ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
What's people's thoughts on it? The idea behind it seems to be one that would really help control the media in terms of the Glen Beck type figures who just can wildly claim whatever and know they won't have to be called on it.
There is no law compelling commentators and editorialists to be truthful. The only actionable thing is libel and slander.
In the U.S. the media is mostly privately owned, subject to wavelength assignments by the FCC.
ruveyn
Fairness Doctrine doesn't mandate them to be more truthful. Just requires them to give airtime to a response to any controversial topics. It's pretty neat in how just requiring one to face the consequences of their actions will make them be a little more courteous/careful in what they say/how they say it.
Just imagine how much air time Fox News would have to give up to allow for responses to Glen Beck's wing-nut conspiracy theories.
Though, of course, the doctrine was repealed by one of Reagan's clowns and blocked again by Reagan and then by Bush 3.0*.
*Updating to the correct software terms. Bush 1.0 was Samuel, 2.0 was Prescott, 3 was Herbert Walker, and 3.86 was Dubya (he's just a beta, most likely Jeb or Marvin is the gold master/release build).
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
10 Oct 2009, 12:55 pm
