Reply #11: A response in favor of the Fairness Doctrine [View All]

Just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not really sure I'd wantto see its return either.

I'll address each of your points individually.
1) Telecommunications Act -- I agree this act needs to be revisited. But looking at it and looking at the Fairness Doctrine are not mutually exclusive

2) The Fairness Doctrine only applied to public airwaves. These would not include all media organizations. Newspapers, magazines, and the evening news of the major networks would all be exempt. As for the government deciding what is balanced and what isn't, it would be primarily up to the people running each station, not the FCC.

3) Yes, there's nothing wrong with stations having a distinct identity, but an argument could be made that the Fairness Doctrine forced stations of all sorts to be fair, moderate and inclusive. Thus, its loss is directly responsible for the bloviating talking heads on all sides of the political spectrum that have replaced traditional news casts on talk radio and elsewhere.

4) Even under the Fairness Doctrine, not every subject is up for debate. If the character of a person or small group is attacked, that person/small group must be given a chacne to respond. Similarly, political opponents must be given equal time. However, both sides of every idea need not be presented for the Fairness Doctrine to be upheld.

A final thought -- the primary corollaries of the Fairness Doctrine -- the person/small group character attacks and the equal time to political opponents -- were only thrown out in 2000. So, while the Fairness Doctrine itself has been gone for nearly 20 years, some of its most important aspects have been with us until quite recently.