Rational thought and civil debate? A discussion of the topic on it's merits?

Are they insane?

It's the end of western civilization as we know it, it can't be allowed to stand. How will I know what to think unless someone yells it in my ear three hours a day?

The fairness doctrine worked. It was neither unconstitutional as a free speech issue nor as a "takings" issue. And it did not impose an "equal time" requirement on controversial speech. All it did was mandate a balance of opinions. Thus, if a station licensed by the FCC broadcast an opinion on a matter of controversy in any context EXCEPT the news, as part of its public service requirement, the broadcaster had to provide an opportunity for opposing views to be heard. (Equal time only applied in the case of candidates running for office). The time offered need not be in the same day part or even reaching the same approximate audience as the original controversial statement. In its overall programming, the station had to present a range of views. And, as I said, it did not apply to news broadcasts.

I once worked on a consumer oriented initiative campaign. Our opponents were nominally the utility companies in the state, but utilities outside the state contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars (at the time, a significant war chest) as did other industrial giants both within and without the state. Much of that money went to the purchase of air time on television and radio stations (this was well before the era of cable news). My job was to get time to respond under the fairness doctrine.

It was always an uphill battle. The broadcasters almost uniformly claimed their broadcasts were balanced. Most ultimately provided some time, either free ad time or time on a public service program, for us to present our case. But it was never equal time and never reached the same audience as the paid ads. Still, we got our message out. We didn't win, but ultimately, many of the changes we suggested were adopted.

The fairness doctrine is fair because the public owns the airwaves. Broadcasters are licenssed to operate as a public trust in the public interest. The fairness doctrine provided some guidelines to ensure the public's interests were served.

I'm not holding my breath. It's not coming back. But I hate to see people misrepresent both its purpose and effect.

It would behoove all of us to pay attention to the advertisers who sponsor these (insert expletives). Just refuse to buy their products, and if possible, let them know why you will not be a customer, citing specifics. If enough people affect the bottom lines of some of the advertisers, they will be reluctant to sponsor the shows.

Even if it did work, the lack of enforcement would make it moot. What is really needed is for the FCC to be given inclusive power over all the airwaves, with enforcement in the form of fines to both the networks and the individuals responsible for perpetuating lies and hate speech. Let them speak; this is one of our basic freedoms. But if they knowingly lie or knowingly incite violence, hold them accountable under the law.

These are the same people who have told us for years that the media has a huge liberal bias.If this were true they would welcome the fairness doctrine. In recognition of this contradiction Hannity and others have actually argued that the fairness doctrine would only be applied to am talk radio but not to the network news and not to msnbc. Who actually believes anything they say anymore. The false moral outrage has been so overused that it has lost all credibility.

Why do you hate fairness?

It's mildly amusing to watch liberals once again dance to the tune called by conservatives, even though the liberal wing of American politics has achieved electoral dominance. I get the typical 'spitting in the wind' response from Tukla, who apparently can't detect that the *only* reason people here support the return of the Fairness Doctrine is to get rid of Rush Limbaugh & talk radio. I'm not reading anything into it - the letter-writers are stating it plainly.

Get over you hatred of other Americans, simply because they disagree with you. I don't like Freepers, but I'm fair-minded enough to recognize that their partisan sniveling and ranting is very much the same as the sniveling and ranting you'll catch here in the Salon page.

But poor Tukla can't see that, and neither can any of the fellow haters of this forum. They desire even more government intrusion, more government control - they don't trust the government, yet they want the government to decide what is and is not "fair" in the broadcast media. They are deeply in in love with the idea of the Nanny State, and thus deeply committed to it in principle. Unable to think, research, or speak for themselves, they desire a powerful government to come in and make things easier.

Me? I can think for myself - I don't need to government to enforce fairness. Me? I can read newspapers, magazines, and can even go online to find opposing ideas. Me? I can listen to Rush Limbaugh, laugh at his idiocy, become sad that there are people who believe his every word is truth. Ditto Al Franken, bu the way, or any of the media-heads that either liberals or conservatives place atop an altar.

I don't expect Tukla and the other myopic twit "liberals" to get it - they're just neo-cons in different clothing, after all, determined to grow government large enough to force their ideas down everyone's throats. Since they are all apparently unaware not only the history of the Doctrine, but also its historical and potential legal effects, there is nothing I expect from this crowd but knee-jerk partisan reaction. I'm not trying to convince any of you here - I'm old enough to know the stupid and the doomed can't be convinced of anything.

I oppose the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine because I'm not stupid enough to believe the federal government can decide what's "fair." I oppose it because I see blogs and letters columns where no government has enforced "fairness" or "balance," yet opposing voices are equally heard. I also oppose the corporate domination of the media, by the way, and find it appalling what actually appears on television disguised as "news."

But giving the federal government the power to dictate what ideas do and do not appear on broadcast media? That's a little much for me.