Fairness Doctrine

In my eyes after reading the articles associated with the Fairness Doctrine, I say have it reinstated. It seems that all it would do is make the news media markets more moderate if anything. Without it, most news markets are going to continue to be of the conservative type. It would be nice to see some balance in the news today. Reinstating the doctrine wouldn't push anyone or anything towards liberal views in today's society. It would attempt to balance out what needs to be balanced out. Trying to watch the same thing day in and day out is starting to get old, and quick. Every show you turn on, whether it be on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC; the consensus of these shows are conservative hard-liners. Some of these hosts on their respective channels try to report from both sides of the fence but they don't do a very good job at it. So with that being said, what's the big deal about the fairness doctrine? It might do the country some good to see a news story with a different perspective for a change.

Fairness Doctrine

Is the fairness doctrine out of date. I believe the answer to that question is simple; yes it is very out of date.

In today’s society when you have a variety of viewpoints every where you look and from everything you hear, it is hard to believe that you can’t find someone who you agree with. For the government to believe that they need to step in and mandate what people are watching and listening to is completely absurd. Just because you disagree with what someone says does not mean that it is wrong, and if you believe that then you are in for a rude awakening later on in life.

We live in a society that is based on free expression; people are allowed to do and say almost anything they want as long as it does not physically harm another person. For someone to believe that what you are listening to controls how you think is just dumb. People watch television to help make them more informed on the issues.

In today’s age the Fairness Doctrine would just be idiotic. There are laws in place that already try and mandate what people can watch, in the form of must carry stations, and these stations suffer greatly because it is very hard to get a large amount of the population to watch them.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would only decrease the amount of different ideas people can hear, not increase them.

Media Watchdogs

Are all stories that are reported by the media completely true? No they are not completely true but there has to be some truth to what they are reporting if they fell it is worth reporting on. However this has been known to cause more than a few problems. Should the reporters be held responsible for what they report or should someone be assigned to watch over them and make sure what they are reporting is correct; I'm not sure either one is ever going to happen. The first ammendment guarentees the right to free speech and the right for free press. With such rules it seems that the only way the media will ever be held accountable is if their pockets suffer. For their pockets to suffer the general public must stand up and say they are not going to take such poor reporting. I do not feel this will ever happen either. Something must be done but I am not sure as to what the solution should really be. A liscense sounds like a good idea but does that not contradict the First Ammendment. I think it does.

Kind of conflicted!

I'm really kind of conflicted on the fairness doctrine.

On one hand I believe in free speech and free airwaves. I don't think there should be a law in place telling people what they have to put on their airwaves. We know that people have an agenda and we know that station owners have an agenda.
But the government is telling them they can't further that agenda because they have to give equal time to the viewpoint they disagree with.

I know that sounds bad but it is free trade and speech and all that good stuff.

Then on the other hand the first article we read makes a good point. Without the fairness doctrine there is nobody to balance out that conservative viewpoint on Foxnews or wherever.

But you know what? I'm still opposed to the fairness doctrine. I think it worked in an age where you only had 3-12 channels. These days there's such a wide dissemination of information and sources that it's really not feasible. You don't like what they're saying on Fox News(and you can bet i don't) then change the channel.
These days there's such a wide array of sources to get your news and opinions from on TV alone. The fairness doctrine really isn't feasible when the opposing viewpoint is a channel click away.

Media Accountability

I don't think that I would go so far as to say that the American media is falsifying stories. I would say that there are instances where journalists rely on bad information. They don't put the work into researching to see if their sources are correct. All they see is a blockbuster story that they want to get out as soon as possible. I also think there may be some journalists that leave out details that can create a false impression of what is really going on. I think someone said something below about sensationalism. I also think this is a problem. Often on the news there are stories that aren't really news. Rehashing old stories is not usually news and just because someone is holding a press conference doesn't mean what they are saying is true. So I guess you might be able to call that falsifying in a way.
Licensing should not be out of the question. It would add a greater amount of accountability. On one hand, it could greatly improve the media because journalists would be forced to make sure that their stories are true. If they not they could risk losing their license. On the other hand, it might make some journalists afraid to go all out or break stories. Although, I guess if there is any doubt it shouldn't be broken anyways.

Tony and Caleb's reading.

I don't think the problem of the media making up stories is as bad as most people think it is.
I think it occurs yes. But I do not think it occurs at a high frequency.
The biggest problem isn't making up news but sensationalizing it. The media tends to find a way to overblow one aspect of a story and then run it into the ground.
It happens everywhere even in sports media.
Take Terrell Owens. Everytime he did something this season it was blown up and ran into the ground repeatedly.
Now the media isn't making these stories up but they're making them bigger than they have to be.
I think an ombudsmen or a watchdog is a good thing but I think they also need to be looking for sensationalization in addition to someone making up news stories.
I'm not sure on bloggers. The thing is they are generally writing an opinion column rather than a news piece. The line is blurred but if they feel they have any journalistic intergrity then they should stick to the truth. At least the thought of being sued will maybe keep them in line.

Overall I don't think it's that big of a problem. I think we still have responsible journalists out there. I know I'm one. I'm scared to death of being sued out of everything by screwing up.

Media Credibility

To answer the question as to whether making up stories in the American media market is true, then I say hell yes it's true. It's easy to find an example. Dan Rather is that example, a perfect one at that. The reports that he read on a national news program were found to be false. If he is reporting false news on a national news circuit, then what is going to make us believe that Joe Schmo up at some hole-in-the-wall news station isn't doing it too. The truth to the matter is that it is happening everywhere. Go watch a news story on TV tonight or any night and after hearing something that might not sound true to you, go research it on the Internet and find out if the story is true or not. If it turns out to be true, then big deal. But if it's false, you could expose that reporter that gave out the false information. Moving on to the next question. Should journalists be required to have licenses and can they be revoked if they are irresponsible in their work? I say why not? There are all sorts of other professionals out there that have to have licenses. Doctors and lawyers will sure get their licenses taken away for bad work. Why not journalists? If they are misinforming the masses then they shouldn't be working in the field. Going back to Dan Rather, the facts that he reported on live television turned out to be misleading. Hence, he doesn't have a job anymore. Same rules should apply to anyone!