Fairness Doctrine by Federal Communications Commission

...

Sections 3 Arguments for Resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine

At a time where media is all but limited to the idea of not being repress by government due to regulated stipulations, inducted by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the Fairness Doctrine, has grown to love the liberty of free speech and to discuss matter that they so choose. That is without any major consequences, are likely to vote in favor of not having the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated.

It has been over 28 years since the fairness doctrine was abolished, for reasons that it was operating like anything but fair for the broadcasters and the listening public. Stifling the broadcasters’ freedom hearing what they deem necessary for the audiences and because of the political socialization to which the FCC stands for. It led to believe at the time that the implementations of the fairness doctrine was or would had worked interchangeable with the First Amendment. This however, turned out to be questionable based on the editorial judgement that the broadcaster were being subjected to under the fairness doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy enacted by the FCC, which mandated broadcaster to address controversial issues and to give a fair and adequate time for the opposing party to present their view point if need be. Now after such a long and silent fairness doctrine which congress tried to have resurrected but to no avail; failed, seem to be the new rumor and talk about having it retune again. Many observers and advocated for the fairness doctrine would like very much to see that it be inforce but in today’s media environment and the highly revolutionized technology. What would it mean for the fairness doctrine and how would it stand against the media broadcasters today?

The exploitations of the broadcasters by the FCC due to the so called fairness doctrine was yield unconstitutional which the Courts also identified that base on new media transcending, the doctrine does not seem to applied with the First Amendment; therefore doing away with it.

Looking back at how the fairness doctrine was violating broadcasters’ first amendment right and how free the marked became when the FCC sated that they would no longer inforce the doctrine due to unfair constrains. Why now, fast-forward to today; is the FCC trying to maneuver themselves back into the market? The answer is simple, the Government; seeing that they had no jurisdictions wants to have control and by the looks of what is buzzing around seem inevitable and instead of competitions, and having a free market, the FCC want to have capitalizations, which according to Duke Law, THE FUTURE OF “FAIR AND BALANCED”: THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, NET NEUTRALITY, AND THE INTERNET (Leonhardt)

“In August 2008, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Robert McDowell gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation saying that the FCC may reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” and extend it beyond broadcast media to the Internet.2 McDowell warned the conservative bloggers in his audience that the Internet version of the doctrine would be intertwined with net neutrality, and may end with the “government dictating content policy.”

In all honesty, if resurrecting the fairness doctrine, what would it contain and how divided will congress; meaning Democrats and Republican be, would it show the need for political backlash follow by media propaganda? Maybe, in some scrupulous way, having the fairness doctrine can be of good service for the public, should it be resurrected. If and only if, the FCC can come up with a fairness doctrine that is of course reregulated, that it can be fix where it truly protect the people; especially for the critics who might not believe the doctrine is so immaterial and for those who want to see the fairness doctrine come back but need to believe that it will service the purpose it was reinstated for.

Sections 4 – Choose and Defend a Policy Positions

The Fairness Doctrine, from 1949 to 1987 was created by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and operated under a set of principles that tormented license broadcaster stating they much hold and or present honest, equitable and balanced coverage of any and all controversial issues over the airwave. At the same time ensure they must give coverage to those opposed to the viewpoints. Due to all the controversies, the fairness doctrine was eliminated by the some of the same FCC constituents. In that time and the absences of the fairness doctrine however, broadcaster were liberated and was able to say whatever they wanted to talk about, and of whatever issues they choose. In the process, they had no need to address or were obligated conduct opposing views.

Thus far, the media and some radio broadcasters that, even though, ignores the fact that they are not only being intrusive to the public listening ear but is also totally being insensitive have the freedom of press, freedom of liberty, and the freedom of free speech. So in having the fairness doctrine back will be a hindrance for those opposing the fairness doctrine. McDowell.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem," “Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?” he added

What is the underlining issues for those who are opposing and for those who are in favor of the fairness doctrine. If bringing back the fairness doctrine is to protect the citizens, I believe that the policy should be reregulated,

.