COMMENTS:
I think the government should get as involved as possible in the media. In fact, why don't they just take control, that would be the fairest thing.
Perhaps, ceejjj, it is intended to at least avoid the "yellow journalism" of our nation's past. Here's a good example: A "journalist" would ask a person he opposed running for office a question, like "Have you ever raped a child?" Of course, the politician would hastily answer, "Why of course not!" The headline the next morning would read: "Politician X denies raping children!"
So, I think we need a constant effort to keep as fair a press as we can. A free press is the first line against tyranny. And even though it is NEVER completely fair and just (due, as you observed, to the entertainment component), I think we are doing as good a job as possible within the strictures of a flawed human nature.
My pet peeve is Fox News ("Always Unfair and Unbalanced"), and I'm guessing yours is with CNN ("Al Jazerra West" I believe you conservatives call it).
So, both of us are somewhat dissatisfied. And like two teams unhappy with game officials, it probably means the system is working.
Enjoyed your question.
But this excludes news programs and journalists. They are not subject to this doctrine. This is only for opinion and editorial chatter.
And thanks for your comments, I enjoyed them as well but you got it wrong. CNN-Communist News Network :-D
And that's why US news sucks.
Great question. I think this approach seriously undermines Journalism (including editorial- izing) and constitutes an insidious form of Political Correctness that ends up providing no real information but fuels divisiveness.
This perversion has given rise to the infamous Screaming Heads shows that have replaced reasoned discourse.
The original reason for the fairness doctrine was based on the fact that the airwaves frequencies (tv and radio) are own by the government and not the broadcasters. They pay a fee to use them. To operate in a "public" interest (meaning all the public) would require all viewpoints to be heard. However, this was thrown out during the Reagan era which is now why we a ton of right wing radio and a few liberal ones. The question is since the airwaves are owned by the government (ie., you the people) should the broadcasters be required to attempt to air opposing views. Note, cable news programs and shows are and have been exempt from this requirement because they are not using the public airwaves. The old fairness doctrin had required broadcasters to do things in public interest besides airing opposing views. It meant the educational and public service programs should be aired and that the broadcasters should act in a way that benefits all (be a good corporate citizen). Now, there is a good debate about whether that is or was a good idea, but when it was in effect, there seemed be a great deal less polarization among the American people (although this "could" have been a coincidence).
I think the government should get as involved as possible in the media. In fact, why don't they just take control, that would be the fairest thing.
by herzog on Apr 20, 2005
It should be evident to all on this site that Herzog writes what he does not because he belives it, but because he wants the attention. Herzog, you had the nerve to lash out at me because I used the word Nazi with you. Please tell me, and all of us on this site, why that comparison is unwarranted? Reading this posting and your others, clearly, you are either a Neo-Nazi, or, as I believe, you are screaming for attention. One day, the very system you claim to want, may very well happen. If it does, that same system will turn on you, and then we'll see where you are. If you some how dilude yourself into believing that you would somehow be a "ruling" member of this system, think again. George W. Bush and his cronies only care about you if you're wealthy. Are you? Have you ever been to a high level Republican event? Doubtful. As someone who had the misfortune to attend one with my grandparent, I can assure you that you have no idea what they really think of regular, hard-working people. Enough preaching from me...time for me to get down off my soap box :)
Actually patch that was a little known and under-appreciated form speech called 'sarcasm'.
Good to know Herzog. Funny enough, I retured to this ballot to clarify and to say "before you get indignant Herzog, I'm not saying you are a Neo-Nazis......etc. etc. Hint: when being sarcastic, particularly in the written word, where one cannot see your facial expression, sometimes a :) helps to clarify the tone of your message. But hey, just a hint pal.
And also Herzog, sarcasim is hardly "little known." Under appreciated perhaps, but far from "little known." In the wrong hands though, sarcasim, which is a combination of humor and irony, can easily be misinterpreted. Best leave that form of "speech" to those who view free speech as a right and not as an annoyance.
I disagree with the statement that dismantling the first "fairness" doctrine is the reason for all of the republican shows and little democrat shows. Why would this have anything to do with it? No one is stopping democrat shows, there just aren't any good ones. Even Air America is bombing. Can't force people to listen if they don't want to and no ratings equals no revenue and no show.
|
