Deadcode {{Fairness doctrine is a bill that allows the government to dictate to the media who and what content they must air. How you are for this type of setup is beyond me. But personally I do not see how you could possibly be against SOPA and for Fairness Doctrine; that seems bi-polar to me.}}

No it doesn't, have you ever even read the Fairness Doctrine? The Fairness Doctrine of the FCC just required that broadcasters be fair and balanced in their presentation of issues otherwise they will face a fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

It was put in place mostly to catch up the USA with the rest of the world with regards to yellow journalism laws. I'm sure I don't have to explain what yellow journalism is to you - but if I do a prime example is the media's cheer leading of the invasion of Iraq. Or Hearst and Pulitzer's escalation of the Spanish-American War.

Keep in mind the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcasters of issues of public interests (aka news networks, not entertainment). It is however illegal today to do what Pulitzer and Hearst did as we still have yellow journalism laws regarding news papers.

I find that the Fairness Doctrine is necessary to keeping the 4th estate's integrity in tact - today we don't have the Fairness Doctrine or an equivalent and just look at what has happened to our broadcast journalism. It's a far cry from Walter Cronkite.

I don't know what SOPA has to do with this at all. SOPA is primarily focused on copyright infringement - it's been argued that some language in the bill would allow the government to use SOPA to ban foreign news outlets based on copyright infringement and thus suppressing free speech. This is a stretch and I don't think it would hold up - furthermore the bill only applies to foreign websites. We're strictly talking about domestic news broadcasters with regards to the Fairness Doctrine.

In no way does the Fairness Doctrine allow the government to decide what is the truth or regulate the content of media - it only requires that an even hand is given to issues of public concern (e.g. Ron Paul would have to get his fair shake in the current GOP nomination conversation). This is opposed to the media today which has lost all of its journalistic integrity and has become a mouthpiece for megacorporations and the ultrawealthy who run them.

You wonder why most people think Ron Paul has no chance dead? It's because there is no fairness doctrine - people realize Ron Paul won't get a general nod from the media.

So I think the real question here is how you can be for Ron Paul and yet not for the Fairness Doctrine which would require that the media gives Ron Paul the attention he's actually entitled to - as opposed to writing him off and discrediting him.

Oh and why was the Fairness Doctrine okay during the 1950s, 60s, 70s and most of the 80s but it's not okay now? You really think people back then didn't have any sense? Back during the zenith of America's Supremacy?

Guess what happened after we got rid of the Fairness Doctrine? Fox News.

Canada had a similar law in effect until just last year when Murdoch's lobbyists and money pushed the conservative government there to remove them - allowing Murdoch to launch the Fox News equivalent Sun News in Canada. From what I've heard it's ever bit as polarizing as Fox News here.

The main thing I liked about the Fairness Doctrine is that it fined broadcasters for broadcasting misinformation or false news. Fox News would be out of business.

Here's an article from way back in the day when Murdoch was trying to get Fox News into Canada unsuccessfully:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada

It explains the issue very well, unfortunately Murdoch was eventually able to get those laws requiring broadcasters to tell the truth to be repealed and has since launched Sun News there.

Veta: "... have you ever even read the Fairness Doctrine? The Fairness Doctrine of the FCC just required that broadcasters be fair and balanced in their presentation of issues otherwise they will face a fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine";

Like I said above; the fairness doctrine "allows the government to dictate to the media who and what content they must air." You disagree with this; but your own source agrees with me.

When the FCC disbanded the Fairness Doctrine it wrote, "The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This is from your own source above. Btw; it is interesting that I'm frequently able to use your own sources to contradict the conclusions you draw from them. Read your sources better.

Watch this; let's quote yourself and see you contradict yourself.

Veta: "Guess what happened after we got rid of the Fairness Doctrine? Fox News."

So in this post, now you imply that the Fairness Doctrine would some how thwart FoxNews? Seems like your obsession with hurting FoxNews is the real reason you support Fairness Doctrine. So let me ask you; are you willing to give up your freedom of speech in order to damage FoxNews? You seem to be on that path already. Wake up dude; you are letting yourself be used as a "useful innocents" as Mises would call it. It is said that Lenin had a worse name for it.

Veta: "The main thing I liked about the Fairness Doctrine is that it fined broadcasters for broadcasting misinformation or false news."

So basically you are just confirming my original claims. The Fairness Doctrine enforces who and what the media must report. You even say this yourself.

Veta: "FoxNews would be out of business."

You are obsessed...

Veta: "So I think the real question here is how you can be for Ron Paul and yet not for the Fairness Doctrine which would require that the media gives Ron Paul the attention he's actually entitled to - as opposed to writing him off and discrediting him."

I can support RP and be against the Fairness Doctrine; because I have principles.

{{Like I said above; the fairness doctrine "allows the government to dictate to the media who and what content they must air." You disagree with this; but your own source agrees with me. }}

Wrong, the only regulation on broadcasters is that they broadcast factually correct/even-handed information or face a fine. You can still broadcast bullshit but you'll be fined for it.

{{When the FCC disbanded the Fairness Doctrine it wrote, "The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." }}

You're quoting the crony that was in charge of repealing the Fairness Doctrine - how does that lend any credit to you notion that we're better off without it? Obviously the guy that got rid of it is going to justify it.

{{This is from your own source above. Btw; it is interesting that I'm frequently able to use your own sources to contradict the conclusions you draw from them. Read your sources better.}}

Delude yourself into thinking that, sure. Just like how you proved that tax cuts to the wealthy are great for an economy in recession with that moody economy report... oh wait.

{{So in this post, now you imply that the Fairness Doctrine would some how thwart FoxNews? Seems like your obsession with hurting FoxNews is the real reason you support Fairness Doctrine. So let me ask you; are you willing to give up your freedom of speech in order to damage FoxNews? You seem to be on that path already. Wake up dude; you are letting yourself be used as a "useful innocents" as Mises would call it. It is said that Lenin had a worse name for it. }}

So let me get this straight - you are asserting that we had less freedom of speech in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s because of the implementation of the fairness doctrine?

To answer your loaded question, yes I would prefer that broadcasters be required to tell the truth and be forbidden from misleading the masses at the expense of being able to lie about public issues.

{{So basically you are just confirming my original claims. The Fairness Doctrine enforces who and what the media must report. You even say this yourself. }}

It just requires that you don't mislead people with lies, misinformation or a biased presentation of facts. So yes, I would prefer that the media is required to tell us the truth as opposed to being able to do or say whatever they want with whatever agendas they want. The attitude you're espousing is exactly the attitude that allows the powerful to use propaganda to manipulate the masses.

{{I can support RP and be against the Fairness Doctrine; because I have principles.}}

What exactly is the principle here? That the government is bad no matter what? The world isn't that black and white my friend. I hope you figure that out one day.

Ok; I made my point; you can agree to disagree.

CBS would have loved the fairness doctrine when they got caught fabricating documents to smear the President. Can you imagine the outcry if Fox News did that against Obama?

What was amazing to me was the number of people that had no issue with what CBS did because they disliked the target.

about fucking time RP picks up a tea party endorsement. ffs, RP basically was the tea party for 20 years before it existed.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/15/paul-scores-sought-after-endorsement-in-south-carolina/

Vermont: let's not quibble about which news organization has lost its journalistic integrity the most (it's fox, although I'm not sure you can lose something you never had). It's reasonable to assume all major corporate news broadcasters have to varying degrees misrepresented issues or even misled their audiences since the repeal of the fairness doctrine.

300