The Fairness Doctrine
Wilgrove
10-09-2006, 03:26
Ok, so while listening to my usual line up of Talk Radio Shows, I hear about The Fairness Doctrine. Apparently what The Fairness Doctrine says is that when you have a constroversial subject, that you're susspose to present the subject in an honest and balanced way. Now that's all find and dandy, however that violates the Freedom of Speech! That violates the 1st Amendment! Look, if you want to present a fair and balance view on a subject on your own raido show, TV show or whatever, that's fine. However it's also my right to present it in my way, and in the way I want to talk about it. Look, when people tune into things like Rush Limbaugh, or CNN, or Fox News. They know it's not balanced, they know that, but they don't care. I know that the shows I listen to on the radio isn't balanced, but I still listen to them. It's just unconsitutional. So, what do yall think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fairness_Doctrine
Tactical Grace
10-09-2006, 03:36
Bluntly, it's a load of crap.
It gives the lunatic fringe a platform and creates the illusion of debate where there is none. You can have a thousand experts reach a consensus, and in the name of balance, one is chosen to speak for them all, one dissenter is chosen to speak for himself, and the public, assuming both positions to be equally valid, end up ignorant.
Sometimes there is only one reality.
Bluntly, it's a load of crap.
It gives the lunatic fringe a platform and creates the illusion of debate where there is none. You can have a thousand experts reach a consensus, and in the name of balance, one is chosen to speak for them all, one dissenter is chosen to speak for himself, and the public, assuming both positions to be equally valid, end up ignorant.
Sometimes there is only one reality.
Another potential debate thread rendered impotent by TG....
Wilgrove
10-09-2006, 03:41
Bluntly, it's a load of crap.
It gives the lunatic fringe a platform and creates the illusion of debate where there is none. You can have a thousand experts reach a consensus, and in the name of balance, one is chosen to speak for them all, one dissenter is chosen to speak for himself, and the public, assuming both positions to be equally valid, end up ignorant.
Sometimes there is only one reality.
I agree.