I agree in principle, but in practice the right wing has made an industry out of abusing this principle as of late. Hearing an opposing viewpoint is healthy and the friction created sparks progress. Hearing lies and cartoonish fiction, or hate speech, does nothing to help us grow, but golly it sure feels good to lay a beating on those noodle-necked libtards.

I do think a fairness doctrine is a good idea, but will admit I don’t know how it should specifically be formulated, evaluated and enforced to achieve the best result. But just because a thing is difficult or can never be perfect doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.

Your concern seems to be with how it can be fairly implemented. You haven’t objected to the idea of having things really “fair and balanced”.

So far I haven’t see anyone actually answer the question I posed earlier:
Now, can anyone actually present a valid, rational argument against either of those ideas?
- that those who profit from using public resources have a responsibility to serve the public well
- that the public is served best when they get the complete story

It does not serve the country well for our people to be un- or mis-informed. Making sure additional and opposing viewpoints are heard is a good thing. Government has been able to develop and enforce subjective standards in the past and, while partisanism can, and often does, come up it can be guarded against and kept from completely overriding things.

The FCC has regulated the use of the airwaves for decades including monitoring what is allowed to be broadcast. Why not let them return to handling the Fairness Doctrine? Public companies are required to get independent audits of their financial statements to assure investors and the public that the info presented is accurate. Perhaps have a independent non-partisan factcheck.org-type entities “audit” what is broadcast and provide a report on the accuracy of what has been said?

There are half a dozen different ways to try to approach the question of how do we make sure the public is best served by the information that flows over the public airwaves. Is there a perfect, obvious solution? No. But that doesn’t mean that anyone with a license should be allowed to say whatever they want without any accommodation for truth or accuracy.

Not quite, I’m suggesting that the government cannot judge the content of politically related speech in a fair way. (And it is a terrible idea to give it that power.) I don’t think building a bridge has quite the partisan implications as the fairness doctrine.

So tell me Sean, since you seem to think this is a good idea – how would you implement enforcement of the fairness doctrine such that it:
1. wouldn’t be biased in favor of whichever party held the reins of power at the moment and
2. wouldn’t be subject to endless bickering about what the definition of “fair” is? Keep in mind that what you might consider fair may not be what I would consider fair. How would enforcement of this doctrine reconcile these differing beliefs, and if someone has to lose in a such a dispute, how would this not have a chilling effect on political speech in the airwaves?

The 2nd point in particular makes the idea impossible to implement IMO. Asking the govt to mediate disputes in the perception of political leanings strikes me as a terrible idea.

Yes. Are you suggesting there is nothing government can do that doesn’t turn into a partisan circus?

Oh well, we can dream.

Dammit! I like Brian Williams, too.

Nice work. All of them good ideas.

Huh? You really can’t come up with any reason why this might not be a good idea? Like, say, enforcement? How would you decide that a broadcaster is meeting the “fair” requirement? Some kind of fairness committee? The courts? A political appointee? You really think the government can objectively determine what is fair and not have it be a partisan circus? Methinks you are being a bit naive Sean..

You’re wrong.

What else ya got?

thus why should radio stations be forced to air something no one listens too

Ah. Lies and mis-representations.

Typical.

The stuff I hear sounds more like hate speech than free speech. They have no self control, their associations are slim at best and they have incited potential violence against people different then themselves. To call someone a terrorist in these times is like a Fatwa, and they know it. I know, I know, radios don’t kill people, but people with radios kill people. I think that alot of the talk radio folks have no respect for free speech and abuse the responsibility that comes with the right to use it.

Enjoy.

But the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t say you can’t speak. It says you need to let others speak , too.

So tell me, william, which side is actually trying to silence folks?

Dick Durbin: “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Now, can anyone actually present a valid, rational argument against either of those ideas?
– that those who profit from using public resources have a responsibility to serve the public well
– that the public is served best when they get the complete story

Why would anyone NOT want this?

Nobody is being censored here. Go ahead and say what you want. But make sure the public hears the other view as well. Seems to me the only ones opposed are those who are concerned that their views won’t stand up to examination and would prefer to shout and interrupt whenever anyone else speaks. E.g., nearly everyone at Fox.