If Some In Congress Want To Have A Fairness Doctrine To Quell Talk Radio Should We Not Have Equal Balance In Universitys

[ardell58]

The so-referred to as fairness doctrine is getting talked about being revived by some politicians ie: Hillary, Trent Lot, Harry Reid and other individuals. This is designed to quell free discussion on talk radio. If this is revived, should we not also have a law that mandates an equal balance in teaching at state funded colleges and universities? Soon after all, this is where the recipient(students) have tiny or no decision as to what they are required to listen to. On Radio, you can always turn it off and/or alter the dial.

[Keandre]

First, let me address some misconceptions about the fairness doctrine:It is not "designed to quell free discussion on talk radio", nor should we reasonably expect it to have that effect. Reviving the fairness doctrine would not push anything off the air -- it would only require stations to present opposing viewpoints. I'd point to Thom Hartmann's radio show as an example of how you can present opposing views on a show with its own political stance, without sacrificing anything. It would not mandate an "equal balance" in broadcasts or expression. It would not require opposing viewpoints to be given equal time. It would not even require any individual program to air opposing viewpoints, from what I can tell -- it would impose requirements on broadcasters who hold an FCC license, similar to the existing requirement for TV stations to air children's programming. It is not based on the principle that people should be spared from listening to stuff they don't like, which is why "turn[ing] it off and/or chang[ing] the dial" aren't suitable replacements. It's based on the principle that the public benefits from having diverse views made available, so that if broadcasters are going to be granted exclusive use of the public airwaves, they must ensure that diverse views remain available -- whether or not there's enough commercial interest in those views to justify starting up a competing station to air them. Now, with that said, I agree that state funded colleges would benefit from this. If a college or university is pushing an opinion on an issue that would be covered by the fairness doctrine, then they should also present opposing views. But:They shouldn't have to balance views within any particular class, just as broadcasters don't have to balance views within any particular show. They shouldn't have to devote an equal amount of teaching time to opposing views, just as broadcasters don't have to devote equal air time.

[Gruffin]

The Real Issue The real issue here is a First Amendment issue.  While some might argue that people have little choice concerning what they listen to, with the technology we have now, people have more choices than they have ever had before.  The same is true of colleges and universities.  Students have a choice concerning which college and universities they attend.  They have a choice concerning which classes they take.  Part of the point of going to college is for a student to learn to think for him or her self.  I may not like what some of the college professors say about some things, I even took some classes where college professors said some things that I disagreed with, but no one forced me to believe what they said.  For the most part, it made me think and study to figure out why the college professor was wrong.  From a political standpoint, you will find me firmly entrenched in the right wing, so my point of view is that we should be more supportive of the protections we have under the First Amendment rather than less so.  If that means letting someone speak who has a different political or religious view from what I have then so be it.  The First Amendment give people the freedom to speak.  While people can choose what they listen to, they are not give a "freedom from" hearing anything.  We should be adamantly opposed to anything that tries to limit any one's freedom of speech because when others are limited, so are we. ACWebMaster 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Grantham]

I agree with your point.  But we don't need government to mandate anything.  We simply need freedom of speech.  It is ironic that the leftists came into the universities in the 1960's under the banner of Free Speeech.  Today they RUN the universities, and only politically correct speech is allowed. I would also point out that government speaks with forked tongue.  The so-called Fairness Doctrine should also be applied to public schools that we all pay for, where any criticism of evolution or any contrary ideas or evidence are rigidly suppressed.

[Vincenzo]

Sure. First, let me address some misconceptions about the fairness doctrine:It is not "designed to quell free discussion on talk radio", nor should we reasonably expect it to have that effect. Reviving the fairness doctrine would not push anything off the air -- it would only require stations to present opposing viewpoints. I'd point to Thom Hartmann's radio show as an example of how you can present opposing views on a show with its own political stance, without sacrificing anything. It would not mandate an "equal balance" in broadcasts or expression. It would not require opposing viewpoints to be given equal time. It would not even require any individual program to air opposing viewpoints, from what I can tell -- it would impose requirements on broadcasters who hold an FCC license, similar to the existing requirement for TV stations to air children's programming. It is not based on the principle that people should be spared from listening to stuff they don't like, which is why "turn[ing] it off and/or chang[ing] the dial" aren't suitable replacements. It's based on the principle that the public benefits from having diverse views made available, so that if broadcasters are going to be granted exclusive use of the public airwaves, they must ensure that diverse views remain available -- whether or not there's enough commercial interest in those views to justify starting up a competing station to air them. Now, with that said, I agree that state funded colleges would benefit from this. If a college or university is pushing an opinion on an issue that would be covered by the fairness doctrine, then they should also present opposing views. But:They shouldn't have to balance views within any particular class, just as broadcasters don't have to balance views within any particular show. They shouldn't have to devote an equal amount of teaching time to opposing views, just as broadcasters don't have to devote equal air time. TaradinoC 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Javier]

...  will attract rich advertisers.  Therefore, its talkers tend to be pro-rich-people and anti-poor-people.  Therefore, supporters of social equity find their access to the public airwaves suppressed.  Hence, the need for the Fairness Doctrine.  What in the mode of operation of higher education is analogous to this process, except that universities and colleges tend to be supported by the donations of rich people and so somewhat reactionary in their political orientation?

[Rogelio]

Brilliant suggestion! Of course, they both violate the First Amendment! As far as licensing college professors goes, it would certainly solve the unemployment problems that no one except good Liberals can see since we are at full employment right now. We?d need to have a massive government agency involved to process all the license applications  The agency would probably be a better place to work than a college or university, so after a while, there would be a revolving door between government and academia.   As far as licensing radio with the antiquated Fairness Doctrine goes, I doubt that it would overall have much luck in hushing Rush or Hannity or O?Reilly or anyone else who strays from Liberal orthodoxy. Since the Fairness Doctrine ended twenty years ago, two things have happened that have changed our political culture forever.   First, we?ve gotten used to free and open discussion on the air. Granted, most of it isn?t Liberal, but that is a reflection of market forces, since there the demand for left wing media is adequately filled by CBS, ABC and NBC. Even if Hush Rush passes, the demand will remain.   Second, technology has changed. Back in the Bad Old Days of the Fairness Doctrine, the technology was more limited. In the age of IPOD, the Internet, X-M Radio, Blackberries, etc., if the Fairness Doctrine was revived, my guess is that what is now on talk radio would move to another means of transmission.   This raises another question, if there is this crying demand for more Liberals on the air, why doesn't Ward Churchill have his own show on Air America or some other Liberal network? Makes you wonder why not, doesn't it? Sources: Personal opinion   Snow_Leopard's Recommendations On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality Amazon List Price: $15.95 Used from: $7.95 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5(based on 32 reviews) Snow_Leopard 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Haslet]

The purpose of talk radio is to make money by selling advertising time. Therefore, it wants to put on talkers who ... ...  will attract rich advertisers.  Therefore, its talkers tend to be pro-rich-people and anti-poor-people.  Therefore, supporters of social equity find their access to the public airwaves suppressed.  Hence, the need for the Fairness Doctrine.  What in the mode of operation of higher education is analogous to this process, except that universities and colleges tend to be supported by the donations of rich people and so somewhat reactionary in their political orientation? LexWordsmith 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[link]

What We Really Need is Just Freedom of Speech I agree with your point.  But we don't need government to mandate anything.  We simply need freedom of speech.  It is ironic that the leftists came into the universities in the 1960's under the banner of Free Speeech.  Today they RUN the universities, and only politically correct speech is allowed. I would also point out that government speaks with forked tongue.  The so-called Fairness Doctrine should also be applied to public schools that we all pay for, where any criticism of evolution or any contrary ideas or evidence are rigidly suppressed. Willette 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Dantel]

As far as licensing college professors goes, it would certainly solve the unemployment problems that no one except good Liberals can see since we are at full employment right now. We?d need to have a massive government agency involved to process all the license applications  The agency would probably be a better place to work than a college or university, so after a while, there would be a revolving door between government and academia.   As far as licensing radio with the antiquated Fairness Doctrine goes, I doubt that it would overall have much luck in hushing Rush or Hannity or O?Reilly or anyone else who strays from Liberal orthodoxy. Since the Fairness Doctrine ended twenty years ago, two things have happened that have changed our political culture forever.   First, we?ve gotten used to free and open discussion on the air. Granted, most of it isn?t Liberal, but that is a reflection of market forces, since there the demand for left wing media is adequately filled by CBS, ABC and NBC. Even if Hush Rush passes, the demand will remain.   Second, technology has changed. Back in the Bad Old Days of the Fairness Doctrine, the technology was more limited. In the age of IPOD, the Internet, X-M Radio, Blackberries, etc., if the Fairness Doctrine was revived, my guess is that what is now on talk radio would move to another means of transmission.   This raises another question, if there is this crying demand for more Liberals on the air, why doesn't Ward Churchill have his own show on Air America or some other Liberal network? Makes you wonder why not, doesn't it?