Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(552 posts)
Fri Jul 29, 2016, 06:27 AM Jul 2016

Bring back the fairness doctrine [View all]

This country went to hell after the "Fairness Doctrine was abolished.


60 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
34 (57%)
26 (43%)
0 (0%)
i don't know
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
152 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bring back the fairness doctrine [View all] SheriffBob Jul 2016 OP
I said it before: Ugh, not this again anoNY42 Jul 2016 #1
Yeah, better to let a corporation or billionaire decide what gets heard. seabeckind Jul 2016 #4
Nice comeback anoNY42 Jul 2016 #7
Where are you people getting this nonsense? ZX86 Jul 2016 #115
YOU PEOPLE Skittles Aug 2016 #122
Rachel's show is commentary, not news. mahina Aug 2016 #127
Ok, and what is talk radio? anoNY42 Aug 2016 #130
Were you ms liberty Jul 2016 #6
Then educate me on what effect the "Fairness" doctrine had, old timer! anoNY42 Jul 2016 #8
Emily Litella! independentpiney Jul 2016 #100
My favorite Emily Littela was Yupster Jul 2016 #118
I was melm00se Jul 2016 #15
News at the local level continues to be unremarkable davekriss Jul 2016 #34
Well yeah, but that won't stop a great narrative! Rex Jul 2016 #95
Uniformed answer FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #18
Ironic that you call me "uninformed" anoNY42 Jul 2016 #22
That is actually a gray zone. The FCC is involved in some aspects of Cable regulation still_one Jul 2016 #90
Once again you switch back to broadcasting. anoNY42 Jul 2016 #93
Ironic people who attempt to elude they are True Democrats advocate agasinst the Fairness Doctrine FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #108
Proves how insidious and effective the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was. ZX86 Jul 2016 #109
Love those RIGHT WING Talking Points FreakinDJ Jul 2016 #110
it has been happening more and more lately Skittles Aug 2016 #123
Exactly. Some tend to forget that its the publics airwaves. There is a reason why still_one Jul 2016 #82
Nobody told us how long to speak when I was in radio Tsiyu Jul 2016 #23
How about this one anoNY42 Jul 2016 #28
You are entitled to your opinion Tsiyu Jul 2016 #37
You are looking to go back to some imagined golden age anoNY42 Jul 2016 #41
You seem to know nothing about history, check out Hearst vs Pulitzer and get back with us. Rex Jul 2016 #53
Wait anoNY42 Jul 2016 #59
I want an end to embellishing. Rex Jul 2016 #62
Are you fucking kidding me? Tsiyu Jul 2016 #67
Ok anoNY42 Jul 2016 #69
It is some kid at work wasting the bosses dime by screwing with us here on DU. Rex Jul 2016 #72
Indeed Tsiyu Jul 2016 #88
We will be lucky to make it another 100 years with this batch. Rex Jul 2016 #92
Why the generation bashing? Turin_C3PO Jul 2016 #104
The airwaves are owned by the public, and the Fairness Doctrine is to still_one Jul 2016 #73
Ok, so you are talking about broadcast anoNY42 Jul 2016 #78
First of all that isn't quite accurate. There are plenty of people who do not want to pay still_one Jul 2016 #94
Requiring speech that the speaker does not want to make anoNY42 Jul 2016 #96
It does not require having a speaker who does not agree to state that position. They provide time f still_one Jul 2016 #97
That's not really what I mean anoNY42 Jul 2016 #99
Are you kidding me? I would GLADLY put up with conservative news here on DU AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #116
Read the link. The government does not decide. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2016 #128
I posted on the link when he originally posted his "solution" anoNY42 Aug 2016 #129
Mine was an honest question. The fairness doctrine Agnosticsherbet Aug 2016 #135
Perhaps it made sense when there were 4 channels Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #2
There were opinion shows on those 4 channels Warpy Aug 2016 #126
Now that's a progressive idea... ileus Jul 2016 #3
This is a private forum. seabeckind Jul 2016 #5
So is CNN. anoNY42 Jul 2016 #9
Seems public to me MichMan Jul 2016 #10
They already post here. SecularMotion Jul 2016 #11
sure SheriffBob Jul 2016 #13
lulz Rex Jul 2016 #65
Post hoc ergo propter hoc Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #12
It was a lot more problematic than people's selective memories seem to recall right now Recursion Jul 2016 #14
That would solve NOTHING Orangepeel Jul 2016 #16
Yup. As it is they give too much fairness to climate change deniers, as just one example. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #20
If not the Fairness Doctrine, why not the "Accuracy in Reporting" doctrine. Nitram Jul 2016 #17
Much better. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #19
No. Terrible idea. Who decides what is true and what is a lie? Nye Bevan Jul 2016 #25
Yeah that would work too. Just something, anything to hold news reporters responsible Rex Jul 2016 #30
So if the government dislikes your reporting, you can be branded an Official Liar by the State tritsofme Jul 2016 #112
No, evidence that would hold up in court would be required for the government, or concerned Nitram Aug 2016 #120
Your proposal is not compatible with the First Amendment, not even close. tritsofme Aug 2016 #121
Then I guess we're stuck with the right wing media and the... Nitram Aug 2016 #124
Yes, we cannot ban media and speech we dislike. That's part of the deal for living in America. tritsofme Aug 2016 #152
Great idea! GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #131
Gulf, that's an interesting distortion of my suggestion. You might find employment with one of... Nitram Aug 2016 #132
Hyperbole no doubt GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #139
Yes, I'll admit to some hyperbole there. Nitram Aug 2016 #141
Yep GulfCoast66 Aug 2016 #143
I tend to employ snark to avoid being angry. Nitram Aug 2016 #145
Once again this foolish call raises its head melm00se Jul 2016 #21
Yeah it really sucked turning on your local radio station Tsiyu Jul 2016 #27
Pffft anoNY42 Jul 2016 #32
"Pushing an abridgement of the first amendment?" Nitram Aug 2016 #134
Um, not quite. The suggestion that there were only a limited number of broadcasters becasue Nitram Aug 2016 #133
I would have zero opposition melm00se Aug 2016 #150
Wow, you are a great deal more powerful than I realized! Nitram Aug 2016 #151
No (nt) bigwillq Jul 2016 #24
If the only way to get news was on 3 over-the-air channels, Nye Bevan Jul 2016 #26
And you don't use a radio so no one uses a radio? Tsiyu Jul 2016 #31
Not this anoNY42 Jul 2016 #33
Abridge what? You have to be joking. Rex Jul 2016 #35
Are you in favor of the "fairness" doctrine, anoNY42 Jul 2016 #39
I am talking about keeping reporters honest, what are you talking about? Rex Jul 2016 #40
If you are not talking about the actual "fairness" doctrine anoNY42 Jul 2016 #44
Why are you trying to censor me? Rex Jul 2016 #50
Cute anoNY42 Jul 2016 #55
No you are just joking around, I get it. Rex Jul 2016 #58
Ok, you may not be a lawyer anoNY42 Jul 2016 #60
Lol another 'expert' sitting at work jacking around on the bosses time. Rex Jul 2016 #63
Once again anoNY42 Jul 2016 #66
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #70
No, anon, I know that's a convenient position for you, but it is false. Nitram Aug 2016 #136
My most convenient position anoNY42 Aug 2016 #138
Stick to that and a reasoned argument and I will enjoy, and perhaps learn from, the discussion. Nitram Aug 2016 #140
The reasons are simple anoNY42 Aug 2016 #142
Good points re the fairness doctrine. Nitram Aug 2016 #144
Lies anoNY42 Aug 2016 #146
Good point. In fact, that's already their favorite tactic (along with "some people say") Nitram Aug 2016 #148
Some kids have no clue Tsiyu Jul 2016 #46
Well I guess we are getting paid back for calling our elders old and out of touch when we were young Rex Jul 2016 #49
No there is not Tsiyu Jul 2016 #77
They grew up with no need for critical thinking, everything was handed to them on a silver platter. Rex Jul 2016 #79
And how would the Fairness Doctine have done that? WillowTree Jul 2016 #102
They are not serious, reading their posts I realize they have no clue or are just joking around. Rex Jul 2016 #47
I see many new monikers Tsiyu Jul 2016 #52
The folly of youth. Rex Jul 2016 #56
Sad to see the younger folks vote no. Rex Jul 2016 #29
Broadcast news anoNY42 Jul 2016 #36
It will keep people like Hannity in check and hold them responsible when they incite violence on air Rex Jul 2016 #38
Hannity already would be accountable anoNY42 Jul 2016 #42
Well he did incite violence and so did Foxnews and nothing happened to them. Rex Jul 2016 #43
When? Why were the police not called? nt anoNY42 Jul 2016 #45
When we had the Bundy standoff. Rex Jul 2016 #48
I found these anoNY42 Jul 2016 #51
He was actually calling for the Bundy family to take action. Rex Jul 2016 #54
I can't find it anoNY42 Jul 2016 #57
Shouldn't you be working? Rex Jul 2016 #61
You cannot find anything where Hannity actually calls for violence, can you? anoNY42 Jul 2016 #64
No I think you should get back to work and stop stealing from your company. Rex Jul 2016 #68
Good god anoNY42 Jul 2016 #71
No you are here just wasting time on your bosses dime. Rex Jul 2016 #74
I give up anoNY42 Jul 2016 #75
Sure ya would, get back to work kid. Rex Jul 2016 #76
Waaaa! anoNY42 Jul 2016 #80
And you are immoral for stealing from the company you work for. Rex Jul 2016 #81
Back up your argument with some links. nt anoNY42 Jul 2016 #83
Why would I care what some immoral person like you wants? Rex Jul 2016 #84
Childish anoNY42 Jul 2016 #85
Right, nice try. Rex Jul 2016 #86
Just let me know about Hannity when you can anoNY42 Jul 2016 #87
Why? You don't care about the truth. Rex Jul 2016 #89
Hannity's guests often incite racism SheriffBob Jul 2016 #107
And what happens when we run a segment on climate change, or vaccines? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2016 #103
You realize cable TV wouldn't be covered by the "fairness doctrine", right? n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2016 #91
I think it's fairly obvious that most people don't realize that. n/t Captain Stern Jul 2016 #106
Obvious like a flashing neon sign. nt cherokeeprogressive Aug 2016 #147
No thank you. Throd Jul 2016 #98
An abridgment to the first amendment....plain and simple.nt clarice Jul 2016 #101
Fairness a Doctrine didn't require equal time. NYC Liberal Jul 2016 #105
No thanks. I have zero interest in allowing government any input in the editorial decisions of media tritsofme Jul 2016 #111
The Fairness Doctrine did not allow input in editorial decisions. ZX86 Jul 2016 #113
The public airwaves are like a public park. ZX86 Jul 2016 #114
HELL YEAAAA! We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #117
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #119
I voted "maybe". Perhaps because my media diet is pretty much on a Fairness Doctrine anyway. mwooldri Aug 2016 #125
Me, too, mwooldri, but conservatives have been trying to defund and discredit many of my Nitram Aug 2016 #137
Here's a better approach than the Fariress Doctrine. Nitram Aug 2016 #149
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bring back the fairness ...