After reading the document and conducting minor background research, I have decided the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not reestablish the Fairness Doctrine. the point of the FCC adopting the Fairness Doctrine as a formal rule in 1949 was to require any public airing radio or television station to cover any controversial matter from both sides. I decided this should not be reestablished because in doing to, it suggests that The United States of America is restricting its freedom of speech privilege to only unbiased speech/press. Under Freedom of Press, broadcasting/news corporations should be entitled to cover a story from whichever angle they choose. "By 1967, it encompassed rules addressing personal attacks and political editorializing and, in 1971, required stations to demonstrate attempts to locate and report on matters of local concern as a condition of licence renewal." Now, yes, most news channels do cover both sides of the story for the benefit of their viewers, however it should not be required and news stations have the right to cover whichever story they choose to bring to the public's attention. requiring certain stories to be covered would infringe upon the Freedom of Press offered in the United States of America.
Based off the reading, I feel as though the FCC should not reestablish the Fairness Doctrine from way back in 1949 as it would stir up our democratic environment. This doctrine basically mandated public broadcast stations to cover controversial and multiple viewpoints on stories of ‘interest’ for the public's benefit. Therein I find my main issue, where the government is basically specifying what the press may cover in order to appeal to the masses, which is a completely wrongful burden to put onto journalists as journalism should not be about appealing to the public but rather appealing to journalist's own takes on the world to their own choosing. Whether or not others agree with it, what topics are chosen for reporting, and whether or not its one-sided should not be u to any such government influence or committee. This policy would make it so journalists would be extremely limited in what they may cover, and similarly is vague in defining what qualifies as "matters of local concern". Even back then it showed to backfire, in many court cases actually limiting the breadth of public debate, and causing "chilling effects" of no reports on certain controversial issues altogether. In all, if the Fairness Doctrine were brought back today it would have the same repercussions on our free and open world of journalism, and would also have the same downfalls. The effects of news stories on the public should not be of paramount interest so as to dictate what is put out in the press, nor does it justify such state interference with such an important constitutional emblem as the press.
From what I understand the FCC should not re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. The doctrine tried to promote fairness in opinion through the media. While it is always good to know both sides of a story it is too petty of a subject for the government to get involved. If a group was truly upset that their opinions were not shared there are other ways to get your ideas out there. The idea of fair representation does not warrant the need for government intervention. Also, by enforcing this law the government would be, in a way, eliminating the expression of opinion in journalism.
The FCC should not re-establish the Fairness Doctrine because of the mandates the doctrine had. It required the stations to cover multiiple viewpoints on stories that the public was interested in. While this sounds fair, it is up to the journalist to decide what his viewpoint should be on a specific issue. It shouldn't be required that their are multiple sides to the issue. That should be up to the journalists, as opposed to the government. Every journalist is entitled to their opinion and shouldn't be affected by the government. Journalists need to have the freedom on what they can post, and the Fairness Doctrine really limited that. This is why the Fairness Doctrine should not be re-instated.
After reading the article, the FCC should not reestablish the fairness doctorine. The main point of the fairnes doctorine was to promote just and fair in opinion through the media. The fact that the government would require radios, tv progams and others to cover multiple sides of a story, though promoting fairness, it breaks the right of freedom of press because it is up to the journalist what to and not to say. From my point of view, the government should not get involved in what aspects of the story are covered and which not. If the government were to get involved in what should journalists cover, it would infrige the freedom of press provided by the 1st amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I need to remind myself that there are at this time only six other responders, but even with that in mind I'm dumbfounded that not one other person so far has expressed any concern over the clear conflict between the so-called Fairness Doctrine and what I should have thought we'd all be quite familiar with - the First Amendment to our Constitution (quoted above for everyone's convenient reference use). "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." I don't see how it could be any clearer. It doesn't say, "Congress can make well meaning laws abridging freedom of speech..." Neither does it say " if certain people think certain other people are stupid and not listening to what they deem to be reasonable counter arguments, well, then it's okay for Congress to make laws abridging the freedom of speech"... It plainly says, "Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech.."
This is how that's supposed to work. If there's a radio talk show you don't like your choices are to 1) not listen to the radio at all, or 2) listen to the radio but choose a different station more to your liking. What you cannot choose, though - not to put too fine a point on it, but according to our constitution, that is - is to silence that radio by means of a law that makes the expression of their ideas illegal. Boycott it, hold petition drives, have letter writing campaigns - all perfectly fine exercises of your First Amendment freedoms of speech and to peaceably assemble (bonus points!). Likewise with television shows, newspapers, magazines and other sources. The FCC should not re-establish the Fairness doctrine because it would be taking people's right away if they did re-establish it.
In my opinion the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is a former federal policy in the United States requiring television and radio broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. It may seem like a good idea, but re-establishing it will take away from regular news stories or even the newspapers. Also, it is a violation to the First Amendment because the First Amendment was designed to protect Americans' views, without interference from the government.The Fairness Doctrine seeks to mitigate that by requiring the government to pick and choose who and who they don't want to speak on the show. It is supposed to promote fairness but how is that fairness? If the FCC brought back the Fairness Doctrine today, the same issues plus more would occur/