4
23

[–] deejf 4 points 23 points (+27|-4) ago 

The "Fairness" Doctrine was a way of ensuring cultural hegemony, nothing more.

Like him or hate him, but Rush Limbaugh's show was only possible after the Doctrine lapsed. The entire culture of alternative media followed.

Consider that the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented, for example, the truth about Bill Clinton from ever getting out. Newsweek had it, but spiked the story, and it only got out because of the Drudge Report, which would NEVER survive under a Fairness Doctrine not because it has a point of view, but the people put in charge of determining its value would kill it in an instant.

The Fairness Doctrine was never about Fairness, it was about Control.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] deejf 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I was commenting in the interest of educating, not "correcting". Sorry if my tone was off.

0
2

[–] Adminstrater 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

0
8

[–] Tb0n3 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I think it's not because they didn't want to be fair, but because legislating fairness is asking for trouble. Who decides what's fair?

0
5

[–] EdSnowden 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

But affirmative action is fine, right goys? Equal outcomes not equal opportunity.

1
5

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Firstly, your title is an editorialization and misleading as hell. There was no honest, equitable and balanced about the Fairness Doctrine unless you just mean "if I have an Democrat on my show I have to have a Republican too".

The truth about the Fairness Doctrine was that it was anything but fair. During the Civil Rights era, did the Feds require stations to broadcast news that was anti-Civil Rights? Nope. That would have been the fair thing to do but there was nothing fair about how the doctrine was enforced. It was generally only enforced at the D vs R level. If you had a D on your show you had to have an R to provide the opposite view. It generally only served to entrench the two parties as opposites and made them the preferred parties to go to in order to not run afoul of the FCC. That's why we always saw programs with a D saying something and then an R responding. You never saw Dr King speaking and then the KKK responding. There was nothing any more truthful about the information provided, you just got two party hacks speaking from the opposite sides. And if it was still in effect and actually enforced, would you want to have to have to round up a creationist every time you reported on evolution? Or would you say they have nothing to say because you decided their view doesn't count?

0
3

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

That is about the most biased, misleading description of the Fairness Doctrine I can imagine. But it stands to reason it would so, since the name itself is Orwellian given the reason for the rule.

2
3

[–] MarcoVincenzo 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Good thing too. That "balanced" reportage meant that creationism was placed on the same level as science.

0
1

[–] turtlesarepureevil 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Who gives a shit how its reported as long as its not indoctrinated in public schools. Private companies should be able to do whatever the hell they want and the market decides what is to be consumed.

1
-1

[–] MarcoVincenzo 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

So, we agree. With the fairness doctrine, private companies were forced to report creationism as equally valid as science in order to be "fair" to it's advocates.

4
-3

[–] smokratez 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

Buddy, you accept satanism as science.

0
2

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Bitch, please, there was nothing "Fair" about the Fairness Doctrine. Not any more "fair" than the way Fox News puts a squirrely, disheveled Leftist commentator next to the well-dressed, professional-looking Conservative, and has the Leftist stammering, generally presenting weak arguments, et al. (Or for you Bipartisans out there, the way CNN's Crossfire did the same, reversing party lines) The only difference was that, unlike Hannity & Colmes or Crossfire, it was mandated/forced at the mandate of the State. The FCC themselves, hardly shining beacons of small government, ended up striking down the Fairness Doctrine as unconstitutional, because speech that is compelled at the mandate of the State (Such as mandating that someone with opposing views must be on the broadcast, as the FD mandated) is just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as pre-emptive censorship of free speech was. To quote FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick...

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

USA PATRIOT Act, Maoist China's "Great Leap Forward", Stalin's "Dizzy With Success" article in Pravda...Fairness Doctrine. All of these terms share a single trait in common...invoking ideas of progress, love of one's country, and fairness into their propagandist targets whilst masking the very sinister implications that lurk just beneath the surface, whether that be a massive surrender of power to a central government, or hiding just how many people have been worked to death in the name of "progress", the net effect is the same...to use ideas that normally unite, to divide the same people by exploiting the uniting factor to pit those that look under the mask against those that take these policies at face value.

0
1

[–] markrod420 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm actually glad this isn't still a thing. "Honest equitable and balanced" are all terms the govt gets to define and enforce in that setting. Oh talking about the NSA spying being unconstitutional, we'll that doesn't sound very balanced, sorry we gotta shut you down.

0
1

[–] rspix000 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)