. And if you start whining about the glories of free speech, then you shouldn't support the fairness doctrine, period. You should support corporate control of the media, media monopolization, and, eventually, corporatocracy. There's a goddam reason why poor bastards think the reason why they're poor is because of "big gubmint"-- (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How to characterize bullshit will always be a subjective standard, thus cannot be applied objectively and any attempts to do so will turn the objective on its heel. (talk)
  1. Michael Savage is one such nutball.
  • Accusations of "censorship" are absurd simply because the state already regulates what can and cannot be broadcast and always will. I think the idea was valuable back when there were only a limited amount of channels through which information could be disseminated but with the advent of the internet, the Fairness Doctrine has become obsolete. Net Neutrality is a far more important issue in the modern age. — Unsigned, by: / talk
  • Opinion News is not News. You will never have fair facts based reporting from any agency if said agency is allowed to twist their stories to fit their own narrative. The Fairness Doctrine regulated information as information. Political and public social divides occur when you have dominating media agencies like Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the like twisting information to benefit a single side to an argument without presenting the whole story. This, ironically, is what led to the creation of Fox News by Roger Ailes during the Nixon Administration, who wanted to create a "Conservative News Outlet." The reach and influence Fox News has had in the mainstream is also wholly responsible for swaying public opinion in the United States further to the right. The Fairness Doctrine was an essential part of American Democracy as it enabled people who consumed heavy amounts of media to formulate their own opinion on important topics. And, while I'm not arguing that people these days don't have the capability of evaluating their thoughts and formulating their own opinions, I am arguing that there are enough people that are easily and heavily influenced by what they are spoon-fed to believe by these "News" Stations and by our own Government. Because, as it turns out, our Government's opinion is representative of those who are in power. — Unsigned, by: / talk